Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 123

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Is this helping?

Here [1] is a diff showing what seems to me to be a reasonable post. Yet looking through the history, both User:Clubjustin4 and User:Johnuniq have removed it at least six times, citing only WP:DENY and apparently using WP:TW. I don't know what Twinkle is but it seems to enable easy to edit warring and violations of WP:3RR. I also note that I cannot recall either of these users contributing answers or references to our reference desk. I ask the community: Is this edit warring and insistent removal helping our cause? Is this answering questions or providing references? I assume that these users think the IP is some banned user, but they have not said that, nor have they provided any evidence. DENY is clearly the wrong thing to post, as this is neither obvious trolling nor vandalism. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So... that's a "no" then? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We do not let banned users edit. When a banned user constantly changes IPs and comes back they are attention seeking, we are trying to deny them that attention while enforcing our banning policy. Every part of Wikipedia has to deal with the fact that banned users may not post, the same goes for the reference desk. HighInBC 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And by even bringing this up here, the OP is feeding the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

But I'm afraid that's a tradeoff that has to be made. The people doing banned-editor-fighting are not foolproof, our trust in them is not absolute, so it must be possible to question their actions. If such questions are to be construed as "feeding", so be it. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you should question the admin off-line, such as by e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, this can be done on-wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Only if you want to tip off the sock as to how to recognize him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your naivety is staggering. The IP doesn't give a flying shit about your attempts to "recognize him". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not me, the admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to "recognize" banned users. The admins need to. And they don't need to spill how they can tell, just to satisfy an OP who doesn't trust admins to know how to do their job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Naive and utterly inappropriate to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I speak from experience. See farther down. I hasten to add that you have been pretty good about reverting the banned user's garbage when the situation arises. Not everyone here cares about it enough to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You speak from a position of utter naivety. The OP asked if this was helping. It is not. To deny that is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Experience tells me that the OP is wrong and the admin is right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How can the OP be wrong when it's a question? This isn't Gitmo, you can't just say someone's "wrong" for asking a question. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the IP editor in my diff was a banned user? If so, which one? And if you have an answer for that, then why do you think that IP is that specific banned user? And I can post about whatever I like to discuss here. Unlike you, I have not had my usefulness to the project openly and repeatedly questioned on this talk page. You'll also note that I did not reply in that recent thread, so please play nice ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As of today, that IP is banned for a year, regardless of who's using it. Seemed to be this guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fairly undeniable. It's their fourth block using that IP address going back about eight months. The userpage shows who they are. The IP geolocates to Dollis Hill, and to one of the ISPs and ranges used by this user. Their edits are entirely consistent also - persistently reverting to include posts by their previous IPs. You can see this throughout their history. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change for more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but earlier today, I clearly saw a red truck come down my driveway and park. When I got to the door ten seconds later, I saw nothing. So I'm erring slightly on the side of nothing signifying anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

user:zzuuzz Thank you for your answer. I still have no idea why anyone would be so sure, but my intent is not to argue about that. Even if this post was 100% certain to be from a banned user, do you think such removals are necessary? I know they are allowed, but in my opinion, since nobody can be sure of the ID, it is best to AGF on post that are harmless, and whose only problem is that some user thinks the post was created by a banned user. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I accept that not everyone can immediately recognise the signs, but this is everyday stuff for an admin. Personally I am always happy to be subject to peer review, and to draw any non-obvious connections, at least on request. I encourage you to look closely at preceding edits if you're still unsure, including those at your talk page. Wikipedia has a long-standing policy that "An editor who site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia". I am content with this policy, and content that this is the user who is certainly banned. Misleading information is one of their defining traits - I rarely read what they have to say any more. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of griping about admins doing their jobs, you could have helped with this situation. Or this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, no, this is not helping. There's some kind of delusion that continually reverting this kind of thing and then continually discussing it ad infinitum is going to solve the problem. It doesn't, it simply makes it worse and worse. There's some kind of delusion that blocking these IPs will eventually make them bored. It won't, it doesn't, it hasn't. It's bollocks I'm afraid. Continual treatment of the symptoms rather than the cause has inevitable conclusions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question does not help to do anything except to feed the banned user. Such complaints need to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The question is perfectly appropriate. Questioning the behaviour of others who act unilaterally without explanation is also perfectly appropriate. This isn't the US, this isn't the PATRIOT ACT, we can discuss things like adults. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And feed the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Perhaps time to end this discussion with you as you're just saying the same thing again and again without any thought or any consideration to the results of your naive position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's you who doesn't get it. The admins don't need to tell inquisitive OP's exactly how they figure out who socks are. That's for the admins to keep to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I get it 100%. You don't. There's no censorship here, that's contrary to everything. You need to stop trying to delude people otherwise. And to reiterate to the OP, no, this is not helping. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't been here long enough. See below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, nearly eleven years isn't long enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thinking back to a situation about ten years ago when a sock was blocked and he (1) denied being a sock, while (2) demanding to know what method was used to figure him out. That's why admins have to keep the "tells" to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't. There's no such thing. IPs from banned editors post relentlessly and admin prefects draw more and more attention to this by doing what they're doing, hence this thread. There's no problem with asking why. This isn't America. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

They can ask why. But the admins don't have to tell them. And experience contradicts your "no such thing" claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. We don't run a three-tier secret system here. This isn't America, it's Wikipedia. End of. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Please help yourself to the "last word". I'm done arguing with someone who's so naive that they think passports are put into safes on international flights. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph began with a bad-faith complaint, and the entire thing should be boxed up or deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WTF does America have to do with this discussion? Nil Einne (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's just a little friendly my-country-is-better-than-your-country banter which both Brits and Yanks get caught up in from time to time. Like the eternal question: Baseball? Or Cricket? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer the OP, no, it's not helping, and as you can see from the naivety displayed by some of the indoctrinated "regulars" (who seem to revel in cluelessness), it's not likely to change until some of the dead wood is removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If an admin resisting banned users constitutes "dead wood", then something has gone seriously wrong here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I was actually referring to some of the pathetic sycophants who kowtow to "admins" without question when I was referring to "dead wood". These individuals also have a tendency to do nothing at the ref desks other than add opinion and most of that incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is important, even where admins are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys: this is not helping, either. Neither of you is going to convince the other, any more than an umpteenth new outrageous statement by Donald Trump is going to magically convince a Democrat to vote for him. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Or a Republican. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire section is a waste. You should box it up and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

But we haven't heard from Medeis, Russell.mo or StuRat yet. They could have game-changers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If it is a waste, and you are the largest contributor, what does that say? You never even answered my question. If you'd like to do so, I've provided an easy way to do so below. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I knew this post might stir up the usual arguments, but I also had a simple, honest question on which I wanted community feedback. To which I've received one clear answer, in the negative. So let me ask again: Is there anyone out there who wants to stand up and say "YES, this kind of removal is helpful to furthering the goals of WP in general and the ref desk in particular"? Or, is there anyone else who wants to say "NO, these removals serve no clear purpose" ? If anyone wants to simply !vote, I've put sections in below. I know that any user is allowed to remove an IP post if they think it originates from a banned user. I know I'm not going to change that. What I'm asking is if this is helpful. There is a difference. If you want to throw stones at your favorite ref desk nemesis, please do that on your own thread :)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

YES

NO

Per WP:AGF, WP:HERE, as well as not Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not something we decide here

A local consensus cannot override a larger one. You can't just decide that the banning policy does not apply here, it does. If you want to change policy try it at the policy talk page. HighInBC 15:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the banning policy (or the semiprotection policy, for that matter) does not apply here. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - Steve agrees entirely with Steve. SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please re-read my OP, as well as the one starting with "OK", user:HighInBC. Or maybe you are saying that I cannot ask other users their opinion on a matter!? If so, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. I don't know what is so hard to understand about me soliciting community feedback. To reiterate: in this thread I say nothing about policy revision, I seek no consensus, and in fact I ask for nothing other than input on a specific removal. Is that clear now? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Standard knee-jerk dull-headed answer in-line with some kind of policy-driven directive. No imagination, not a clue on how to try to solve long-term problems, just falling back to pathetic and detrimental "curing the symptoms" actions. Seems like a normal Chillum response in favour of his prefect buddies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's more complicated than Yes/No/Can't-decide-here

The problem (again) is that Wikipedia as a whole distinguishes only two activities: "Reading" and "Editing". Miscreants are banned from "Editing" - but not from "Reading" - which is a perfectly sound solution. Even when you have to semi-protect, you don't prevent IP users from "Reading". Here on WP:RD, there are also two activities: "Asking" and "Answering". Unfortunately, both of them entail "Editing". If instead, you consider: "Using" and "Contributing" as the two activities that go on here, then we wish to prevent the bad guys from "Contributing" their nonsense - but we don't really mind them "Using" the encyclopedia. "Using" the encyclopedia generally means "Reading" it - which we don't semi-protect, and "Contributing" means "Editing" which we do. Sadly, "Using" the RD means "Editing" - so semi-protecting these pages is akin to preventing IP's from "Reading" the main encyclopedia. Seen that way, the problem isn't one of ideology - it's one of "mechanism". If (hypothetically) we had a means of "Asking" without "Editing" then this issue would largely evaporate. As I've suggested before - if we can find a means to have questions be asked without them showing up on our public-facing "Questions and Answers" page - then you could block contributions (edits) to that page with relatively little objection. What's needed is some creativity on how to provide that mechanism without needing new code to be added to MediaWiki. Again, I ask that we discuss how we could do that. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is only one: that people are here mostly to see there own phenomenal intelligence preserved forever by their brilliant responses to questions asked on this desk; and that means to them that it is more important to retain those response even to questions asked in bad faith than it is to deny trolls their vehicle of disruption. This page exists as a service to good-faith users of Wikipedia to direct them to further reading on subjects, not as a means by which to inflate the egos of the regular contributors thereof. The primary, and often, ONLY objection to the removal of bad-faith trolling is "but I meant well when I answered that question, so I want to keep my answer around!" That doesn't solve the problem. Removal of the trolling without further comment is what does solve the problem. --Jayron 32 01:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record I was in no way involved with these removals. And I don't think anyone said called this trolling or vandalism. So I'm not sure what you're on about. And finally there is a good reason to preserve good answers that has nothing to do with egotism: our archives have high page rank and will often turn up in google searches, so answers/references can potentially help people in the future too. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion

This whole discussion is feeding the attention of the banned user. The little vote above is meaningless because our banning policy applies to all pages and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS makes it clear that we can't just ignore a larger policy because some people here don't like it. If you want to change this then go to the talk page of our banning policy. If you think somebody got it wrong go to their talk page. HighInBC 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the point I suspect SemanticMantis is trying to address. I suspect I won't be able to explain it clearly enough for you to see it, but I will try.

It is repeatedly asserted, "Banned users are not allowed to edit." Everyone gets that. That point is not in dispute.

Alas, the assertion "Banned users are not allowed to edit" is not like the assertion, "Information is not allowed to travel faster than c". Banned users are not supposed to edit, but if they want to break the rules, obviously they still can.

So if, despite the prohibition, a banned user has edited anyway, what do (what must) we do?

You can say that the banned user's edits must be reverted, no matter what, no matter how much additional damage this might do. (And you would have a certain amount of policy on your side.)

Or you can say that the damage has been done, that reverting a given edit only makes things worse (metaphors about pouring gasoline on fires are often mentioned), and just leave it. In other words, you can deliberately deny the assertion that banned-users-are-not-allowed-to-edit means ipso facto that banned-user-edits-must-be-removed.

I'm way too tired of this, so I'm not going to give my own answer (sorry, SM), but that's the way I frame the issue.

I would also offer this reminder for those who believe it is necessary to revert all such edits, no matter what: A reversion does not actually prevent the banned user from editing; it does not make it just as if the banned edit didn't happen. The banned edit did happen, and there's nothing we can do to undo that fact, or to prevent another banned edit tomorrow. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:HighInBC: We've been through this before. Yes, we know that we cannot and should not PREVENT or BLOCK the rights of Admins here - indeed we can't overturn Wikipedia rules for our own benefit. What we need to do is to make it unnecessary to exercise those rights and make it clear to those who exercise judgement in exercising them that doing so may be strongly counterproductive.

Continually re-stating that we can't stop you from semi-protecting these pages is pointless...we get it already - right?

So - let's step away from the STOPPING PEOPLE FROM SEMIPROTECTING THE RD and start discussing MAKING IT UNNECESSARY TO SEMIPROTECT THE RD. SteveBaker (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like it, don't participate. You are clearly having a problem with jumping to conclusions and reading comprehension. You also don't get to tell me not to discuss reference desk issues at the reference desk talk page. Anyway, I think you have it backwards, and the banned user has quite a lark watching a few users hunt her such zeal. I think she's making it a point to get harmless posts removed, if only to illustrate how obsessed with her some of our editors are. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently some others want to remove anything they call trolling, plus all answers, even here. Now @SteveBaker: has a fair idea, which is that we give editors a way to ask questions without editing. For example, they can post them to some other project or some other site. The next step in that progression, of course, is finding a way to answer the questions without editing, then we'll be golden. I'm thinking maybe we get back to Usenet, the gold standard of all online discussion. It is freely available by Google groups - that, of course, puts some other corporation in charge of deciding who to ban and what to suppress. But Google knows everything - they have a picture of your house, a list of your favorite porn sites, a psych profile of what CAPTCHA codes you're bad at recognizing on 4chan. Their computers exceed your intelligence the way your intelligence exceeds that of an ant. Why be under some admin who wants to play God when you can be under a corporate computocracy that actually is God?

However, before we go there, it strikes me that Legalism (Chinese philosophy) has roots in Daoism, and perhaps this can inspire us. Perhaps if we simply let these admins use their God-given right to ignore us and do whatever they want, which they will whether we allow that or not, then once they've damaged the conversation here sufficiently and shipped out a couple of hundred resumes explaining how they tamed the Refdesk as evidence of their people skills, they'll start feeling their oats and go get in an edit war with Arbcom or block Jimbo Wales or something and get banned and disgraced, like all the highest and mightiest admins and arbcom officials before them. Then we wait a couple of years for the semi-protection to expire and we have our old Refdesk back and we never speak of it again. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2016 (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.

Troll alert

I think the guy asking all the questions on RD:Misc is a known troll that's returned. Thoughts? --69.248.90.126 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

For the record, nobody was willing to say that these removals were helpful. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems with trolling

serious trolling in the misc desk lately...people asking when men plan on colonizing the sun...asking if possible to refer to ejaculation as a #5, and on and on...I'd say the last legit question was about number of photographs in 19th century...and why don't admins move posts that are clearly about science to the science or clearly about language to the language (not that many of these have been legit lately)..and a lot of regular ref desk people seem to feed the trolls like crazy....but it's pure silliness that's going to ruin the potential of the desk imo..68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The current approach seems to be to treat all but the most blatantly obvious trolling as sincere, and to answer with cold, hard facts where possible. I have to admit that a question about colonizing the sun is pretty funny. It's like the ancient joke about going to the sun. "We can't, it's too hot!" ... "So we'll go at night!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, speaking of inappropriate questions on the Ref Desk, we have a whole page dedicated to discussions of this type. It's called Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's semi-protected, which is why the OP posted here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Per OP request, this was moved to the talk page from WP:RDM --Jayron 32 11:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not required to read or respond to questions that you find silly. We set no requirements that our questions be suitably "serious", whatever that might mean. "I just wondered" is a fine reason to ask questions on the reference desk, and recall that we are all WP:VOLUNTEERS who can choose to spend our time, or refrain, at our own discretion. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Success of trump

Moved to Miscellaneous desk

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is Donald Trump so popular among Republican voters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.90.229 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the Ref Desk, not the Ref Desk itself. I suggest you move this Q to the Misc. Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

But, to get you started, Trump isn't all that successful among Republican voters. The main advantage he has is that the anti-Trump vote is split among several candidates, so none of them gets more votes than Trump. However, Trump may not get a majority, either, in which case there will be a contested convention, and it's entirely possible that the anti-Trump coalition will align behind one candidate and beat Trump there. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

178.101.224.162

(Not actually tagging the troll itself.) It's been a while since I was active here, admittedly, but I do pop in from time to time to see how things are going. Tonight, I'm curious: why are you all tolerating this? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant link: Special:Contributions/178.101.224.162. -- ToE 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The user is not banned, and the questions, although silly, are not offensive or requests for medical advice. As the desks operate currently, deleting such questions (as a look over the talk page archives will confirm) would cause far more disruption than leaving them up. Recommended practice in such cases is to ignore the question or give a simple factual answer; whether everyone follows this practice is another matter. Tevildo (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just responded to one of the questions posted by that IP. Most of them aren't interesting to me, but one was, so I spent a minute looking through google scholar and my personal library and posted some references. But now your post has me confused. What am I "tolerating"? Do you think I should be angry that someone who posted a question here would enjoy my response?! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Define "tolerate". Do you mean "would have done something if I thought others wouldn't have undone it"? --Jayron 32 16:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

How is this not a request for opinion? How on earth should I construe this as anything but deliberate trolling? Why do we engage in dialogue with someone who, while claiming to be seeking references, behaves like this when actually given them? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That last was pretty clearly a joke, but you have to follow the link StuRat gave to understand it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I followed the link and got the joke. In isolation, a comment like that is excusable, even typical ref desk behavior. In combination with everything else, though, I smell a troll. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already proposed doing something about it. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Proposal: Try a different approach as a limited-time experiment. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the original poster appears to feel strongly that the regulars badly mishandled this troll, I would suggest that the original poster explain exactly why a different approach would have worked better. Just scolding the reference desk regulars without even being specific is, in my view, exactly what the troll is looking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not mishandling so much as... not handling at all, in any meaningful sense. Somewhere around here the IP should have had it politely mentioned to him/her that questions that can only be answered with opinions are inappropriate. At this point it should have been pointed out that scholarly references of the kind the reference desk exists to provide cannot answer the question as asked, since "best" is a highly subjective (and overly vague) value judgement-laden term. None of this would have come as a surprise to the IP, since this is clearly someone who knows how the reference desk works and how to disrupt it. The series of troll-feeding comments beginning here should never have happened, though I suppose that kind of thread derailment is common even among regulars here. This should have resulted in a template warning, IMO. It's not so much that the IP made a sarcastic comment, as that he/she was presented with a source that at least partly answered the question, and that in return he/she made a sarcastic comment and claimed that the question had not been answered at all. Asking for something and then acting like a dick when you get it is blatant troll behavior. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not handling at all is fine by me in this case. I rate the level of disruption caused as "barely noticeable". Your diffs are fairly convincing that there was some bad faith editing going on. I didn't notice though, I only noticed the one question that caught my interest enough to respond. I will never look up previous IP contributions before I respond to a question, you don't pay me enough for that ;) WP:AGF and assessing suitability of posts on a case-by-case basis is much faster and easier for me. It's quite interesting really, that we all agree that both trolling and troll feeding are bad, but have such wildly divergent notions as what qualifies. I think that some of our bad faith editors get a big kick out of all the cat-and-mouse deleting games, and seem to get bored when their bad-faith questions just get ignored. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing against Evan, but if we ever do achieve a temporary (or permanent) state of no-drama handling of troll posts, we should expect to see plenty of "suggestions" here (from the trolls themselves, of course) that we're doin it rong. Let's remember not to take those seriously, if/when they arrive. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Isnt all the above diatribe just looking for trolling where there is none to be found? Why dont you troll hunters get your kicks elsewhere -- by editing the pedia for instance??--178.101.224.162 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection template

When you admins semi-protect an article, please be sure to also post the "pp" template so as to keep the frustrations of users such as Duncan Hill to a minimum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to spell the username correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it was early morning and I was craving donuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Then fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Right after you rev-del Hill's snippy comments to the admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Pathetic. For an elderly man I thought you'd know better. I'll do it for you as you seem incapable of behaving yourself. Don't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Elderly"? I'm only 33 1/3 years old. And I've already told Hill that I'll watch for admins forgetting the template, so as to pre-empt his inappropriate behavior, so as not to have to tell him "Don't do it again." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Holy cow. Are you trolling us now? Because I was sure you were a cranky old retiree. I guess this goes to show me what I get for making assumptions :) In this case, I think your reminder was nice, even if the spelling was not. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Purely as an observation, I have long had the same impression as SemanticMantis. I mention this only because, if Bugs knows how he/she comes across to others, he/she might want to rethink his/her approach. Or not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious, I've always had the impression that Baseball Bugs was a retiree too! I guess you can be both 33 1/3 and a retiree... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

33 ¹/₃ ? I'll just call you LP. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

IP users, WP:HUMAN, etc.

Just an interesting example today [2] of an IP user asking an interesting question. I'd bet a beer (or a donut, coffee, etc.) that this user (b. 1939!) would never sign up for a WP account, and would have probably never asked if the misc desk were semi-protected. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The surest way to find out is to ask the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have a way to make Mr. Antisemite Troll go away forever, without semiprotecting the desks, I'm all ears. --Jayron 32 01:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

But isn't the MO of that troll (or a similar one) to create throwaway accounts? So semi-protection doesn't help. --Viennese Waltz 09:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the troll creates throw-away accounts. The throw-away accounts are not autoconfirmed and so do not get through semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So neither would Blue-Angel-lady if she created an account in order to ask the question. SteveBaker (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It was just a simple observation, nothing more, nothing less. But I'll explain a little further - I certainly was not implying that this one poster means we should never semi-protect the desks. I thought it was nice that some of our users might be able to help an old lady figure out something about her childhood, and I thought it was nice that she was not barred from entry that day. I thought it might be nice to share a positive observation about our service and IP users. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Call me excessively cynical or pessimitic but we don't actually know if we helped the old lady figure out anything. And I'm not talking about small possibility it was a troll or someone uninterested in the actual answer. Quite often even when their question is impossible to answer without some clarification and this is pointed out politely and without debate, we don't get a followup. This could be because they realised the answer in the meantime or the request for clarification helped them find their answer. It could be because the request for clarification made them realise the question or answer was more complicated than they had thought or they weren't really that interested or they couldn't be bothered with it. It could be because they couldn't work out how to make a followup. It could be because they checked but after so long they didn't think it worth clarifying. It could be because despite the request for clarification being polite etc, they decided not to continue with the question here. It could be because people who ask questions which require clarification are often trolls or not seriously interested in the answer and the request for clarification doesn't interest them. It could be for a bunch of reasons I can't think of. But it could also be because the person never checked back on the question (perhaps because they couldn't find it again). This mean we shouldn't answer questions nor does it have any bearing on semiprotection or other such debates on managing the RD. And people are free to believe what they want about what has happened. However the fact remains, a lot of time we have no real idea if our reply is even read when replying to randoms. (Occasionally with accounts too although in those cases you could ask if you really want to know.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty cynical and pessimistic, but you could've questioned her mortality, too. Anyone older than Kenny Loggins is always in the danger zone, and that was a lot of upsetting news to crawl across her ticker at once. I'm an optimist though, so I'll wager she died of a preexisting condition and was reunited with her mystery angel in that big field down south, forever. Kinda beautiful, really. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I did say might ;) It is true that trying to help people on the RD is a little different than trying to help people IRL. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Request mainspacing of article

Please can someone mainspace an article that I began some time ago, User:Matty.007/sandbox/Frank Gregory-Smith, notability passed for having DSO and bar and DSC and bar. I would appreciate it if the misc. sources were commented out/left on the talk page. Thank you very much! Best, 109.149.222.250 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done @109.149.222.250: This is an odd place to request that, and this is not a semi-protected edit request. However, I recommend submitting to AFC. Do this by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article you want to submit. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Crh23 The humanities desk was semi protected so I couldn't edit it, hence the edit request. Given that I wrote the article as an experienced user please can you just move it to mainspace, if things are as they were when they left AFC have enough on their plate already. Best, 109.151.88.37 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You should (1) logon as your named account; and (2) make this request at Articles for Creation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

109.149.222.250 Why do you wish to make that request at the humanities desk rather than, say, Requested moves? Can you not access your account? ~~E:additionally, the humanities desk doesn't appear semi-protected to me, did you mean somewhere else?~~ — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 14:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC), E: 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC), 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The protection expired at 13:42. It was still in place when the OP posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That explains my confusion, thanks — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23: Per WP:PING, IPs don't receive pings or other notifications, so you can save yourself that effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, didn't know that. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed and declined as not apparently meeting military notability guidelines. However, it still isn't clear why this was made as an edit-protected request. If the author wrote it as an experienced editor, they could have moved it to mainspace themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the original author has marked themselves as RETIRED. Either the requesting IP was the same person, not logged on, or a different person, not logged on. In any event, many experienced editors won't simply move a draft to mainspace based on the statement that it was written (in this case two years ago) by an experienced editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Try a different approach as a limited-time experiment

Our primary problem is that certain individuals insist on trying to control the behavior of others. That never works. We need to stop that kind of behavior, because it has a long history of generating increased trolling everywhere anyone has ever tried it.

We need to stop feeding the trolls. We need to either ignore posts we don't like, reply to posts we don't like with a deadpan serious answer to the question asked as if we never noticed that it was an attempt to disrupt the helpdesks, or report posts we don't like at ANI for the admins to deal with.

We need to stop responding to trolls. We need to stop hatting or deleting comments by trolls. We need to stop talking about trolls. We need to stop talking about each others responses to trolls. We need to stop making trolls the center of attention. We need to stop making regulars who respond to trolls the center of attention.

We need to put all of the above in an RfC as a limited-time experiment, achieve an overwhelming consensus that this is what we want to do, put it in our guidelines, and report anyone who refuses to follow the consensus at ANI so that they can be blocked for being disruptive.

What we are doing now is not working. I propose that we try the following approach as a limited-time experiment:

PROPOSAL

This is a preliminary proposal to gauge rough consensus. If there is sufficient support, I will turn this into an RfC.

Proposed: All editors on the helpdesks will (for the duration of the a limited time experiment) have several choices as to how to respond to trolling at the Science Desk:

Ignore the question and move on.
Post a warning template on the poster's talk page without any mention of it here.
Answer the question asked with a deadpan serious answer to the question asked, acting as if we never noticed that it was an attempt to disrupt the helpdesks.
Take it to WP:ANI or WP:AIAV and let an administrator decide whether to delete it, whether to remove it from the history, whether to block the user, and whether to protect (full, semi, or PC) the page.
Post a warning template on the talk page (without any mention of it here) of any regular who does anything other than the above.
Take any regular who does anything other than the above to WP:ANI for not following consensus.

Note: Some of the above can be combined.

Proposed: All editors on the helpdesks will (for the duration of the a limited time experiment) be absolutely forbidden to respond to trolling at the Science Desk in any of the following ways:

Responding other than with a deadpan serious answer to the question asked, acting as if we never noticed that it was an attempt to disrupt the helpdesks.
Deleting any other user's comment.
Collapsing any other user's comment.
Discussing the refdesk behavior of any other user -- troll or regular -- of the refdesks or on this talk page, Such discussions are suggested to be taken to WP:ANI, WP:AIAV or the user's talk page, but this proposal only specifies "not here." This will be a place to discuss improving the help desk or our answers, not a user behavior noticeboard.

If an RfC based upon this proposal passes, all of the above will be written into our guidelines, and enforced by uninvolved administrators with blocks for those who refuse to comply. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION

This proposal should not be construed as in any way overriding our existing rules about edits that should be removed on sight, all of which are listed at Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions. They are:

Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). In other words, the troll is free to revert his own trolling.
Reverting actions that are clearly performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users]—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute edits by a banned user.
Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

I apologize for adding this after several people have supported/opposed this proposal. Please indicate if this addition changes or does not change your !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support / Oppose

Weak Support as follows - In view of the fact, correctly stated, by the Original Poster, that some of the regulars do indeed try to control the behavior of other regulars, this will turn out to be a draconian remedy, which is probably needed. It is unlikely that WP:ANI will follow the consensus here, if there is one, to stop berating other regulars for their behavior. This draconian remedy, at least as an experiment, is better than nothing, but probably not much better than nothing. I am assuming that the reference to the Science Desk is not really limited to the Science Desk but to all the desks. I would strongly advise that trolls not be reported at WP:ANI, but at WP:AIV. This does not rule out requests for an entirely new design that eliminates semi-protection, although I don't think that is practical, or has sufficient support. More later, maybe. I won't give strong support because I am deeply cynical in that I don't see some of the regulars having the common sense to stop trying to control other regulars. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
weak support - The basic idea is a good one - and lays out behavioral norms that I strongly believe we should all practice. We don't actually need consensus on this proposal to individually choose not to respond to trollish/unsavory questions - or to respond dead-pan if we think they are merely "iffy". The problem here is that we're now saying that instead of attempting to control the actions of our end-users, we instead control the actions of our editors. I have no problem with trying to do that - but we should be aware that (to steal the words of this proposal) Our ~~primary~~ secondary problem is that certain individuals insist on trying to control the behavior of ~~others~~ editors. That never works either. But, that said, it should be easier to exert peer-pressure on fellow editors than it is to apply pressure to the trolls and other miscreants. IMHO, we need to re-instill that feeling of professionalism that WP:RD regulars had several years ago. That standard has declined and we need to re-establish it. We should award ref-desk barnstars to great answers...tell the list that we did that. We should suggest mentorship to new answerers. We should write a set of guidelines for what makes a good answer, and when jokes and asides are not appropriate. When a newbie editor doesn't follow them - then let's actively explain to them what they did wrong...but off on their talk page.

However, I suspect that this won't be enough. This approach won't be enough to cut out the highly-legitimate questions that we sometimes get from banned users from showing up. Since they look (and possibly are) perfectly good questions, we're going to answer them because we don't know when the OP is a sock of a banned user. That means that the "only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer" Admins will still swoop in and semi-protect the Ref Desk - and probably delete answers that have cost some of us an hour of research to answer properly. This proposal (although good as far as it goes) won't scratch the surface of that problem. So - IMHO - we still need something better...some means to separate out the act of asking a question so it happens out of the view of most of the public - that way we can kill 'bad' questions before it becomes a public act and therefore becomes troll-bait. SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

oppose as written this proposal requires us to go to ANI or somewhere else to remove serious BLP violations or copyvios something which is followed basically no where else on the encylopaedia and goes against fundamental wikipedia policy and at least in the former, foundation directives. It's often necessary to involve admins in such cases anyway particularly since they should normally be deleted from the edit history, but it should not required if it's gauged as unnecessary and it particularly should not be required to wait for some admin somewhere else to take notice. In fact even WP:Oversight generally suggests the quiet removal of problems before reporting them there. Note also we're proposing to limit ANI to admin acting only, I doubt we can do that without a consensus at ANI even with a widely advertised RFC here. P.S. Technically it only requires it in case where it can be called trolling, but that's still an unacceptable limit. Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. Please see the clarification I added at the end of the above proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - I've noticed that when the chatter dies down on the talk page, the trolling seems to die down too. So, why are you dredging this up yet again? Just let the admins do their jobs, and otherwise leave well enough alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Support as worth trying. Nothing really risked, we can always revert to the status quo. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"That never works" So, oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
A little more opposed after clarification. Just more rules to remember. Consequently, more answers to forget. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Weak support. I'm in complete agreement with all the premises. I'm not sure this experiment is the right way to demonstrate them, but I suppose it can't hurt. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Support The Ref Desks might be less filled with hatting, unhatting, and in-house squabbling. There might be less squabbling on the talk page. Sadly, my experience has been that when you raise some question on another regular's talk page about what they did on the Ref Desk,in a civil way, they reject the comment and become hostile. Edison (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose unless "absolutely forbidden" is clarified and not very bad. As this is way out of the ordinary, a person might forget, or not read every last little syllable, and then you have to decide what to do to him. If what you do is only to revert and notify, then I might support; but if there is a possibility of long-term drama arising out of violating the terms of a short-term experiment then I have to pass. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. Clearly we don't want anything bad to happen to the person you describe, or even to someone who gets pissed off at the trolls and lashes out once or twice. On the other hand, we know that we have some regulars who will take the position of "screw your stupic experiment, I am going to do what I want to do" and completely invalidate the experiment. For those individuals only, we need an RfC with overwhelming support (thus showing the will of the community) and an admin or two who are willing to enforce the clear will of the community. Do you have any suggestions as to how best to word the RfC so that it meets both goals? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

SNOW Oppose for more reasons than I can count, but principally because this directly conflicts with actual community consensus and policy regarding where it is appropriate to remove, hat, or alter the comments of other users in discussion spaces. WP:TPG applies here as surely as any other discussion page and attempts to force the above approach via WP:ANI will certainly A) fail spectauclarly, B) generate more drama, distraction and wasted editorial effort for the community than it can possibly preserved, here or broadly, and C) will lead to yet more consideration in the broader community that the desks are a lightning rod for disruption and acrimony and that they may be more trouble than they are worth or at the very least require regulation from the outside. Genuinely meaning no offense to the well-intentioned editor proposing this, but this is perhaps the most ill-considered "solution" to trolling that has been bandied here yet, and that's quite a contest. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional comment: There's also the matter of this solution being an ill-fitting carpet-bomb of an approach to a problem that can be tackled much more precisely and surgically. We all know, as is indeed reflected in comments above and every other variation of this topic that has occurred here in the last few years, that we're discussing this matter not because there is an endemic problem with regard to people overreacting to trolls, but because there are just a couple of regulars who behave in this manner. The workable solution is to decide amongst ourselves whether these parties are considered a net benefit to the desks, factoring in these behaviours. If the answer is no, then we should make it known our patience has run out, and should the behaviour continue, take those specific editors to AN/ANI for a topic ban removing them from the desks or an editing restriction preventing them from deleting the content of another editor in this space, without exception. And afterall, if we can't get community support for that much narrower sanction, what hope would we have of convincing the community and an uninvolved admin at ANI to institute blocks or bans for users because we made an idiosyncratic rule here which we want to enforce, even though it conflicts with community wide vandalism and talk space standards? Snow ^{let's rap} 21:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

To @Nil Einne: and others who might share that reasoning: this proto-proposal does not say anything about BLP and copyvio, only trolling. Whilst I suppose a ne'er-do-well could incorporate trolling, BLP and copyvio in to a single post, they are usually separate issues here. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No as I already mention trolling is a concern. They have definitely have been guilty of BLP violations before although perhaps not serious ones. And I'm not sure about the case you helped deal with above as I didn't see the part which was deleted, from what I read about it, it could very well qualify as a serious BLP vio and all the evidence points to it being trolling albeit originating from some other wiki. Trolls are probably the biggest concern from a serious BLP standpoint because anyone who makes a serious BLP either quickly learns not to do so, or is indefed. There would be a small number of one time good faith editors who may make BLP vios, but they aren't really the biggest concern, copyvios are less common and possibly one time editors would be a bigger problem here (still not long term editors since they need to learn or be blocked). There's also the question of how you define trolling. If you're going to use a very restrictive definition of trolling (excluding for example WickWack, Bowei Huang and Vote X as trolls and therefore the deletion of their comments as not being affected by this proposal), I don't see that what this proposal achieves. And even if you did use such a definition, it's unhelpful that someone doing a good thing is going to risk penalty because someone is going to argue that it's trolling. Isn't the whole point of this proposal that it's not helpful to have arguments over whether something is trolling anyway? So the way I see it, you'd need to include any blocked or banned editor as a troll. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)See modified version below:

I agree that we can't (and shouldn't) prevent removal of material that violates Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:BLP, WP:NPA, etc. This proposal should be amended to make it clear that the removals it's talking about here are removals due to actual or suspected trolling. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I was making some changes to my comment but you already replied so I've included a modified version below and kept the above version intact. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No as I already mention trolling is a concern. They have definitely have been guilty of BLP violations before although perhaps not serious ones. And I'm not sure about the case you helped deal with above as I didn't see the part which was deleted, from what I read about it, it could very well qualify as a serious BLP vio and all the evidence points to it being trolling albeit originating from some other wiki. Trolls are probably the biggest concern from a serious BLP standpoint because anyone who makes a serious BLP either quickly learns not to do so, or is indefed. There would be a small number of one time good faith editors who may make BLP vios, but they aren't really the biggest concern. Copyvios are less common and possibly one time editors would be a bigger problem here (still not long term editors since they need to learn or be blocked).

There's also the question of how you define trolling. If you're going to use a very restrictive definition of trolling (excluding for example WickWack, Bowei Huang and Vote X as trolls and therefore the deletion of their comments as not being affected by this proposal), I don't see that what this proposal achieves particularly since if someone starts an antisemitic question of someone from NSW asks about the relationship between God, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Dawkins, environmentalism particularly global warming, poverty and world hunger and the bible; you're I'm sure you'll get arguments over whether it's the same editor as we always get, or some other editor. Isn't the whole point of this proposal that it's not helpful to have arguments over whether something is trolling anyway? So the way I see it, you'd need to include any blocked or banned editor as a troll which was my assumption when replying.

Anyway it's unhelpful that someone doing a good thing is going to risk penalty because someone is going to argue that it's trolling.

If you are going to allow the deletion of BLP violations, copyvios even if by trolls that wasn't stated. There remains the question over how far you're going. What about vandalism? Soapboxing? Banned editors? Removing all of these is acceptable under existing wikipedia policy, guidelines and general practice which ultimately applies to the RD; if you want to carve out specific exemptions, you should specify what exactly.

The last (banned editors) is probably a key one which seems to be most debated. When I remove Bowei Huang or Wickwack's comments it's because they're defacto or topic banned respectively, not because they're a troll (since under my definition I'm not sure they are). Likewise while I'm not involved much in Vote X, I'm not sure whether they're trolling or not but I still occasionally remove their comments as they're community or defacto banned. (The Canadian bigot is the only one I'm fairly confident is trolling although even that I'm not entirely certain.) From previous discussions, I strongly suspect this proposal was intended to prevent such unilateral removals. If it's only intended to apply to trolling which doesn't have any other problems (including from a banned editor) then this should be stated. As hinted at in my !vote, for these reason I'm not supporting this proposal as worded, I reserve judgement for any reformed proposal.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

To Bugs: you've supported virtually this exact same idea in the past. Why the change of heart? SemanticMantis (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Because I have come to see the wisdom of taking a low-key approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So why keep harassing editors whom you suspect are trolls?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Where? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not noticed that at all - I don't think it's true. Do you have numbers to back that up? Is your observation a statistically viable sample or just one data point? And, of course, correlation does not equal causation. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I could be biased, in that I have pretty much stopped caring about the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, this is a low-key approach - it's saying we should do nothing in most cases. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Threatening sincere editors with blocks is not "low-key". Low-key would be to have not made this proposal in the first place. Just leave it be, and let the admins do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And how has that been working out for you? Has the trolling stopped? Alas, we need everyone to stop feeding the trolls, which means that a small but vocal minority will have to be forced to stop feeding the trolls, which cannot happen unless administrators enforce the no trollfeeding rule. The administrators can not do this unless the no trollfeeding rule is [A] in the behavioral guidelines for the refdesks and [B] supported by a strong consensus at an RfC. That last bit, by the way, is what makes the difference between Guy or Bugs trying to control other people's behavior (bad) and the entire Wikipedia community trying to control other people's behavior (good). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For me it's working out very well. You should try it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Everyone can't stop feeding trolls till everyone agrees on what trolls like to eat. And I'm still seeing plenty of "the community" believing trolls like everything on the table, and plenty thinking they leave the Cronkite-solemn stuff for the freegans and seagulls (literally, the people who browse the desks, just looking to learn something new). We're allowed to feed them. Sort of supposed to. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Feeding" the non-trolls (literally, the people who browse the desks, just looking to learn something new) is allowed and encouraged by the "Answer the question asked with a deadpan serious answer to the question asked, acting as if we never noticed that it was an attempt to disrupt the helpdesks" part of my proposal. You don't even have to figure out who is and isn't a troll. Just give the same deadpan serious answer either way. Or ignore the question if you prefer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. My bad. It's a lot of proposal to take in. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you will pardon my advocacy of my own proposal, keep in mind that I am proposing a limited-time experiment only. Once the experiment ends, we go back to what we are doing now no matter how well it worked. I am 100% opposed to any limited-time experiment being changed to being permanent as was done with pending changes. There needs to be a new RfC for that. Otherwise we are betraying the trust of those who don't like the proposal but !voted yes because they thought that the experiment was worth trying, if only to show everyone how bad it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How long is a limited time? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Purposely undefined at this stage. If this goes to an RfC one of the questions will be the length. My guess is that it will end up somewhere in the range of one month to four months, but I could be wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A purposely undefined limited-time offer from a salesman guessing at his own proposal, without getting me drunk first? Pass. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, sailor, I will buy you a drink... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, boy! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that video is seven years old today. Trippy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Why dont ya all take a look at the RD talk pages from about 12, 5, 2, or even 1 year ago regarding the 'troll problem'. See any similar arguments/discussion?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No need. I have read them all. In every one of them the refdesk regulars who are encouraging increased trolling by feeding the trolls refuse to accept the fact that they are trying to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it. That's why my proposal includes enforcement through warnings and then blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So after 12 or so years of the 'problem', you, and you alone have come up with the definitve answer, have you? You cant see that part of the attraction of the Rds is the Troll involvement, can you? If there were no trolls here, it would be a much less interesting place and dedicated troll hunters like BB and others would be rendered redundant. (After all this the only place BB ever posts). Sniff a troll; accuse a poster of being a troll; insult a suspected troll; detect a troll; report a troll; get a suspected troll banned: Success! Onto the next troll suspect. Reminds me a bit of foxhunting.Is that what you (and BB) really want?--178.101.224.162 (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Status Comment

I had !voted Weak Keep above, but I now notice that this is going on for a long time without being turned into an RFC. If it isn't turned into an RFC shortly, I will strike my !vote, since I think that the constant straw polls here are themselves a form of troll-feeding. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I just finished replying to an excellent comment by Wnt. If I had rushed into posting an RfC, I would have made the mistake he pointed out. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone can respond to the latest comment by Snow Rise with something that I can turn into a proper RfC, I am going to start putting together an RfC (or possibly Arbcom request) with my proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Been a bit busy with personal issues, hope to find time soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines

Why is it that the only two professions we are not allowed to anwer questions on are the medical profession and the legal profession? Are these two of greater standing than all the other professions? If so, why?--178.99.232.11 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize, the rules would still exist even if we gave you a reason. I'm fully willing to provide reasons, but I'm not entirely certain it would do any good, since you'd just take the existence of those reasons as a right to ignore the rules... --Jayron 32 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The rules are arbitrary. Deny that if you can.--178.99.232.11 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The rules are established by the Wikimedia Foundation. They own the website, and they can do what they want with it. They are under no obligation to allow you to do whatever you want on their private website. Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer are established by the Foundation. I am not a member of the foundation, and have thus no other reason than 1) This is their website and 2) Those are their rules. If I come into your privately owned house and start doing things you don't want me to, you have the full legal authority to ask me to leave, and don't actually need a reason to control your own private property and do with it as you see fit, including removing people from your private home you don't want there, for any reason you want. Wikimedia Foundation owns this website, and has the same rights as that. If you want to convince them otherwise, you are free to contact them and start a discussion over it, to see if you can convince them to change their minds. But they are under no obligation to allow you to do anything on their own property. That you assert their arbitrariness by your own declaration is irrelevant. It's their house. It's their rules. You don't like them, you're not forced to be here. --Jayron 32 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply: Because those two professions have very stringent rules for licensure, and very serious legal penalties accrue to those who practice those professions (i.e., publish medical or legal advice) without licenses. General Ization ^Talk 00:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, we are also, as a practical matter, unable to give certain types of financial advice, including tax advice, for the same reason. General Ization ^Talk 00:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice says: The Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice …. "Other professional advice" is a very wide catch-all expression. It could include financial advice, architectural advice, engineering advice, or anything for which a licence is required to practise professionally, and maybe even things for which no licence is required, depending on the jurisdiction. We are not professionals, and we cannot provide professional advice (*). We can provide references to what professionals have to say, including suggesting you find your own professionals to handle your own private affairs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(*) Even if we were professionals, we'd need to see you privately one-to-one, and charge an appropriate fee. Would you want that? Would you be willing to travel to the other side of the world to get advice from me? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short. Lots of people would travel to see you, I bet. For a beer and a chat, maybe. I'm sure advice comes along with that too... --Jayron 32 02:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Beers, chats and advice are but a few of the "special services" we offer. Please refer to our brochure for a full list. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The OP's understanding of the guidelines (really written more like tips than rules) is that we don't do anything that violates any WP policy. Read the belinked disclaimer at the bottom of this page. It doesn't list medicine and law as the only things we don't do; it simply gives them as examples of professional things we don't do that require legal certification. Nor do we defame people WP:BLP or attack other users, and a whole list of things that are not mentioned at the top of the ref desk. In the meantime, why don't you go talk to a licensed physician/therapist/bartender/etc., about your actual problem, assuming you have one. The Truth Is Out There. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't do people's homework either. Is that a Foundation rule? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's merely a corollary of the main purpose of the reference desks. At the reference desks, our purpose is to provide people references to help them research answers to their questions. We aren't here to make authoritative pronouncements or provide "answers" to anything; it isn't our knowledge that matters, rather our ability to provide avenues for the OP to any question to research and develop their own answers. The homework thing is probably a red herring here. It would be best to say that the reference desks don't provide answers to questions period. It would reduce a lot of confusion. --Jayron 32 12:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's getting a little unrealistic (we do lots of math calculations around here ... a few of them are even correct!). The problem in this case is that recommending a pharmaceutical drug to help with anxiety is not something you can really do with no knowledge of psychiatry and no knowledge of the patient. Oh sure, we can give "non-medical" advice like alcohol and MDMA - someone deleted it before I brainstormed Rohypnol "by an unusual route of administration" :) - but the joke there is that these things obviously turn out to be big problems for people - it may be advice, but it isn't really the kind of advice that is meant to help you. Anybody can grab the stick if you don't care where the plane crashes, but if you actually want to land you need a pilot on board. :) Wnt (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Medical advice and legal advice are more strictly regulated than most other kinds of advice. There is a reason. The consequences of bad medical advice and bad legal advice are worse than most kinds of bad advice. Bad medical advice can make you end up dead. Bad legal advice can make you end up in jail. Giving bad medical or legal advice could have repurcussions for the WMF for those reasons. So the reasons for rules against regulated advice have to do with the consequences of giving bad advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

...and yet bad engineering advice, which can potentially kill thousands ("now slowly feed the uranium hexaflouride into your gas centrifuge..." "your seawall design looks good enough to withstand a tsunami...") gets no special rules or regulations. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if instead of trying to nitpick rules, you just gave people references to reliable sources when they ask questions, or a quick explanation of why you can't direct them to such sources, if you can't. Having that mentality solves all disputes and ends all problems. The only disputed responses on this board come about ONLY when people try to tell question askers the "right answer" to whatever they are asking, instead of just directing them to where they can learn more about the topic at hand. --Jayron 32 15:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

^^^^^ What I've been saying since I was just a pup. But it's so much more satisfying to actually provide the correct answer to the question—or to believe that we have done so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, personal satisfaction. The ego. That's a challenge for all of us, because it really has little role to play here. If I decide (and it's always my choice whether or not to get involved in a particular question) to take on a question about, say, an obscure author, I can derive satisfaction from doing some searching and finding something of value to share with the OP. I've been of service to him, and that gives me enjoyment too. That's as far as it goes. It's not about being seen to be smart, or being seen to be the first one to come up with an answer, or anything like that. I'm sure most of us have been a bit miffed when we post an answer we thought nobody else would know, but get edit conflicted by someone who beat us to the buzzer. I can choose to just retire quietly at that point, because the OP (not to mention the rest of the ref desk confraternity) doesn't need to know that I knew the answer too. But the ego almost demands I still give my answer anyway, and it rationalises that the way I worded it was different from the way the first respondent did (as it is in most cases), so there's still something of value for the OP to see. Mostly, however, that rationalisation is hollow. I'm not sure whether that's what you were suggesting, but I'm just saying. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the reference desk guidelines don't allow legal/medical advice even if the answer contains references to reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If that's a reference to what Jayron said, you misread him. He speaks of just-a-pointer, not an-answer-and-a-pointer. A pointer alone is not legal/medical advice. And my above comment didn't mean to advocate giving the answer, only to explain why "we" do so, sorry if that was unclear. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The enforcement of this is usually overblown, but we should be clear that advice given here isn't to be relied on. I think we should resist those who try to shut down conversion when someone is aware that they are looking for references: "What kinds of drugs are used to treat social anxiety?" but not get tempted to imagine we can answer "what drug would you recommend I take for anxiety? Cuz we don't know that. I just wish we could agree to clarify and "sanitize" the question, then answer it in the abstract. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "we can't give advice, but here is a reference" should be fine. I'm still wondering why we see lots of questions deleted/removed, and almost never any responses removed. Maybe we should just change our guidelines, because nobody ever follows them, they just remove questions, and not responses. Currently, they say "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions The purpose is to minimise disruption" [3]. But that's just not true anymore, if it ever was. I've quoted that guideline many times over the past few years, but nobody seems to want to follow it... SemanticMantis (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Who removes questions but leaves the responses intact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood, I haven't seen that. Let me try again: people sometimes ask questions that could be considered as requests for medical advice. Sometimes they are blatant requests for advice, sometimes it is less clear. Currently, they are usually removed, and that is not what the guideline I linked suggests. On the contrary, it says questions are less likely to be sanctioned, i.e. as last resort. What I do not see happening is what our guidelines do suggest: let the question stand, but don't let anyone give medical advice. If you see someone giving medical advice, remove it. If you see someone responding to the question in a way that is not giving medical advice, then let it stand, it might be useful to OP or anyone else who's reading along.

Example: "What do I do if I have diabetes? I live in NYC. How do I cure it?" --OP

Current response: this question is removed/hatted as not appropriate

What our guideline suggests: 1) do nothing at first. 2) If you see a response like these:

"My mom cured her diabetes by snorting cat whiskers, it should work for you too" --A

"Diabetes is not a big problem don't worry about it" --B

--then remove things like that because they recommend a treatment or a prognosis, and thus constitute medical advice. If you see responses like these:

"Ask your doctor" --C

"Here is a list of diabetes doctors in NYC" --D

"Here is a research article on diabetes" --E

"We cannot give advice, but here is our article on diabetes and here [4] are some external sources you might find useful. --F

-- then you let those stand, because they are not giving any advice, they are not violating our guidelines, and they might just be helpful. It's also possible that the question just stands and nobody answers it. And that's totally ok too. So, that is how I would like for us to follow our own guideline. I'm not asking for any new policy; I'm asking for us follow the suggestion written into the guideline before I ever was active here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

See, the problem is that there are always two sets of rules: de jure and de facto. You've summarized the de jure rules well, but you've blatantly overlooked the de facto mandate that the Reference Desks need moar drama. How can we have neverending arguments and edit wars here and on the desks with nincompoops like you spouting sensibility all the time? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Where are the Wikimedia Foundation guidelienes/rules listed? Id like to take a look at those.--178.99.232.11 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer is a place to start for rules regarding medical advice. You'll notice the text in large, all-caps text in the center of the page. It's fairly unambiguous and unequivocal. Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer does the same for legal advice. If you wish for the foundation to allow you to start using its service to begin to offer medical or legal advice through it's service, you'd best contact their lawyers and ask them to change the rules to allow that. Here is the information on WMF's legal staff, and the general counsel is Geoff Brigham, located here. --Jayron 32 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember, though, that there's a pretty profound difference of opinion on the interpretation of those disclaimers.

Suppose someone posts to the desks saying "I have a terrible headache, blurred vision, and ringing in my ears."

Suppose Steve Summit posts in response to say "You should take two aspirin and post here again in the morning."

Opinion #1 is that the Medical disclaimer says, "Steve Summit should not have given that medical advice; it should be removed and/or he should be sanctioned."

But opinion #2 is that the Medical disclaimer says, "Those words Steve Summit wrote were not medical advice; he's not a doctor nor does he play one on Wikipedia."

(And then there's opinion #3, which holds that even though opinion #2 is correct and opinion #1 is not, Steve Summit should per the Reference Desk guidelines not have given that advice.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well put. Of course we shouldn't give anything that seems like medical advice. That's the ethical thing to do. The disclaimer merely informs users that nothing we say constitutes medical advice, even if it might seem that way. I think Jayron is conflating what a disclaimer is with what a guideline is. I too, misunderstood our disclaimers at first. But that's slightly less relevant to my point. I want to stress that in my example above, none of the responses I marked as allowable even seem like medical advice. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protection template

I'm beginning to get an inkling of the "pp" issue. Tell me if I'm wrong: There is a "pp-move-indef" inside the protected page stuff, but it's invisible until someone does an edit. That's why Duncan Hill and I have been adding it after a page is protected. Shouldn't that "pp" come automatically with page protection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the {{pp}} template is automatically removed by MusikBot when protection expires, so it always needs to be re-added manually. I'm not sure if it's possible to tell the bot to ignore the reference desks. Could I also remind anyone adding the template that there needs to be a blank line between it and the {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header}} template, otherwise the top of the index box gets overwritten. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why it can't be added automatically when protection is invoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, when Duncan added the "pp" template,[5] he left 2 blank lines after it, rather than one. Is that a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem in this case was the lack of a space between the "pp-move-indef" template and the refdesk header template. As I understand it, the template message box can be activated from either of the protection templates, but I've not looked into the mechanics in any detail. Tevildo (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

An admin named MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) has come up with a clever way to have the "pp" lock display only when the page is semi'd. It might be better to present the full text. But in any case, it seems to work: {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}} ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks like it'll be an acceptable permanent solution. DuncanHill will probably want to remove the "small=yes", but there shouldn't be any further need for manual monitoring of the situation. Tevildo (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I will proceed to add it to all the pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I started with this page. I need an expert to tell me if I did it the right way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Don't the protection templates have that functionality built in anyway? As far as I know, they all hide themselves automatically whenever a page becomes unprotected. As far as I'm concerned, we could leave the standard protection template on there all the time. The problem is that then some stupid bot comes round every time and removes it. Hope it won't do that on your new code too. Heck, if you come to think of it, this whole business of protection templates is an absurdity anyway – the whole task of informing users about protection status should simply be done automatically without any template at all, by the Wikimedia interface. There's literally not a single piece of information in the standard protecion templates that the Wikimedia interface couldn't easily be programmed to supply automatically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal told me that this should work fine. In fact, the removal bot is his. What I'm not clear on is whether it needs to be inside that "no include" thing. The reason for having it is to notify the casual editor before he hits "edit". That was Duncan's complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Done ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Question: Dubiousity of Das Kapital through a kyklos perspective

Dubiousity of Das Kapital through a kyklos perspective

I was reading an old edition of Das Kapital, yet the dubious elements within many of Karl Marx's Das Kapital are the most curious of subjects. For example, Marx quoted: “Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production.” , yet to classify this thought as polemical, litigious or ructious represents a dogma of equalitarianism, which is dissatisfactory for the promotion of tenderheartedness amongst proletarian constructs. So my question is: Was collaboration a dubious element for insensate and unsympathetic circles of lumpenproletariat within the industrialist circles of apathetic voters, and could this be connected to the fruitlessness of kyklos in both Maoist thought, and post-1995 Marxism–Leninism–Maoism? --Augustous (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Augustous (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: User has been indefinitely blocked. -- ToE 11:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Answer for the Humanities Desk question "which other ethnic groups immigrated *by the millions* to their/their ancestors' original homeland?" Thanks. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is referring to East Germans returning to the former East Germany after German reunification, though I question "millions". Other examples from List of diasporas include Estonians returning from Siberia after independence in 1991 and South Africans in recent years. Futurist, if you google "diaspora return" you'll find more, including an entire book on the subject. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done SemanticMantis (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User name Tag issue

My tag name thing is not working again. Can someone forward this message to the right place please? Regards. -- Apostle (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

What tag name thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

[ [ User : Russell.mo ] ] - this one. -- Apostle (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Go into your preferences and copy and paste your signature here. Then we can look at it and try to figure out the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Found the problem - Integration/linkage issue that will never get fixed... -- Apostle (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Russell.mo looks fine. -- ToE 16:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Received your notification! Didn't receive SemanticMantis's last time... Thanks

-- Apostle (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My query is about James Robert Porter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Porter_(Catholic_priest). Which was his mother´s name? Thanks.

Daniel; April 24th, 2016. ≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.51.245.163 (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Tevildo (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sjo removing my question

Why is sjo removing my question at the humanities refdesk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.10.242 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the topic and format is that of a well-known troll.Sjö (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this answer to the May 4 question William Henry Dimond on the Humanities desk. Thank you. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a lengthy newspaper biography here – Dimond was in Hawaii when the war began and offered to bring president Lincoln 100 soldiers – this was turned down for political reasons so he came alone and was made a captain under Major-General Rufus Saxton at Beaufort, South Carolina. He resigned from the army after the war and returned to Honolulu.

Another newspaper biography is reproduced here (I couldn’t find the original), which adds that Lincoln appointed him assistant adjutant-general of United States volunteers as well as captain.

And finally, a footnote in Mark Twain's Notebooks & Journals, Volume I: (1855-1873) says he was a lieutenant in the Hawaiian Cavalry Company when he went to the US (“left the Sandwich Islands on 28 August 1864 to volunteer for service with the Union forces”) and that his captaincy in the U.S. was in the cavalry. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Deor (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Deor.184.147.128.57 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

user "apostle"

Need I explain? Back to work, minions! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

there's a user whose thinking appears clinically disorganized...see his recent posts on the reference desk...is there anything done beyond the normal blocking etc..it appears to involve an illness as opposed to bad faith behavior...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Russell.mo seems to be it, but the id stamp on the pages is "apostle"...don't know why this is..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

USER:Russell.mo is fine. He's ESL. He's been asking questions here for quite a while, on everything from angels to video games. That's fine. He~~'s a little daft maybe,~~ might seem odd to you or some other users, but we have no rules against that. ~~, and lots of our users are a little odd.~~ He changes his signature sometimes, and that's ok too. His post here [6] was indeed a bit rambly, and I thought about telling him that he should not try to sell his book here. You're right about one thing - he's not editing in bad faith, and in my opinion he's not disrupting anything, so I why should we block him or do anything? If you don't like his posts, feel free to ignore them. Since I tagged him, he will get notification of this discussion, so now he'll know not to try to sell anything here in the future. Honestly that's the only thing I've ever seen him do that's not 100% fine, and it's a rather minor offense that I don't think he'll repeat. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

did you see his most recent long post...the thinking seems quite manic and disorganized clinically speaking...I'd definitely say it's totally inappropriate, though perhaps not intentionally so...68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

He's kind of eccentric, but he seems harmless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we all a little eccentric? We're recreationally and voluntarily spending our time reading encyclopedias.... Nimur (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Since when did it become our jobs to assess the personality traits of others? --Jayron 32 16:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP is trying to make a clinical diagnosis of the user in question, and that is not appropriate. It would be best to box up or delete this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course that's not our job. I thought OP was asking for our opinions on possible disruption, so that's what I gave. I have edited my post for clarity and to remove any expressed or implied assignation of any personality traits to any user. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"...it appears to involve an illness... quite manic and disorganized clinically speaking..." Medical advice, which the OP is not qualified to give. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

One Tree Hill and The O.C. - Happy Ending or Cliffhanger: No Answers

Why has nobody answered the two questions on the entertainment page? Did each season of the two teen dramas of One Tree Hill and The O.C. ended with a happy ending or a cliffhanger? 86.169.72.176 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you're allowed to research the answers yourself. You can find the plot synopses and read them yourself. --Jayron 32 00:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, we do answer/give refs for lots of questions where in principle askers can do that themselves. In this case, nobody wanted to (yet?). OP is advised that we are all WP:VOLUNTEERS. I personally have no problem with a question being reposted after a week or so of no replies, but it that is done repeatedly it becomes slightly rude. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek - Best Happy Ending: Removed Question

Why has this question been unanswered and removed on the entertainment page? Which season of Dawson's Creek do you think had the best happy ending? Three, four, five or six? 86.169.72.176 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Because your question calls for personal opinion(s) and is not in any way relevant to the Entertainment page (see header to this page) and secondly, and more important, you have been blocked multiple times for block evasion. David J Johnson (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In response to WP:RD/H#Francis Lathom, please post the following (at a suitable level of indentation) if no one else has mentioned this source:

I searched for "Francis Lathom" 1774|1777 in Google Books, and the second hit was on a 2005 edition of The Castle of Ollada. In a foreword, editor James D. Jenkins gives Lathom's year of birth as 1774 and includes this explanatory footnote:

Montague Summers states that Francis Lathom was born in 1777 at Norwich, but historical evidence unearthed by Franz Potter suggests that he was in fact born at Rotterdam in 1774, during one of his father's business excursions there. The Lathoms apparently returned to Norwich around 1777 with their infant son, which must have given rise to Summers's error.

This doesn't provide evidence for the specific date in 1774 but at least it does seem to indicate that the 1777 date is wrong.

--69.159.61.172 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done! Matt Deres (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Page protection template update

Re Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 123#Page protection template, the latest protection of this page expired yesterday, but the template message was still there until I purged the page five minutes ago. Fun Facts To Know And Tell. So unless this was some kind of aberration, I guess someone would have to purge after each expiration, and it's possible someone would have to purge after each application of protection to add the message, I don't know how all that werks (or doesn't). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for what you did to fix this page? I'm not seeing it. And the IF statement which is supposed to regulate it is still in place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not an edit, hence nothing for you to see. See WP:PURGE. I have this as an option on the pull-down "More" menu at the top of each page. I don't recall what it took to get it there, if anything, but there are other ways to accomplish a purge and they should be described at WP:PURGE. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

So the problem was local to your PC rather than a problem on Wikipedia itself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The purge affects the page's cache on Wikipedia's servers, so that would be a no. It's not about browser cache. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) If I'm understanding Mandruss correctly, it's not possible to provide any useful diffs (well except for stuff you construct elsewhere). Basically the template used to automatically show or hide the protection message depending on whether the page is protected may take a while to update. (Probably depending on server load and other factors.) To ensure maximum accuracy, the pages will need to be manually purged after protection expired, and possibly after protection is added. WP:Purging will ensure the templates are up to date. Personally, I suspect purging is essential, they will eventually be updated without anyone manually purging although I don't know how long it may take and since these are highly accessed pages it's impossible to know what happened anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so this is at the server level. Since the user MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) suggested the IF statement, maybe someone could ask him to comment here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you just did. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well you created a link to his user page using {{user}}, which should send him a notification (ping). Assuming he comes here when he receives the notification, he should see your request for his comment. Thus, you asked him to comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that. In any case, I've now explicitly asked him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The template says, "Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled." To get around this caching problem, maybe it should say "may be" rather than "is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Which ref desk page are we talking about? Wikipedia:Reference desk seems to be accurate — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This here page. The page you're looking at at this very moment. WT:RD. "This page", as I said in my opening comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good on my end. No protection, no template. If it's not appearing right for you I'm not sure what to recommend. Try viewing the page in your browser's incognito mode? Purging is on the server-side, clearly something's up with your client — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, TL;DR, but just skimmed through. Yes, you might have to purge every time, but that doesn't seem like much of an issue to me. All it takes it one edit (since most people won't think purge), and for a high-traffic page that shouldn't take long — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the problem result from the use of the #ifeq, or all uses of {{pp}}? I've never seen the problem before today. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(I did say purge 5 times, sorry I misread, hungover and no coffee!). The issue is with {{pp}}, I believe — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, well 17 hours passed between the expiration and my purge, during which time a false message was on the page. The desks might get more traffic, but who knows how much when IP users are seeing the message and not even trying to edit because they believe it. But if that's the best we can do, that's the best we can do. Maybe Bugs' 15:36 suggestion has some merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a full banner anyway. I just added |small=yes so it won't be so obtrusive. Users who want to edit will still see and edit button and unlikely to be deterred by the little icon at the top-right. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll try it. Good luck with the hangover, and remember to pop a couple of Tylenols before you pass out next time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the full banner here might be overkill - HOWEVER, there was at least one user (can't find at present) who specifically said that the little lock is insufficient. Maybe for this page, which is relatively low-traffic, the lock would be good enough? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Found it, in the link Mandruss began this paragraph with: "That looks like it'll be an acceptable permanent solution. DuncanHill will probably want to remove the "small=yes", but there shouldn't be any further need for manual monitoring of the situation. Tevildo (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)" Maybe DuncanHill (talk · contribs) and Tevildo (talk · contribs) could come here and opine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't know, an edit effectively accomplishes the same thing as a purge. That's why the level of edit activity is significant re this problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As invited, I have no opinion on whether we should use the small or large template - my only concern is that it doesn't interfere with the menu bar, which isn't an issue on the talk page in any case. Tevildo (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The problems with the small template are 1) it's easily overlooked if you are not looking for it, and much more importantly 2) it is utterly meaningless to new editors and anyone else who hasn't been introduced to it. I will add that this talk page is not on my watchlist, and I only came here because someone pinged me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I often fail to notice it. But, on the flip side, at least these recent semi-protections are of the relatively short duration that some of us have been asking for. So, I want to thank the admins who have been semi-protecting the desks recently for keeping it to short periods (e.g. @Jayron32: and @Favonian:). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I notice the short protection cycles seem to be working very well. The desks are only being protected, on average, about 9 hours per week, which is MUCH preferable to protecting them for the whole week straight out. We're doing as good of a job as ever at keeping the trolling to a minimum, and the desks are still free most of the time for good faith questions from IPs. --Jayron 32 19:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding my thanks, I've greatly appreciated it. Also agree with DuncanHill's point - because the purpose of the template is to inform good-faith innocent users, the tiny icon without explanation is not effective.184.147.128.57 (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to confirm the conclusion here, if that's useful: WP:RDM protection expired at 20:43 UTC, but the message was still there at 20:55, even after repeated browser refreshes. I performed a purge on that page and message went away. Case closed. To reiterate, the next edit would also have made the message go away.
WP:RDH protection will expire at 22:54 UTC, if anyone is around and wants to try this purge thing there. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

AN thread that may be of interest to RD participants

I noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Permission to come back to the Ref Desks which may be of interest to people here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk for the original ban discussion. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

humanities desk?

why is the humanities desk blocked to IPs for so long? wouldn't blocking it for maybe an hour (or less?) at a time be sufficient? particularly since people more or less delete inappropriate content instantly?? the vandals will get bored very quickly...IPs ask a lot of questions at the ref desk, so the utility is hugely diminished...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't vandals. It's trolls. They don't get bored that quickly. There is disagreement as to how long to semi-protect the Reference Desks, but an hour is not long enough. Some editors favor protection for one day, and some for several. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

gosh, that seems quite heavy-handed...note there have been few if any new questions posed since it's been locked down...locking it down due to trolling for a period of several days seems like a procedure that should be examined, particularly since this is a reference desk as opposed to a Wikipedia article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Lock it down for an hour. If the troll returns, lock it down for another hour, and repeat until he gets tired. The work involved in stopping trolls should not be a reason to close the Desks to all I/P users. Doing so does far more damage than the trolls do. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

has this been thought out in a group consensus kind of way, as far as you know? Or are admins sort of acting on whims and inconsistently..?68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The latter. Admins can do whatever they please, as there are just about no checks on their power here. To get desysopped they would need to do something really obvious and extreme. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

well, if a policy discussion took place and consensus was reached about the procedure then other admins could cite that as reason for undoing really long locks...but locking it down for days on end is ridiculous (but yes, I've never seen an admin upbraid another admin's largely arbitrary action (even if it seems to make little sense)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 122. A formal RFC was held (proposing a 48-hour limit), it was rejected in favour of the status quo (page protection entirely at administrator discretion). See Henry VIII clause. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

odd that the thinking would lead to this procedure/policy being in place...hard to figure...well, I'd encourage someone to work toward righting it..I simply won't be trying in RfC along these lines myself...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well keep your eye on the talk page. Perhaps if you and other IP users had responded at that RfC, it would have gone differently :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You've already been blocked 3 times in the last couple of months, so you're an expert on these things. But if you have an actual question, there's nothing stopping you from posting it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

it's true that I've been improperly blocked twice now...but this is because Wikipedia is not a perfect system (as what is being described here also demonstrates)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have ever been improperly blocked, it was under a different IP address. I have reviewed your editing history, and the administrators have been remarkably patient with your disruption, and all of the blocks were entirely appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a point, for a change, or do you just plan to continue to be disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

my question/suggestion is in the OP....and many people seem to agree...no, I don't plan on starting an rfc on this as there just was one, apparently..and I entirely disagree with you as far as the blocks (of course, you and I have a history so your opinion on that matter, which is of no relevance here btw, can't be taken for much)..respond if you must, but I won't be back to this particular thread..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am satisfied that you won't be back to this thread, but it would be even better if you don't come back to the Reference Desks at all, or if you register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Quixotic Potato"

This is a matter for ANI, not the reference desk. clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please help me with "Quixotic Potato"....please see A. his behavior in the "Science Prove Existance God" thread, B. His behavior in the above thread here where I asked about collapsing content C. His actions of reverting my Collapse twice now D. his warning on my talk page...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I can help you with that, I know him well. If you continue acting like this you will be blocked again. Your most recent block ended only 2 weeks ago, for the same offense, so maybe you should read WP:STICK and go improve some wiki articles. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please need help from other editors!68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am another editor. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's "The" Quixotic Potato by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am another editor. I am helping you, by giving you good advice. The collapse top template has a title parameter. Here an example: {{collapse top|title=This is the title}}
The result looks like this:

This is the title
This is the content

You can read the instructions by clicking here.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, are you going to revert it again if I go again and put in the "off topic"?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You will most likely be blocked if you add that again, and you will be reverted within minutes. I don't really care if you get blocked again because you have been editing disruptively again, that is your choice. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would I be blocked it's a totally proper off topic collapse?? You are being disruptive...SOMEONE PLEAE HELP ME.68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't understand your last block, what makes you think you are going to understand the next one? Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

why are you reverting my proper editing behavior (ie my collapsing of the off-topic personal back and forth you engaged in)? What policy can you cite to support these reversions?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you speak French? The French Wikipedia has an article about Thierry Legault. He is a very interesting guy. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

exactly, so you admit you're behaving against policy and disruptively (which obviously you are; if we could just get some other editors to come along and have a look..)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

reinstate my collapse if you want to do the right thing and gain my respect here..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I predict that the block reason for your next block will be "disruptive editing". Anyway, if you want to do something useful I can help you with that. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you want to change the topic because you're a little embarrassed by your behavior...and the issue of he collapse itself isn't that big of a deal (though it should be collapsed, and the collapse should be reinstated)...what's become an issue is your disruptive behavior and your apparent belief that you can just get away with it...if this goes unchecked it's damaging to Wikipedia's project in the long-term....so let's see you do the right thing...I will gladly congratulate you for doing it...as most people simply wouldn't have the guts to admit when they've been wrong...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to change the topic because you are so boring. You keep repeating yourself. I invite you to go do something useful. If you want me to I can help you with that. I can point you in the direction of many articles that need improvement. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapse thread

tried to collapse off topic/against policy back and forth between "quixotic potato" (who seems to think his behavior is quite hilarious) in "scientific test existence of god" thread...used template collapse/top, collapse/bottom but it just seemed to make the section disappear without a note of the collapse like I've usually seen...so if someone else could do it...and perhaps explain/point to explanation of how to do it properly?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Welcome to the Science reference desk mate. Your most recent block ended 2 weeks ago, maybe it is a good idea to improve some articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

^the behavior is continuing here, as anyone can see..certainly I won't bother to pursue action against him as the bizarre phenomenon of myself being blocked for doing so might occur again...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If you continue acting like this you will probably be blocked again, that is true. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

if anyone would now collapse this back and forth and send a long a disruptive editing warning to "quixotic potato" that would be great too...but would still much appreciate answer to my OP..thanks..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And thank you, you made me laugh out loud. [7] The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question, you added text (three periods) in front of {{collapse bottom}}. The template should be on its own line with no other text. clpo13_(talk) 15:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you..I'll give it another try...I suppose there's a way to indicate the reason for collapse ("off topic") too...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, that worked...it simply said "extended content"..."quixotic potato" immediately undid it though, so if someone other than me would correct this/correct him with a warning..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dude, if you repeat the same joke it stops being funny~, unless its a running joke which becomes funnier with repetition. You need to come up with something else. Anyway, there is a |title= parameter. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not off-topic. The OP at the ref desk made some statements about what he thinks God is, and thus invited debate on the matter. Closing the entire thing could be appropriate. Closing a portion of it is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing a portion of a thread that goes off topic can be appropriate - or at least, I actually did it once myself recently. The expansion of the topic to the Bible comes pretty close. I don't think it was inappropriate to try to rule that out of bounds, but it's not inappropriate for someone to think otherwise either. If it's just these two parties, my thought is that collapsing a section is the "bolder" action that should be reverted to status quo in a tie. And Baseball Bugs' comment makes it not even quite a tie. It is, however, not an issue to get admins in here about. Either way, it's just a chaotic response to a rather flawed notion and we should just let it run its course. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of the rhetoric could have been avoided if the OP had said his experiment was about trying to demonstrate the existence of an afterlife. That might be possible or it might not, but at least it's a term that could be much more precisely defined than trying to define what "God" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this answer to the Humanities Desk, May 16 section Magyar raids in Northern France?. Thanks.

Hungarian invasions of Europe refers to a raid in 919 on West Francia, a region that included Picardie (no source, alas, but it may be worth looking at the writings of Flodoard, a West Frankish chronicler). This book mentions a Magyar raid on Cambrai. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it. --Jayron 32 12:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 19 May 2016

Under the Humanities Refdesk query "Which kind of yellow jacket?" could someone kindly add the following, appropriately indented?

As further context, I notice that in the linked article on Paxton, one painting included there shows another young woman in an oriental-style garment, and a second shows a maidservant (Paxton's?) dusting a Japanese porcelain figure. Additionally, the text mentions that Paxton's wife frequently modeled for him, and a third included painting, of her, makes it plausible that she is also the model in the painting in question. This suggests that the Paxton's themselves favoured orientalist themes, and that the yellow jacket in question may have been their own property/prop. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. I also apologize for the trolls that have made it harder for you to contribute easily. --Jayron 32 14:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron, and no apology necessary: I've been suffering them along with you for 10 years of being a regular (though IP) here. Hopefully one day someone will have a Eureka moment and come up with a solution (possibly involving drones and high explosives). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Name Tag issue again

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Peeps, my 'name tag' is not working again; Medeis tagged me. I don't know how to find out what she used but last time user "SementicMentis" (SM) used [ [ user:Russell.mo ] ], what user "ToE" too used but worked. I'm confused. If this issue cannot be fixed, please leave a message on my talkpage...

Apostle (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused too. If you mean signature, your signature looks fine to me. Where did Medeis "tag you"? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe that they are referring to WP:Notifications triggered by user mention, such as User:Russell.mo. Apostle, where did Medeis ~~tag you~~ [mention you in a way you expected would trigger notification]? -- ToE 03:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Edit: My bad for encouraging that vocabulary by reusing the term from the question. -- ToE 21:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In the WP:Miscellaneous desk; calling me a troll as usual, whenever she gets a chance to do so... Here, insert this (List and riddle mitigation sought: incoherent trolling by User:Russell.mo) when you are in the "view history" page by using "CTRL+F", in the web browser. Btw, ToE's user notification worked again... -- Apostle (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what "name tagging" means. Do you mean "name calling"? As in personal attack? And please note that the question you posted there was really, really hard to understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] -- Apostle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Notifications are triggered when a link to your username is posted to a talk page, or a page in the WP namespace. They're not triggered just by putting the link in the edit summary, which is what Medeis did here - they're only triggered when the link is added to the page text. Tevildo (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:~~Ssc~~ used the 'user notification' once in the same place and it notified. -- Apostle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you find that notification in your alert history? If you mean User:Scs (not Ssc), then you may be thinking of this edit from January 7, which likely notified you because of the edit revert, not because your username was linked in the edit comment. I will link your username in the comment for this edit, and you can check and see if that generates a notification. I do not believe that it will. -- ToE 22:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the right one. Thank you for the clarification.

-- Apostle (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no term "name tag" at Wikipedia that I'm aware of, and users don't "tag" other users. The term "tag" is used for HTML tags such as <ref>...</ref>, and for inline templates like {{citation needed}} (these are things one learns when they edit Wikipedia mainspace). It aids communication considerably if we learn the correct terms for things and use them. It does not help to make up our own personal slang terms and expect others to infer what we mean from context. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I learn what you guys teach. This is the first time you guys specified. Unless I'm mistaken. -- Apostle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So, what did you really mean when you said "name tag"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that he meant to say something like: "Medeis linked to my user page in an edit summary, but I did not receive the notification (ping)." Thus, that link is a "name tag" to him. According to Tevildo above, a user page link from an editsum isn't expected to send a notification, something I wasn't aware of but don't care about since I don't use those links in editsums. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's all very clear. I find all this reported confusion over Russell.mo's posts to be itself very confusing. It's rather easy for me to understand. Maybe I'm just more familiar with ESL than many other users? And Bugs should know that tagging has lots of modern uses that are completely in line with Russell.mo's usage. If anyone needs further reference, see tag_(Facebook) for a specific usage, or tag_(metadata) for the general sense. Now, it is correct that "name tag" is not an item in the controlled vocabulary of Wikipedia. We instead talk about "signatures" and "ping" notification.

When Russell.mo says "Medeis tagged me", that is perfectly cromulent usage. The fact that Bugs doesn't understand a common phrase used all over the internet doesn't mean Russel.mo is wrong. So, to put it very clearly for User:Russell.mo: When you said "Medeis tagged me", that was a perfectly grammatical and understandable sentence written in modern English, relevant to the context of WP. If Bugs or anyone else didn't understand you, then they just need to practice their English reading comprehension a little more :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Btw, your GF is after me again...

-- Apostle (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll disagree, just to get caught up on my pointless philosophical rambling. Many of us are more literal and precise speakers and readers than others, and this is not a choice we make. If efficient and accurate communication is the goal, and I think it should be, then we need to use the words that most at Wikipedia will understand. We shouldn't assume wide web experience outside Wikipedia, and I don't do Facebook. I for one had no idea what he meant by "name tag" until I investigated the situation and read comments by others. To my ear, a name tag is something you pin on your lapel at conventions and class reunions. And it escapes me what vocabulary has to do with reading comprehension. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Point noted.

-- Apostle (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like hear from you just what you mean by "name tag", as opposed to the guesswork from others which is further confusing the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, what exactly is the importance of hearing that from him? There is nothing to be gained by haranguing the user over such an insignificant thing. There was some miscommunication, itself minor, and it has been resolved. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not haranguing Apostle. I just don't consider your guesswork to be Gospel. I'd like to hear it straight from him, so that I can understand what he's getting at. Or am I somehow not entitled to understand what I read here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If my/our guesswork were that far off the mark, I strongly suspect he would have given some hint of that. But knock yourself out. I assume he knows he is not required to respond to you. I know I wouldn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. He seems to spend a fair amount of time jerking us around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I see now. Baseball Bugs, master troll hunter/fighter on the job. If you're right, it seems you're being jerked around very effectively. The correct anti-troll response is to drop it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't see. If you ask me a reasonable question and I refuse to answer, then I'm being a jerk. And vice versa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy against being a jerk, and in fact it happens quite often. Now I'm done here, argue with someone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

History of rule against answering requests for predictions,opinions,or debate.

When was the refdesk policy against answering speculative questions made? Looking back at 2007, I noticed that all the policy said was no debating about sensitive topics, but it didn't mention about not answering requests for predictions or opinions. Just wondering, that's all24.207.71.235 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You could check various points in the history, such as the same date every year, to find out when it was worded that way. Then do a binary search between the two dates until you find it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the (nested) transclusions, I'd suggest simply looking at the history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask. -- ToE 04:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the ban on predictions is highly debatable. Math predictions (statistics) are common, as are science predictions, like when the next eclipse will be, or entertainment predictions, about when a certain movie will be released, or computer predictions, like when an operating system will come out. Humanities predictions could include the predicted auction price for a van Gogh. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Those are more easily sourced than questions like, "Who will win the Stanley Cup?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, you could source various sports commentator's predictions. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wanting commentators opinions could look for them in Google - just as we would do if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What about about past discussions that led to the change in policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.71.235 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at the history yet? Changes would have come just after such discussions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Even before the Reference Desk existed, Wikipedia has always followed the Five pillars of Wikipedia; the first one includes Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Starting debates was not on even before that point was added to the header. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense to say questions should not be a call for personal predictions, opinions or debate, i.e. they shouldn't be surveys like "how many of you think Trump should win?" However, it is logical to have calls for sourced instances of each of these things, and in fact, that is how I would interpret it. How much the temperature goes up by 2100 is opinion, but what existing notable estimates there are you can cite is objective fact. But the policy lends itself to misunderstanding. Change it to something like "Questions should not call for purely personal perspectives, such as unsourced predictions, opinions or debate about questions for which relevant objective information is unavailable." Wnt (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

(Sorry for the unsigned comment. Here´s again)

Hi. My query is about Harvey Beiley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Bailey). The article doesn´t speak about his parents. What were their names? Thanks. Darase1981 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your previous request was not ignored because it was unsigned. It was ignored because no one had the energy to adequately explain the multiple ways your request is improper here. I will attempt to do so.

This page is not for discussion about individual articles. That should be done on the article's talk page.
This is not a proper use of semi-protected edit request. Neither this page nor the Bailey article is currently semi-protected.
This is not a request for an edit, but a request for information, and thus would be improper even on the article's talk page, per WP:NOTFORUM, item 4.
Anyway, the most likely reason that article does not mention the parents' names is that their names are not found in reliable sources.

I think I've hit the most significant points. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, his question is PERFECTLY acceptable here, since it is a request for information and the reference desks are where you ask those questions. --Jayron 32 14:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You know, I was just considering that. If the appropriate desk is semi-protected, I agree with you now. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the answer, I think it shows even more that the RD is an okay place for the question and a better place than the article talk page. The OP didn't seem to be suggesting the info should be added to the article which would be the reason for using the article talk page. Remember article talk pages are for discussions on improving the article, not for discussions about the subject. And from the ref found in response, and a quick look at the article, I'm not sure if the info should be added to the article. While not a BLP case, ancestry doesn't seem a good source for the sort of thing. If no other source discussed it, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. But it's probably okay to provide the info here since it's not a BLP case. (Even if it were a BLP case, parents names of someone known by their real name and with an article is probably an okay thing to mention in the RD with a lesser source like Ancestry.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have posted the query on the humanities desk (and corrected the typo). The question is of course 100% valid and permissible. Mandruss is correct that it would also be suitable to post on the article talk page, but that doesn't mean it cannot be posted here. Often, we can help with this kind of thing far more effectively than watchers of a little-used talk page can. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do total brain farts qualify for oversight? :D ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Side discussion from RDM

(originally posted by Medeis on main question page. I moved it here. --Jayron 32 02:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

@Jayron32:, given this is the soul post from a known proxy server geolocate, what do you think the chances are that this is our friendly neonazi racebaiter? μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. When it becomes clearer, I will act appropriately. Until then, I will also act appropriately. --Jayron 32 02:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Are soul posts written in jive talk ? StuRat (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Price of a bottle of Coca-Cola in ~1916

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I can find that the first glasses - end of 19th century - were sold for 5 Cents. How much did a bottle of Coca-Cola cost (about) around 1916? Can a reference be found? Duden Dude (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Next semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

Please post this further response in the same thread:

According to this economics paper, the price of a 6½ fl.oz. bottom of Coca-Cola remained at 5¢ for more than 70 years—1886 to 1959—despite the multiple economic upheavals over the period. In the 1950s when it became clear that this could not last much longer, the Coca-Cola company even tried asking for a 7½¢ US coin to be introduced so that they could raise the price and customers would still be able to pay conveniently with a single coin! Oh, and look, Wikipedia has an article on the subject too. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please post answer to the question directly above, about the price of a bottle of Coca Cola. Thank you.

This advertisement is labelled as from 1916, and the price is five cents. 184.147.127.106 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done --Jayron 32 10:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks!184.147.127.106 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes protection

Has anyone ever considered pending changes protection for the refdesk instead of semiprotection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.71.235 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That was discussed a number of weeks ago, and rejected. It should be in one of the recent archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Question	Remark
I cannot find in TTP article 8.1. And cannot find quotation “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product; and [these] may satisfy the criteria for patentability, even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the product.” Is wiki-article correct?	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership_intellectual_property_provisions#Article_8:_Patents https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text

37.53.235.112 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've reformatted the question by removing the table. Tevildo (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Cannot post query due to edit filter?

I am attempting to pose a complex question on the Miscellaneous desk, however every time I try I get snagged by the edit filter despite the fact that my post has no external links nor does it contain swear words or slurs. 67.68.191.83 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You could try isolating whatever it is the filter is tripping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the filter log, it's an earnest question, but I can see how it would trip a filter log. I'll post it on the humanities desk since it has to do more with that field (history and gender studies). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I must also ask you Ian if you don't mind, why did short hair become an expectation during WWI? Was it for safety and hygiene reasons or some other purpose? 67.68.191.83 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The filter was tripped by "jewelry", incidentally. Perhaps it's time to disable this filter? It's not stopping Softskin, and only causes inconveniences like this. Tevildo (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Re WWI, western militaries since Alexander the Great have generally encouraged short hair both for hygiene and for combat readiness (harder to grab). After WWI and WWII, short hair was expected so that one could be ready to join the military. Re jewelry: I'm having trouble recalling him using that particular word as a substitute, so I'm not sure why that was implemented. If we were just blocking "Jew" in general, we need to be more selective than that. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He's already gotten around blocking "Jew".[8] 50.0.121.79 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I looked up the user that appears to be responsible for the need to lockdown the reference desks and I must say that I am shocked and saddened that he happens to be a Canadian. I can guarantee that the majority of us aren't remotely as vile and prejudiced as that troll and I apologize on his behalf. Hopefully he never thinks to move to Montréal and continue his anonymous trolling and ruin it for us innocents who just want to contribute or turn to Wikipedia for help. _{it also really sucks to not be able to reply to the answers in the question I asked.} 67.68.191.83 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, PLEASE kill this machine. If you want edit filters to flag edits that's one thing. But we have this robot ordering around new posters, saying they can't post about Jews, or jewelry. We have volunteers who seem all too eager to read and reject "troll" questions; we certainly don't need this idiot bot, that now twice in the past couple of months that I know of has stopped legitimate questions by legitimate visitors! Who knows how many more who didn't bother to repost? We should have people in charge, not machines, and we certainly should not have machines doing things because we would complain if people did them. Wnt (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should let the anti-Semitic stuff stand, so the one who posts it can have recorded, for posterity, how stupid he is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Refdesk giving more satisfactory answers

Why does the refdesk seem to give more satisfactory answers than yahoo answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.71.235 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not supposed to offer speculation, nor handle opinion-based questions. I mean this as an explanation for why we're not actually supposed to answer the kind of question you just asked, though I admit there might be other ways to take this response. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

But if you raise this at the Talk Page, you might get longer shrift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Here [9] [10] [11] are some threads on Quora discussing the differences between various question/answer services. I don't see anyone mentioning our little corner of the web though. In short, we're not an answer service, and I think that has a lot to do with it. My WP:OR is that our respondent group is tiny compared to Yahoo and Reddit and Quora. That allows us to have a much higher mean qualification. Sure, there are some really smart people with lots of credentials answering questions on Reddit, and we have some... less skilled respondents here. But overall, I think we're just a smaller club who just happens to be be good at what we do. StackExchange can probably kick our butts for certain detailed questions in math or computer science. I've been tempted to rig an unofficial contest between some of these groups by asking the same question in a few different places at once, but I've concluded that that's not a very polite thing to do. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been spending considerable time recently providing answers on other services that are similar to ours...I tried out about a half dozen of them over the past month or so.

StackExchange and Quora seem to be by far the best of the bunch IMHO...but StackExchange is a very hostile and uncomfortable place to work - people yell at you for any kind of redundant or interesting-but-slightly-off-topic answers - so I couldn't stick around there for long. Also, it's very narrowly focussed on computer-related issues. But the quality of the final answers is superb - far, far better than ours for that narrow range of material.

I think Quora provides answers that are pretty close in quality to WP:RD - and the ability to easily "downvote" questions, answers and comments as well as up-vote them has considerable merit in suppressing trolls. In general, trollish-questions are simply ignored (and possibly down-voted) - and when I tried to deliberately responding to an obvious troll, I got downvoted into oblivion in short order! So I think they have the idiot/troll/spammer thing nailed. Not having people being able to unilaterally suppress material is a good thing - not having admins randomly shutting down access to the site is also good - but I like that they allow the pressure of multiple down-votes to shrink bad material down to a single line like: "2 Answers hidden due to downvotes".

Quality of answers is probably about on a par with what we give here - although I think really tough questions tend to be ignored to a greater degree on Quora where we'd at least come up with SOME kind of answer. Answers there tend to be much longer - three or four paragraphs seems typical - I don't know if that's really a good thing - but it is in line with the way I write answers, both here and there.

One of the biggest problems at Quora is the large number of repetitive, near-identical questions they get - there must be HUNDREDS of "How do I start learning to program a computer?" questions - with more coming in literally every day. That's probably inevitable with the much larger volume of questions that they get - but it's very annoying. They do have a neat feature to allow you to "merge" similar questions (and any answers they've already gotten) - which you'd think would fix that immediately - but the feature is somehow monitored by quora staff and even fairly sensible merges that I've attempted have been undone for unspecified reasons...which is very odd.

Another thing: My answers from the last week alone - were read 100,000 times! Someone asked the relatively simple computer-related question: "In what language is C++ written?" - my answer got 22,800 views! In terms of "making a difference" - I feel my work there is more valuable than here.

Anyway, I think Quora mostly gets the mechanism for sites like this right. It's better than WP:RD. We need to up our game!

SteveBaker (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The biggest advantage this site has over Quora is that it is free. When you contribute an answer here, you contribute it to the world. When you contribute an answer there, you contribute it to the company! And the company takes its pound of flesh from those looking up the answers - it demands Javascript and cookies and real names and tracking and God knows what more esoteric spyware the typical sort of Facebook clones run nowadays, just for people to read through the answers! So your answer is part of its revenue stream, part of its anti-privacy stream. I don't care how many views they claim - even if I believe them - I want a site that is *ours*. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly true. I'm not saying that we should all switch to quora - I'm saying that we should try to make a truly free platform that learns lessons from quora (and stack-exchange, actually). SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt that quora is awful. I'd never post there and I avoid reading it to the extent that I can. Stack Exchange is easier to read but has its own obnoxiousness for contributors, perverting the CC-BY-SA license as an SEO device, and (like quora) attempting to capture the value of its users' work for its exclusive benefit. Some details are here. I've always liked RD better than SE/whatever because of the varied interests and wide knowledge of its participants, and because of its freer format and comparative lack of gamification. I don't know the details of the ongoing troll problem but it's disappointing. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@50.0.121.79: I tracked that thread down here and it seemed like the guy from Stackexchange was kind of backing off from his company's policy. It certainly is not unusual for companies to claim copyright over things that can't be copyrighted and so forth. We can and likely should deplore this manipulation you describe; nonetheless, I much prefer it to Quora. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Another semi-protected edit request

In the thread ~~WP:RD/L~~ WP:RD/H#Famous quotes with name of person who made quote unknown, please add the following:

Here is a long list of quotations whose authors are believed not to be known. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

unless someone else has already posted a link to the same page, of course. Thanks. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Done ―Mandruss ☎ 15:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

troll situation

Can someone give a quick tl;dr about the troll situation? Does it appear to mostly be one person, a relatively stable bunch of them, or is RD now a random target? Do they have a particular agenda or just trolling? Any hope of it easing up in the forseeable? I'm an on-and-off contributor here but haven't been following the situation closely. Thanks. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a few different ones, but there's one in particular who is most active (and one of the others has started imitating him). Unless I have to go somewhere right then, I usually WP:RBI until he stops and do not protect the page, but some other admins will lock the page the second he shows up. He has said before that he gets off on pages being protected, and I've noticed that he stops sooner with me than with admins who are more willing to protect a page. I see someone has already requested a new edit filter, which might help some. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully a smarter edit filter than the one we've currently got - see Wnt's comment above regarding the issues with the current one, which block (not just flag, but actually block) any mention of a certain religion (or auto-change it to "J--s"), or even any words which contain that sequence of letters. But you seem to be on the right track with RBI. Hopefully other admins will come on board, and this troll will become a forgotten creature. Just like this man was almost totally and fittingly forgotten before this incident became a reminder of how even destroying statues of people can re-awaken memories. Best to let them rot in oblivion. 110.140.193.164 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Question for semi-protected desk: In Watchmen, during an interview, Ozymandias says that "I like eletronic music. That’s a very superhero-ey thing to like, I suppose, isn’t it? I like avant-garde music in general. Cage, Stockhausen, Penderecki, Andrew Lang, Pierre Henry. Terry Riley is very good. Oh, and I’ve heard some interesting new music from Jamaica… a sort of hybrid between electronic music and reggae". So, my question is who is this Andrew Lang? 2A02:582:C62:9B00:7C00:3F32:4202:855E (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done - The Entertainment desk has not been protected since 25 May. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: it was for the Humanities desk. Watchmen is literature and electroacoustic music music is fine art. 2A02:582:C62:9B00:7C00:3F32:4202:855E (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

At WP:RD, the description of the Entertainment desk reads: "Sports, popular culture, movies, music, video games, and TV shows". Someone else may choose to post this at Humanities, but I prefer to follow the instructions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There's some crossover between Entertainment and Humanities, but comic books are more likely to fall into Entertainment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: @Baseball Bugs: Questions about Bach, Mozart and Mahler go to Humanities. Questions about Cindy Lauper, Gene Autry and Buckethead go to Entertainment. My question includes Stockhausen and Penderecki, while Watchmen was included in Time's List of the 100 Best Novels, alongside Mrs. Dalloway, Lord of the Flies, 1984 and Lolita. It is literature. 2A02:582:C62:9B00:B92B:50F9:6CCF:4CDD (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Put it in Entertainment or Miscellaneous. If someone knows, they'll answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: you know what? I went to Miscellaneous to post it, and the system tells me that "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." Sweet Jesus! 2A02:582:C62:9B00:69D8:1357:1BBE:531 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what tripped it, but an IP added your question to Entertainment sometime yesterday.[12] It already has at least one answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is the same filter complained about in the section above "Cannot post query due to edit filter?" (no. 731). The consensus is to disable it, but it's still active. 86.151.48.25 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not hurting anyone except the Nazi fool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't inconvenience him in the slightest. He just writes "joows" instead of the unmentionable. 86.151.48.25 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If he were man enough to create one account and stick with it, he wouldn't have to fool around with the spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question above doesn't even mention Jews, or anything I can picture a stupid filter being set for... problem with idiots is they are so ingenious. Holding that thought, I wonder if "Jеws" is blocked by the silly thing (that's a lowercase ie, not an e) Not positive it would work, but I ought to write a template you can subst to convert text to have as many Cyrillic etc. characters as possible... Wnt (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect "hero-ey" is triggering the "Hebrew" match, but the filter code is no longer publically visible. We are definitely into Scunthorpe problem territory here - is there a formal procedure to request disabling the filter? Tevildo (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If anything, the filter doesn't go far enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, I gather that you're a strong defender of the filter - but much as I hate Nazi trolls, this particular filter is getting in innocent users' ways, and I'm not clear how useful it actually is in stopping the troll. It's not a question of the filter going far enough - we need a smarter filter. Maybe the programmer of ClueBot could come up with something. 110.140.193.164 (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of a smarter filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

FAMASFREENODE

So, anyone else think FAMASFREENODE's Ref Desk posts are unsuitable? They're mostly extremely vague questions, or requests for information that can be easily looked up. But, I don't want to tell them off if I'm the only one who thinks they're a problem. Note that they also opened a hopeless RfA; I'm getting a vibe of "non-native speaker who doesn't understand community norms". --71.110.8.102 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the thing to do with ESL users who don't understand our community norms is to help them understand English and our ref desk community norms. Granted, you don't have to WP:VOLUNTEER for this. But questions like this [13] are fine. Can you point out something specific that you think is "unsuitable?" There is perhaps a bit of a demanding tone, but in my opinion that's explainable by ESL and we also don't have any rules about tone.

I'd advise FAMAFREENODE that starting posts with "this user", and generally refering to oneself in the third person is somewhat uncommon in English, and some readers might find it offputting. I'd advise FAMAFREENODE that they will likely get better responses here if they can try to explain their questions in a little more detail, possibly including context and any relevant prior research they have done. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I vote we do nothing more than provide references and continue to respond collegially as we would any other person. --Jayron 32 03:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The user in question has been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)