Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

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

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

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

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

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

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

mobile accessibility

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

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

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

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

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

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

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

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

article gripes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layout problem

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

Topics are not desks

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

"Choose" or "Select"?

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

Where are the recent archives???

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

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

 Skip to the bottom 

Links to specific project pages on this talk page, please

This page drives me crazy because there are no round trips. I'm on (say) Ref desk/Misc. and hit the "discussion" tab, which brings me here. But when I hit the "project page" tab from here, it'll take me to the general (and contentless) Ref. desk master page. From there I can hit the Ref. desk/misc. link to get back home, but why do we need to hassle that extra tedious step every time (at a time we don't need the Help desk or any of the other non-Ref.-desk pages)?

I know that I could do this myself, but I'd prefer to defer to someone who's been on these pages a little bit longer and is willing to just put links to the 7 or 8 Ref. desk project pages (Misc., Language, Entertainment, etc.) on this page, so we can find our way home non-stop. He or she would probably find the most appropriate format for the links.

Or maybe we can disaggregate this page, since some Talk:Ref. desk topics do in fact refer to a particular sub-page rather than the Desk as a whole. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I think a thin, horizontal toolbar, at the very top of the page so it's right under the "project page" and "discussion" tabs, would work well. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As a point of departure, I just created {{WP reference desks (header bar)}} and included it on this page. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, nicely done. -hydnjo (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks from me, too (after seeing how it works in practice). —— Shakescene (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thread

Am I reading this wrong, or is this comment wildly out of line: [2]? I've put a link to this discussion on User:Cuddlyable3's talk page. --Sean 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It struck me as odd when I read it, but then so did most of that discussion. This bit had "edge" though, in my reading. I'd have no problem if it were removed. // BL \\ (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is out of line, but not wildly out of line, in my opinion. Though every point referenced in Cuddlyable3's comment already existed in that thread (in fact was introduced by the original questioner himself) there was little reason for the reemphasis placed on the OP's Jewish identity. The OP's concern was whether or not someone is correctly the recipient of a compliment for something that he or she did not earn. In this case the daughter was pointed out by the OP to have merely been the recipient of the genetic basis for "beauty." Therefore I think the impropriety, which I don't think is great, is reintroducing the OP's Jewish identity. The OP's Jewish identity remained peripheral to the discussion even after the addition of Cuddlyable3's comments, therefore it could perhaps be said to have been gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for offence caused and have redacted my answer. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done APL, Steve Baker, Kurt Shaped Box and non RD regulars

Just want to congratulate the above 3 as well as the non RD regulars who helped for uncovering the unfortunate situation with the faked Insectivorous plants‎ page. For those who don't know what I'm referring to see, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 June 23#Venus Flytrap care and User talk:SteveBaker#Refdesk Cold Case :] and User talk:Drew R. Smith#I'm tired of all this. While it's clearly unfortunate that Drew felt the need to do this, I think it's to the credit of those who uncovered the hoax and to the credit of the RD and wikipedia itself that we ultimately did uncover it and didn't fall for the hoax even if we did waste a lot of time and effort in the process. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes well done, could someone summarise the whole tale in a paragraph for the rest of us, sounds intreeging ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve summarizes it well here.

To be honest I'm a little bit embarrassed about the whole big ordeal that going back and looking into this again has caused, I was just looking into it because I was curious. I wasn't trying to cause trouble for the guy. APL (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone should make a film of it. Doesn't sound like anyone is hurt anyway.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A briefer summary: Drew said something on the RD which was incorrect, when people challenged him on it, he claimed he read it in a book by Darwin. When people challenged him on that and demonstrated copies showing it didn't say what Drew claimed, Drew fudged details and produced a page allegedly from his version which supported his story. People looked into it more and Drew fudged more details but it died down. Later APL thought of it again and had a second look and realised it looked like a fake. After more research from APL, SB, KSB, Durova, Shoemaker's Holiday and others the evidence for it being a fake was overwhelming and to his credit, Drew eventually confessed he'd made it up. A whole lot of fuss followed including suggestions for a community ban (prior to this incident Drew had also had other issues including alleged sockpuppetry) but eventually it was decided to block him for 1 month with the understanding he'd be monitored carefully and likely banned if ever he steps over the line again.

BTW, SB's summary/recollection isn't entirely correct on one detail. In it he suggests Drew only produced the hoax page near the end of the RD thread, in fact the hoax page came fairly early on and it appears to be the hoax page that partly starts the hunt to find out more about Drew's version. Also reading that thread again, one comment is sadly ironic yet appropriate And I'm really astounded for what reason anyone should insert such a factual error in a copy of Darwin's text. --TheMaster17

Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good example to use when someone claims that Wikipedia is easily falsified by simply using fake references. In this case, the "many eyes" theory worked well. -- kainaw™ 20:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The upshot was (for those who don't care to wander around the dozen or so pages the discussion digressed into) was that after making a tiny error in answering a question on the science desk - then making up a fake quotation from Charles Darwin to cover up his error - then being called on that and faking a photograph that he claimed to be from the original book - then making up some story about how the book came from some library and was missing it's front page - THEN in response to some pretty good detective work from User:APL, denying that he'd faked it - THEN promising to deliver a photograph of himself holding said book...we finally got him to cave in and admit that he'd faked the whole thing. However, this guy has not been the best Wikipedian on the planet - he'd already been abusing a sock-puppet account and vandalising pages. We subsequently found some images of tropical fish that he claimed he'd taken himself that exhibit obvious half-toning...meaning that yes, he had taken the photo...but by photographing a page from a book. So the admins debated giving him an indefinite ban - but when several people pleaded to give the guy one more chance, it was eventually decided to block him for one month, then have an indefinite ban ready on a hair-trigger so that if he screws up one more time, the ban will be immediate and unconditional. I think that's a pretty fair outcome under the circumstances.

It just blows me away that someone would go so far in order to cover up a tiny error in a ref desk answer...when a simple "Ooops! My bad!" would have been perfectly adequate. SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." —The bard (Steve Summit (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

It is a strange to do. It reminds me of a sit-com plot. APL (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon here. Unbelievable. I remember seeing that bit of fuss about the "rare" Darwin copy, but never saw the rest of the saga. I've been sitting here for weeks (months?) thinking that some lucky punk had a really rare CD book! Great work, guys. Unbelievable dishonesty though... /shakes head 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Tempshill (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just proof that we have to be vigilant. Presence of a "cited source" is not a substitute for rigorous third-party verification. This can be difficult with non-digital sources, but it still needs to be done. Nimur (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pants on fire, bigtime. It is far harder to deal with psychos/vandals who make counterfactual assertions which are plausible, and who fabricate evidence, than obvious vandals who merely insert obscenities. Edison (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this all started with my simple question about caring for my new flytrap. To all those who responded, my plant is doing great! :-) cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hurray! APL (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RD Header template

The template should read, "...physician, dentist, veterinarian, lawyer," not "...doctor, dentist, veterinarian, lawyer." The two examples after "doctor" are types of doctors. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That would work only in countries which have a clue what a physician is. I'm happy with it as it is & do not think there is any should about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Speakers of most varieties of English would recognize "doctor" as a medical professional, and primarily a synonym for "physician"; indeed as the more common term than physician for a medical doctor. There are a few speakers of a rare variety of english known as "Pedantic English" which may not, but those readers are few and far between. --Jayron32 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Let it be... hydnjo (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with (Dr.?) Rosenbach on this one - I thought everyone knew what a physician is/was. However if this isn't the case, then I follow hydnjo. (Could I be more wet?)83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We know physician (heal thyself) in the UK, but I think we would never think of our doctors as physicians ... imo it is never used in day to day parlance over here. Although expect an Ulsterman or Scot to turn up shortly telling you that this is merely a sassenach shortcoming --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So who do you call "Mister" and who do you call "Doctor?" Seems odd. In the U.S, physicians and surgeons are both "doctors" with M.D. degrees. Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We have general practitioners (GPs) and house doctors, who are know as 'doctor', and we have consultants who are known as 'mister'. And yes, they're all doctors with medical degrees, though I'm sure there's a tougher and more expended training regime for the consultants. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So is a "House" doctor a medical genius able to diagnose obscure diseases at great cost of pain and suffering to the patient, while being obnoxious to everyone and abusing pain meds?? Please define "house" doctor. Is a surgeon a "consultant?" Where do barbers figure into this hierarchy? I would rather have a supperating appendix removed by a doctor than "Mister" barber-surgeon, thanks much. Edison (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A house doctor would be more your J.D. (Scrubs); by which analogy Christopher Turk is training to be a consultant. Barbers have been left behind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Mister" versus "Doctor" appelation is an idiosyncracy in the UK, possibly elsewhere in the world. Medical students study for years to obtain their MD and hence the right to be called "Doctor". If so inclined, they then spend more years progressing up the career ladder to the status of Consultant, where they earn the right to be called "Mister". A (Senior) House Officer in the UK is a level of debuting doctors. According to physician the term is less frequently used outside of North America, and the term "medical practitioner" appears to be a more standard and englobing term describing both doctors (of the medical not PhD variety) and surgeons. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mister" is a title conferred on qualified surgeons. Medical consultants are still called "Doctor", it's not a consultant vs. non-consultant issue but medicine vs. surgery. Fribbler (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I think the "or" here can be used inclusively ("and/or") rather than disjunctively ("either/or")
2. If that's reasonable, then I think you raise more problems than you solve by changing "doctor" to "physician", because physicians are often distinguished from surgeons and almost always from psychologists and psychiatrists, and sometimes a surgeon, psychiatrist or psychologist is precisely the professional from whom the prospective enquirer should seek advice in preference to the Reference Desk
3. If the second objection could be somehow worked around, I wouldn't personally be averse to some tweaking of the language to something like (very roughly) "a lawyer or a doctor of medicine, dentistry, surgery, psychology or veterinary medicine". —— Shakescene (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But as you suggest in 2, the more specific you are, the more likely you are by oversight to rule out groups - as you do in 3. Meanwhile, who ever considered a vet to be a doctor? In short, I disagree with pretty much all aspects of the premise of the original suggestion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In ads for over-the-counter analgesics etc, they usually add a disclaimer: "If pain persists, see your health professional", recognising that not all people choose to consult traditional "doctors" but some go to chiropractors, homeopaths, and other professionals. There are some conditions that only a medical professional is capable of treating and/or legally permitted to treat, but for the general redirection we're wanting, maybe we should consider more general wording as to who to go to. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In North America, vets and dentists have degrees with "doctor" in them and are commonly addressed as "Dr. (Surname)". Despite this, the word "doctor" is not normally taken to include them, nor does it include professors with a Ph.D. degree. I think the original wording should stand. --Anonymous, 03:44 UTC, August 30, 2009.

I pretty much agree."Doctors and dentists" is a very common phrase in the U.S. as I think it is in other Anglophone countries. "Health professional" would include homeopaths, chiropractors, osteopaths, etc., but often also nurses, physical therapists, phlebotomists, radiographers, and even pharmacists (called the "allied health professions" in my old New England community college). In a few cases, they might be the precise person to consult, but often they're not. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the role of pharmacists is up for debate in many countries, I would err towards keeping it as is. If we follow the same logic of differentiating between types of doctors (which is pretty self-explanatory having said that we do not give medical advice and titles, terms, roles and responsibililties vary between countries), by extension, "lawyer" would have to be broken up into categories which are less clear (sollicitor, barrister (whom in the UK you approach only via your sollicitor), notary, attorney to name but four). -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've recently heard dentists (of which DRosenbach is one) object to the "Doctors and dentists" phrasing, using a variant of "We went to medical school too, so we're every bit a "doctor" as a physician" argument. From my perspective it's a little weak, as both physicians and dentists have a tendency to get sniffy when someone with a non-medical Ph.D. calls themselves "Doctor". At any rate, I don't think that *adding* "physician" to the list would hurt. "...doctor, physician, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer." reads fine to me. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, dentists don't go to medical school. They go to dental school. --Scray (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I just saw an ad for a TV program about Stephen Hawking describing him as a physician rather than a physicist. hydnjo (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A proctologist, perhaps? --Sean 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ointments

Although I've already given an answer I'm a bit confused as to whether this is medical advice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Natural_number.3F_.28nummer.3F_wtf_lol.29

Someone else please examine thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple request for information (regarding natural topical analgesics), not a request for advice. No diagnostic or therapeutic judgment is needed to answer. The example given seems geared toward providing some specificity to the question, rather than being the specific target of the request. Looks fine by me. --Scray (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Daily subpages

Some of the reference desk pages are getting difficult to load because of their length, especially if you're on dial-up. Is it about time we started going to daily subpages, like those used on WP:CFD and the like? It will likely make archiving easier as well. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of it was that I had neglected to kick off the archiving bot for a couple of days... —Steve Summit (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The huge bulk of the current page seems to be taken up by the debate and some side-discussions over establishing a separate Ref. Desk for Religion. I don't think one is likely to be set up soon (although I'd tend to identify with the "give it a try" faction), so perhaps the talk so far could either be archived chronologically, or perhaps on its own topic page (my preference). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the RD pages not this talk page Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am - a desk like RD/S takes forever to load, even when the archiving bot is running daily. Turning it into transcribed subppages would make loading induividual days much easier to load, and - if a similar system was used to WP:CFD - it would still be possible to view all current discussions on any of the boards in a single file. Surely it would also help with archiving, since that is best done on a daily basis. The system works fine on most of the deletion process pages, why not use it here as well? Grutness...wha? 22:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As a point of information, though, any change from the current scheme would require more effort when it comes to archiving (at least in the short run). It wouldn't make it "easier". We have a bot that does everything, but based on the current scheme. Changing the process would require a certain amount of work. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this affect watchlisting the desks in any way? Would recent changes still appear for watchlisted desks, or would they only show for watchlisted daily subpages? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The current desks transclude more ancient posts, and yes it affects the watchlist - basically changes on posts approaching a week old don't appear on recent changes. I don't think that's a good idea by the way/83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For example I just made an edit to a topic on the current science desk - it shows up here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009_August_26&diff=311133670&oldid=311122272 in the archives, and there is no record on the desk on which the topic is still active, despite the change being active on the current desk ie: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Addition_Reaction_of_Alkynes_to_Alkenes

83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can the wiki software be made to also monitor changes on transcluded pages via the parent page?83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, 83.100. Personally, I follow the desks per "recent changes" on my watchlist, or "related changes" from a place linking all desks, using "Wikipedia" as namespace filter (like this, e.g.), or I check one of the desk's history, looking for section-editing of questions that interest me. All three methods unfortunately use the active desks. If every day is edited and stored separately, I'd have to add every day to my watchlist, check every day's history, and I don't know how I'd solve the "recent changes" method. This does look like a lot of work, possibly not worth that bother anymore (for me).

On the other hand, I don't think it's right for people to have to wait forever until the page loads. So, are there other possible ways to reduce this? Archiving more frequently? Not posting image or table files directly on the desks, but linking to them instead, ...? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that many questions are pretty much closed after 3 days - maybe the archiving feature could be shortened to apply after less than a week. (prepares for storm of protest..)

Perhaps something like if a post is over 3 days old, and does not receive edits withing 24hrs then archive, (and do not transclude) - I think the archiving bots are up to this task.

To speed up page loads the current transclusion should be abandoned I think.

This would mean that the desks would only contain 3 days of posts, plus active older discussions.

Depends on the desk - but the computer desk has answers in 1 day ~90% of the time, similarly science, the shorter entertainment desk seems to have a much lower turnover rate, humanities and language turn over in ~2days max >90% of the time - there's definately scope for chopping down.

Though I think there would have to be some mechanism for unanswered questions.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose archiving sections when they have received no edits for 48 hours. If a question is still receiving attention after 2 weeks, why shouldn't it still be on the main page after 2 weeks? --Tango (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that was rhetorical or not, but one good reason is that threads that have gone on for more than about 48 hours have usually changed to chat lines, or at least have gone off on a tangent that the OP invariably does not take part in. It's like, the first 24 hours after a question is asked are for answering the question, the next six days are for our fun. I'm not pointing fingers, mind; I know I'm no different in that regard. Matt Deres (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. At the same time, some questions remain untouched for a couple of days until someone provides an answer. Occasionally I scan the older questions at the top of the desk and specifically go for the unanswered ones, wishing to fill those gaps. I think a 48h period for untouched questions/threads in general may result in fewer questions answered and thus be to short. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Beta

The welcome page for the reference desks says (first bullet, second sub-bullet): "Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia." But I am currently using the beta software, in which the search box has moved to the top right of the screen. With that in mind, shouldn't the above line be changed to something like "entering search terms in the Wikipedia search box..." to remove any reference to the box's position pending the completion of the beta trial? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion which went nowhere. Algebraist 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, sorry I missed that discussion. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

92.23.96.174 vs Andy Murray

Do 92.23.96.174's comments in the 'When a Briton say: "my country"' section, wherein Andy Murray "remains unforgiven for that xenophobia" and the utterer of an "anti-English and oft-repeated remark" not fall squarely outside the living-persons policy? 87.114.133.227 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno man, but the title to this thread made me piss myself with laughter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.99 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP does indeed apply to the whole of Wikipedia, not just articles. But these are just opinions, albeit intemperate ones, and I don't think they would be struck out of a reference desk thread for that reason. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazing command...

...of Wiki markup here eh? Do not feed etc.? add: Oops, I didn't notice that sig with the fancy markup was by SineBot, sorry. hydnjo (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonder?

Can I be a volunteer? --Mhera (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to ask permission, just start answering questions - with good references that come from inside and/or outside of Wikipedia. --LarryMac | Talk 19:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And there's a link to the Ref Desk Guidelines at the top of this page. --LarryMac | Talk 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Or even here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guideline - Welcome aboard!83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

New helpers are always welcome, dive right in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.99 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Acne/medical advice

What do people thing about Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#acne? The first response was good (we can't give medical advice) but we then got a bunch of borderline responses cumulating in advice got from a registrar who specifically told the patient not to inform the consultant of it by 92.10.162.237. If the question is not deleted, IMHO at least 92.10.162.237's response should be Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should all be collapsed so it isn't readily visible. Perhaps that will keep people from responding. Hmm... I wonder where all those people are that vehemently disagreed when I said that stating "We don't give medical advice" will not keep people from giving out medical advice? -- kainaw™ 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It gives a diagnosis and asks for treatment options so it violates the guideline. It would be difficult to justify keeping it when we delete similar questions about less common more serious ailments. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur that it should be either deleted or at the very least collapsed with a reminder that we don't give medical advice, whether it be for acne, cancer, Parkinson's disease. I wonder if had it been moved to the science desk that this would have been closed sooner. It's a fine line answering a general question about medical matters where we can link to an article. This seems to have stepped over the line. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this essay hits the right note and makes the line a lot less fine. --Sean 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?! This is a clear example of medical advice - why are we debating it? I'm deleting it right now! SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot issues

Due to some corruption (described at User talk:Scsbot#Corruption in WP:RD.2FS) I've left a message on scsbot's talkpage, which I believe will cause it to stop working, presumably until its maintainer (who has been offline for several days) can attend to it. I guess this means it won't add the date header to the reference desks tomorrow, so until it's fixed can I ask someone to take care of the headers manually. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Medical/Legal disclaimer

At the top of each Wikipedia Reference desk, there is a disclaimer only stating that no medical/legal advice is given, and to ask the requisite professional in that field. I believe the following would be wise as an addition, because I have noticed a fair number of people who don't seem to understand the vast difference in knowledge between random people and professionals, and it is something which isn't really said, except tangentially, in the "Wikipedia does not give medical advice" link:

"Among other reasons, professionals must be asked any medical and/or legal questions becasue they have years of education and licenses in their repective fields. This qualifies them to answer questions specific to each situation, in ways that random people are not."

I believe this is sufficiently neutral (it doesn't say whether a specific professional is any good), doesn't take up much more space (if people won't read that, they might not be reading anything before posting), and yet adds to the general quality of Wikipedia by actually explaining what, for some odd reason, seem arbitrary to some people.

Of course, maybe I'm just too rational in my thinking, and it won't cut down at all on problems.

I also thought of replacing "answer questions" with "know how to resolve every situation in a specific way,' fumbled around with wording, then decided that "answer questions" should be enough to explain it to 99% of most readers. However, I can understand where the current statemtn atop to pages might be confusing to some who can't understand that distinction between licensed professionals and random people, even random smart RD people.

If not, that's fine, but I did see a way where it could be improved, and wanted to suggest it. An alternative is to include the above wording in the disclaimer link.4.68.248.130 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it'll help, because:

• people don't read the disclaimer already, and many actively try to elicit the advice even when the daftness of asking their question here is pointed out
• the reason we avoid giving these types of advice isn't really "it takes a long time to learn be a doctor", but that the consequences of the advice being wrong are so disproportionately great (e.g. it's very easy to put a sore head down to being a plain old headache, and miss a stroke or meningitis). If people asked us "fix my structural engineering issue" or "what kind of safety system should I have on my new nuclear reactor" then we'd demur from answering these too, for the same reason. Luckily they don't, but people don't seem to have the same compunction about asking strangers (whose only qualifications are often slightly better Google skills) legal and medical questions.

--Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Cyberadvice: The ethical implications of giving professional advice over the Internet", posted here over two years ago by TenOfAllTrades, might be of interest. And so would This thread, where I found the link and where one of our few Medical Doctors (sadly retired from editing WP, it seems) comments as well (I remembered the quote ""IAAD," (I Am A Doctor) "but advice here may be worth no more than you paid for it." ---Sluzzelin talk 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Finlay here. The disclaimer already tells people not to ask the questions. If someone isn;t reading the disclaimer that is already here, they aren't going to read a longer version of it. There's no need to add this to it. --Jayron32 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with your re-wording is that some of the people who would answer medical questions might well be 100% qualified to do so. We're not saying it's wrong for unqualified people to answer these questions - it's wrong for ALL people - even the 100% well-qualified ones to answer them. Why? Because we have no way to verify that those people are who they claim to be. A bad answer from someone pretending to be a doctor could easily kill someone who relies upon it. There are also legal concerns - offering the general public medical advice & suggesting treatment without a medical license is illegal in many jurisdictions.

But in the end - it's clear that most people don't read the rules - adding more verbiage to them will make them even less likely to read them. They mostly exist for our own benefit...when something goes wrong, we can point to them and say "This Was Wrong" and dive in and swiftly fix it by deleting the offending material. SteveBaker (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the reference desk now a joke site and a chatroom

(Not 'begging the question' but a complaint)

• Entertainment#Dorothy's_Closet_-_whatever_happened_to_them?
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#People's Crusade...? -why is it necessary to ask the questioner to link to a page, when the information is clear in the question, and then finish with a non-sensical response.?
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#german_names, meanings
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Name of a conceptual error - I wonder what "So it's not so much that the camel developed a hump to survive, it's that those camel ancestors with a tendency toward humps had a competitive advantage over their brethren that didn't" has to do with the question?
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Julius Caesar as tribune

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

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

If the question has been dealt with or seriously attempted, there is no real problem with having a bit of fun surrounded by <small></small> tags. But some of those examples you listed (and I've noticed quite a few others) are worrisome and I think we should be taking our OPs and their queries seriously. We appear to have crossed a line somewhere if this kind of thing is considered acceptable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I might be becoming a nuisance, always referring to older threads, but this thread has an earlier discussion on the topic. I agree with 83.100 that a wave of jokes has been flooding some of the desks recently, and I admit that I'm not a fan of reading joke answers before anyone even attempted to answer the question. Break's over, deskians, let's get back to work. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While the Reference Desk can be an awesome resource, the "witty" side comments, in-jokes and other nonsense is getting too much, and this is not a new problem either. I've seen questioners getting really angry at this sort of thing in the past, only to be told that Wikipedia is a free resource run by volunteers as if that's some sort of excuse for people ignoring the purpose of the Reference Desk and engaging in their own banter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. And while we're at it, can we please make an effort to refer to sources (WP pages, or outside) in our answers. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that our primary purpose is to provide references, I think that is a very good idea. Although it's a lot of fun to provide answers in general out of our own experience and expertise, we all need to work on citing sources. Nimur (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree!10draftsdeep (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider links to previous discussions on a topic to be very helpful in resolving an issue. Thanks! --Sean 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we sometimes veer off-topic a little too quickly. To be fair, though, the Caesar tribune question was at least succinctly and swiftly answered before things went off-sides. It's easy to go overboard on this kind of stuff, especially in an environment like WP, where we strive to be neutral and to maintain the proper tone at all times while editing articles; all the more temptation to let loose a bit where the rules are more lenient. I'm not sure what can be done about this other than self-policing, maybe the occasional comment on a user talk page or something. Matt Deres (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten worse, though I think some amount of side discussions relevant to the question are useful to the OP in seeing other facets of the issue. My comment here, for example, does not answer the question directly, and I had doubts about posting it, but I decided that it improves the overall response and I stand by it. Straight-up joke comments that do not contribute to the answer -- and I'm thinking of one RD regular in particular -- should be reined in. --Sean 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whom? 90.208.66.97 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best not to make this thread about one person. --Sean 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We all know who. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't. That's why I asked. (I'm fine with Sean's response.) 90.208.66.97 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

One thing that would help is if the questioner would come back and mark it "resolved" or even just say "thank you", and that would end it. Some do, but often they don't, and they leave themselves open to rambling by many editors, not just moi. When information is posted with no acknowledgment, as often happens, there's no way to know if that's truly what the questioner wanted to know, unless it's as obvious as the nose on your face, which it often is not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is that many of our questioners don't know how to mark things as resolved, and in any case, we are a volunteer service function, so it's not really for us to expect such things. And in many cases, I've seen relevant information get added after the OP has given thanks (and sometimes I've seen them come back and thank again). So long as the answers are relevant to the OP question, it's hard to ever say that a thread is "resolved", unless it's an open-and-shut "read our article" answer (and the respondent has actually checked our article to be sure the answer is really there). And sometimes threads include an interesting fork too. Franamax (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to literally use the "resolved" template, they could use normal editing to say "thank you", and then a regular visitor could post the "resolved" template, which does not preclude adding more info, but it suggests that the OP feels like he got the info he needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's nice when they say thank you, but I still don't see the purpose of the "resolved" template. It's really a decision of the individual responder: do you thjink that the question has been adequately dealt with, or do you think you have something pertinent to add? If you think the OP has already been answered, then don't add anything (especially not just because you feel like you should comment on every thread). If you have something new to add, do it (but please people, actually read the previous responses so we don't end up with a series of identical answers). If you feel the need to add something witty, which will usually be a response to one of the regular's answers or comments, do it in small and double-indent to make it clear that it's not intended as a serious addition. In all these cases, individual restraint and self-editing is the key. We don't need formal structures if we all exercise our own inner voices telling us "time to shut up now". :) Franamax (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we can't control what the questioner does. Maybe the "resolved" template is overkill, although I've seen it used a few times. In any case, the questions get archived within a week or so, whether they get answered or not. I think the most recent use of "resolved" was when that one guy posted yet another quiz question and another user (not I) said DO NOT ANSWER in big bold letters and marked it "resolved" or "done" or something. I don't see a big problem with adding comments that restate previous comments, i.e. to reinforce those comments - or, of course, to contradict previous comments if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the rationale for using a "resolved" template in the case you describe as a hint to others not to keep on answering. It's always amazing to see the first responder say "we don't do homework", then other earnest editors come along and do the homework anyway. But I think the better response when you definitely want the discussion to end is to use either a collapse box ({{hidden begin}}/{{hidden end}}) or to remove the question altogether, leaving an explanation with a pointer to the RefTalk discussion and a back-pointer on your RefTalk thread to your removal diff. This gets the point across a little more smoothly than banner headlines.

And I'm not talking so much about reinforcing previous comments, what I see all too often is clear evidence that the responder didn't even bother to read the previous activity in the thread, they read the original question and blindly clicked "edit" to get their own comment in. Like when the first answer points to a source, then the fith answer points to the exact same source as if it's a new contribution. I don't see how this is respectful of the OP's time reading the answer to their question, nor to the efforts of the previous respondents. A good example is when the first answer is "we don't do homework" and then someone else answers the question without outlining why they don't think it's a homework question. We all need to work together to ensure coherence in our responses. Of course though, if you have a contrary answer, post away. But as pointed out, we digress... Franamax (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved and unresolved

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

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

An interesting idea - like the big question-mark template that's used in WP:ANI sometimes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I recall having seen some big arguments at the WP:HELP desk about using templates at all, since they take up space both in wiki-text and page-load time, and there were questions about their overenthusiastic/premature use.

What I use at WP:VPT, when I'm sure that I've clearly resolved a question (i.e. when the OP says "thanks, I tried that and it works perfectly!") is my own short markup, stolen from the tomb of the unknown Wikipedian :) :

✓ Resolved. Editor wasn't using a computer to access Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shakescene, in your own example where you decided that your own answer was insufficient, I'd suggest prefacing your followup with:

✗ Wait, I wasn't clear enough before!

Here's what I should have said...

I still think that use of formal templates at the top of a thread can be problematic in several ways. But these are just thinking-thoughts, not proposed solutions. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, adding resolved tags came up on the Help Desk's talk page. While I felt that the person who brought it up was being purposely obtuse, I think that reading though the conversation there may be pertinent here. -- kainaw™ 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think Fuhgettaboutit's comments of 01:25 16Apr09 are most apropos to the situation on our desks here. Plus they linked to the even earlier discussion I was thinking of, which is where I got the idea for my condensed markup which uses up hardly any bytes - so I see now that mine is actually original art. World, upon thee I bestow my inestimable gift! :) Franamax (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicotine and chest congestion

I wanted to point out to this OP that nicotine probably is not directly causing his/her chest issues and it usually leaves the body fairly quickly (a few hours iirc). Here is the question:

Tried all the possible ways to quit smoking but not beyond a week as i realise the level of nicotine rising in my checst causing congestion, is there any home or other remedy to decreasing the level of nicotine from the body,i know for sure to quit is the best but how to reduce the level?anyone

The OP is experiencing congestion. If we want to be consistent, we shouldn't touch this right? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We have lots of "gray area" or "spectrum" when it comes to medical advice, but this one seems to be a clear-cut request. This question, like many others, should be flagged with one of our medical-advice templates. Nimur (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The questioner self-diagnosed him/herself as having high nicotine and is asking for treatment. We do not offer treatment. In my opinion, it doesn't matter how absurd the request is. For example, if I say: "I keep getting headaches because my underpants are too tight. How can I stop my headaches?" ... We don't accept the self-diagnosis and do not offer treatment. -- kainaw™ 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, and we can't make exceptions for any medical questions we happen to think we know the answer to. I flagged this one with a template; hopefully other editors will catch on. Nimur (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Let the template bombing begin (just joking). Hopefully fear will prevent its ever needing to be used. Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the text in the template in reasonable, but I'm not generally in favour of templating stuff like this. In my experience, a personal message is less likely to be taken as an attack or to put the "target" in a defensive position. While I haven't gone through every single regular contributor, I'd be greatly surprised if there was a single one that didn't chat or joke at least once in a while. The problem really comes from the degree of chatting, not any individual instance (though joking about before the question has been answered at all would be close). What I'd like to avoid is A templating B the first time B cracks a joke that rubs A the wrong way, thus compelling B to template A (and possible C, D, and E, etc.) every time they provide a reply that isn't 100% germane to the question in their opinion. By keeping things personal and informal it's easier to everyone to remain positive - and nobody wants the black mark that a "naughty you" template gives. Just my $.02. Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. I'd hate to see RD templates being used even once, warning/advice templates may seem benign, but IMO they're a pretty dismissive way of dealing with problems. We're all reasonable people here and to be successful on the RD's, you pretty much have to be able to express yourself well - so any notes about excessive or inappropriate kibitzing can just as easily be framed the same way.

I have kind of an impression of the editor identity Sean refers to above ("I'm thinking of one RD regular in particular" - "Whom?" - "I think it's best not to make this thread about one person" - does anyone else find that a bit ironic?) and I was thinking a day before this came up about dropping them a note. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have email enabled. We need to be very kind about this sort of discussion, unless it's clear trolling. I'm as guilty as anyone of dropping in <small> comments that seem funny to my own warped sense of the world. I'd always appreciate someone letting me know privately that they think I'm going too far, but I know that if I got a template on my talk page, I'd feel rather bruised. Polite notes is the way to go IMO. Franamax (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm as guilty at times as the next editor here [remember we're lonely people without real lives who crave virtual company ;-).] , but I agree with the earlier point about the problem arising from the accumulation and extension of banter, rather than in any one individual aside or any one editor's behaviour. I don't like the idea of plastering the template on any individual's talk page, but a small, very mildly worded template for the Ref Desk thread itself might be helpful if posted at the point where the banter seems to be overtaking the original question (often, say after the second or third non-germane exchange). Not so much to criticise any one other editor's previous posts, but just to say it's time to stop or slow down the extraneous back-and-forth in favour of pondering (and hopefully actually answering) the original query. If worded generally enough, such a template could also be used to indicate that non-jocular discussions are moving off-track. e.g. a recent thread at the Language desk, when the inquirer asked if there was a word for the surrender of rights that accompanies military enlistment, which diverted into a polite but slightly-heated debate about whether military recruits surrender any more rights than new hires at a civilian job. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a separate but related problem is that OPs are not asked to try to stay involved in the ensuing responses to a question posed. Too many of these "questions" are little more than "stump the reference desk folks," or attempts to set off some sort of creative/intellectual response. I think that can get a little tiresome and tedious, although sometimes it is done well, and everybody is "refreshed" by it. I think that what I would like to say is that the use of the reference desk is a two-way street, involving responsibilities for civil discourse on both sides. I am probably not in favor of any "template" solutions but I will have to ask myself to find out. Bus stop (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial thought on this is that no, we're a one way street. Part of sitting at a desk is that people come up and ask you stuff and at some point they go away. Sometimes they will do that in the middle of you answering the question, but that's just how life works. Sometimes they're just trying to piss you off. Doesn't matter, we choose to sit behind the desk, providing the service. Sometimes they actually say thanks. (And lots of people do say thanks here!) Basically, anyone who wants to try to provide answers here is first of all a servant. That's how I see it anyway, and I'm trying out a renewed emphasis on sourcing or w/linking my responses (but I know it won't last). Franamax (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

When I ask a question, I try to respond as little as possible. I'll answer clarifying questions, and I'll try and redirect if I think the answers are veering too far off course, but I try to stay out of it. I'm interested in what insight Ref Deskers have to offer, and my experience (here and elsewhere) is that when the OP keeps interjecting, the answers seem to trail off (unless the OP is being confrontational). That's really why I've never thanked the answerers* - if someone with a brilliant insight comes along at day seven, seeing a "Thanks!" may put them off responding because they think the question is over. The only safe time to add a thanks is after the question is archived ... but then no one sees it because the question is archived. (* So I'll do it here: "Thanks Ref Deskers! You've been a real help.") -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your small text, my point was that while many of us might be thinking of one user in particular, there's no reason to think that it's the same user! As for templates vs. a hand-written response, my feeling is that because templates are less personal, dinging someone with one says "your post strays outside of community norms for this area of the site" rather than "I have enough of a personal problem with your post that I've taken the time to dig up links to these old discussions". I don't see much reason to debate it, though; just don't use it if you prefer a personal message. --Sean 14:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And for this IE user, what you think is small text, however coded, is not small on my screen, but the same size as the rest of the text. Not everyone realizes you are doing anything except respond "factually" to the question, unless one looks at the edit page. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you have a relatively low-resolution monitor then. Unfortunately, there's no way to control how any particular browser chooses fonts and sizes when it renders HTML. (That's actually the point of HTML, it's context-independent and each end-point renders it however it thinks best.) The <small> notation is the best we can do, but that's why I try to double-indent my "joke" comments on the Desks themselves. Franamax (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

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

Planet colour guy

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

Fixed the link for you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well could be. I notice that he's asked Steve a question 'off desk' - that was one of PCG's hallmarks too, wasn't it? I seem to remember that Steve was getting quite irritated by it the last time it happened. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he did the same with me - I got equally irritated. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then he's won. That's trolls' real aim - to piss people off. My advice: stay cool, and don't give in to the temptation to get irritated. Otherwise they win and we lose, yet we, and not they, have control over whether we allow this win-lose outcome to occur. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This troll is heartbreaking. I think we can all agree that replacing the front page with "WILLY ON WHEEEEEEELS!!!!1!" is high comedy, but to troll a small handful of linguistics nerds with implausible unattested words is just pathetic. Get help, Planet Color Guy! --Sean 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Think this is about person below - maybe they posted in the wrong section, or maybe they are the same, I don't know.?83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea if this guy is a Willy-sock, but check out this page for some interesting reading regarding vandals and WP. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying that at least Willy had ambition, which PCG seems to utterly lack. --Sean 04:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, I don't understand how this question is an issue. It's poorly phrased and not clear, but I don't understand how it's in any way problematic... Vimescarrot (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me, but I think people have been getting questions of a similar type where the user gets answers, but won't take them on board, and just re-asks the question in a different way later on.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come into this a few days later: yes, the editor in question is PCG. For background, his account was indef blocked (across all Wikimedia projects, I believe) last year for a combination of community exhaustion for bad editing plus repeated personal threats to other users. Since his IP return, I've monitored his contribs, making sure he understands that 'pedia space is absolutely off-limits but allowing the RD as an outlet of sorts. However, I notice that there have been several comments of exasperation (as the one here) since -- is it time to enforce the block fully? I figure that, in light of the original block, I should have already made user talk off limits, and will do so the next time I notice him editing such. — Lomn 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this User:Freewayguy, by the way? That name comes to mind from your description of his history. Yes, I do remember interacting with him (if it's the same person) on this page before when he was trying to get himself unblocked. He's got some sort of mental health problem, IIRC. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if memory serves that was one of his many aliases. --Tango (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the account under which he was blocked. I'm not aware of other accounts, but he did switch signature styles several times a week. — Lomn 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is the same guy - I'm not convinced that he's doing this in bad faith. I could imagine someone with some kind of obsessive/compulsive need to know everything possible - to understand every tiniest detail - within some narrowly focussed topic. Assuming good faith, therefore, I think it's important to be crystal clear with him that we aren't going to keep answering essentially the same question over and over again - and that when we're done answering, we're not going to entertain followup questions. But I don't think setting the admin's on him is justified unless/until we can prove that there is bad faith or explicit rule-breakage going on. This is a tricky one though - the guy can be annoying as all hell. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a case where the "first responder" or "clued-in regular" could put a collapse box around the thread, with the title being "Answered, please do not respond further"? Plus notice here on the talk page. The nice thing about a collapse-box is that it takes things relatively off-line but doesn't erase them completely, and it avoids the awkwardness of "resolved" templates - where seemingly in this case the Q never actually gets resolved. Just a suggestion. Franamax (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When I worked at a real life refdesk (in a bookstore), there was a guy who obviously had a piece missing who would come in at least once a week with an enormous and grubby printout of hundreds of books on cacti. These were not general-interest fare and there was basically no chance that we had a single one of them, which didn't dissuade him from asking about each one. You could tell who the new employees were because they didn't coincidentally have to take a bathroom break when "Cactus Guy" came through the door. --Sean 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever attempt to order the books for him? There was a guy a bit like that when I worked in Tandy's. Every single morning, he'd be out front from about 8am, waiting for the shop to open. Then he'd come in to buy a single AAA battery. He'd been doing it for years, apparently. I once made the mistake of asking him if he'd like me to order him a whole case of the things for him and he got really upset with me. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In very VERY slight defense of this guy... I found his website once. He has a lot of pages that describe what it would be like to colonize other planets and goes into detail about what the temperature would be and what the place would look like (including colors). So, he isn't just being a complete ass. He is attempting to add information to his website. He simply doesn't "get it" when he gets an answer that he doesn't like. -- kainaw™ 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also the case that he'll re-ask some time later if he doesn't understand the answer given. He doesn't seem to like asking people to elaborate at the time, if you know what I mean. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Language desk questioner appears to be successful troll

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

e.g. [3], [4]. Posts are from various IPs starting 88.77. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There was another where they got asked to stop..

It's this [5] that bemuses me - they already have two answers - one of which is nonsensical - why ask?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the IP's that keeps asking questions he already knows the answer to, just to pose a trivia quiz on a given ref desk. First time I saw one of those, about a-through-z, I thought it was a sincere question and tried to give a sincere answer. At some point it became obvious the IP was just jerking us around, and other users (not I) have threatened to have him range-blocked. Now that's taking things seriously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy is pretty puzzling. The questions he asks do seem generally like the kinds of things one would be asked in a linguistics class, but his examples are so bizarre that it makes me wonder. I do wish he'd explain himself... -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the track of these kinds of questions he's been asking, it's perfectly clear that he already knows the answer and he's just playing games with those who initially thought his questions were sincere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User Baseball Bugs

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

---

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

Acknowledge that it was that dastardly User:hydnjo drawing the moustache, not Bugs. :) Franamax (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked this editor twice to take the reference desk more seriously. This edit [6] is the final straw for me. I've mentioned this on the editors talk page. To be honest this account is starting to look like it's main reason for existance is vandalism. That's my opinion.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor won't listen to me, will someone else explain it to them please.[7] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To be bluntly honest, you are using an anon IP and you haphazardly deleted Toto Baggins' signature on his comment. So, asking me to take sides against someone who is using a user account, which allows me to see a history of edits attributed to the user, who has not decided to be sloppy with deleting other people's edits is a rather large request. This is not a case of anon IP bashing. It is a case of being able to view the history of edits between two users - one which has a clear history and the other does not. So, I'm left looking at the recent sloppy edits. -- kainaw™ 14:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you check my contributions? It's easy to to [8] and yes it is an example of "anon IP bashing- what else is it?" I'm not aware I accidentally deleted any signature -where?83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No I can't easily find these sloppy edits, (except where a page was blanked accidentally a few days ago) why not give the example, so I could fix it and apologise.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been directly communicating to BaseballBugs on my talk page about this issue; moments after I started that discussion, the issue was reported to Administrator Noticeboard (I don't know who did that). I think we have made the point to Bugs. I hope he agrees that we can solve this issue without a block or any other administrator's intervention, but this really depends on how cooperative Baseball Bugs is willing to be. His contributions are sometimes helpful and are appreciated. However, he has continued to make disruptive joke commentary on the reference desk despite repeated discussions, messages, and eventually warnings. On my talk page, he brought up some valid concerns, but his repeated joke posts are breaking Wikipedia to make a point. I sincerely hope we can resolve this without needing a block. Edited from my earlier comment at the ANI Nimur (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I count at least 5 behavioral complaints against the above IP address on his talk page. Assuming it's just one user and not a hundred, he needs to clean up his own act before attacking me. And he's also acting in a discriminatory/prejudicial way. The comment he cited above was in response to several off-topic comments by others. Yet I don't see him schlepping those guys here or to ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't report you to this page, I left a message on your talk page, and a message on the reference desk talk pages. What other editors do doesn't make what you do ok. Also if I get a complaint I try to improve. Why don't you do the same?

If I got those complaints and continued to do the same things and not try to improve I would have been banned a long time ago wouldn't I. So please stop suggesting that I should "clean up my act"83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The above user is an alleged newbie who seems to really know his way around, hence I have very little regard for his sincerity or his words. Even responding to him is a questionable practice on my part. Also note that while yelping about my alleged denials, he also avoids answering inquiries about himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, here is my suggestion. Stop any sarcastic remarks at the desk, I have not reviewed the edits listed here or at ANI, but I suggest you take another look at your editing style. Once you do so, there will be no issue, any further action by editors, IP socks, or not, will be in violation of our policies, and you can take action appropriately. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave the sarcastic remarks to the other editors that the IP did not see fit to drag here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point Erector Euphonious is trying to make incidentally, does anyone imagine Attenborough's voice when reading the paragraphs in italics? is that you're attacking the individual instead of his argument. Which seems to be true. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Users who question the behavior of others, and then have their own behavior questioned in kind, often claim it's a "personal" attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. So? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So the guy just below (WTWAG) has the right sense of perspective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Fer shur, and I want you to know that I do appreciate your attempt to assist. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Grow a sense of humor. Bugs is doing absolutely no harm. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. His constant unhelpful, sarcastic comments are detrimental to the Reference Desks, and are at times almost antagonistic to the point of trying to goad a reaction out of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrillyria (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Why the bloody L are you bringing that up here, when I already answered you on the other page? That question to me reads like he's hoping to find a certain type of victim to hate-crimes. You read it differently than I do. But that doesn't make you any better or smarter than I am. It's just how we see things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Both interpretations are possible. In situations like that, the right response is to assume good faith and certainly is not to remove the question without discussion. And I was mentioning that mostly as an aside; I was mainly addressing the original subject of this posting, your many joke responses. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I won't remove any other questions, no matter how offensive they seem. I'll leave that for you all, the experts in such things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Not Censored

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

I don't know, but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with discussing the operation of the Reference Desks. --LarryMac | Talk 16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect that is "heads" and "hits" combined at random. Larry is right, this has nothing to do with the ref desk, though. I suggest you file a bug on the [bugzilla.wikimedia.org bugtracker] saying the word "hits" (and "hit" if it is there) should be removed from the list of possible words (I think the captcha list is handled by the sysadmins, although I could be wrong). --Tango (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew this was the wrong place to bring it up, but of all the places I could think of, it was the 'most' appropriate out of them all. Couldn't think of anywhere else. And, of course I knew it wasn't deliberate and was a combination of two other (completely innocuous) words, but here an unfortunate combination was produced. I will do that, Tango, thanks. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't think of anywhere, then WP:VPM is a much better place than here. Algebraist 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, the Wikipedia:Help desk is intended for people with questions about Wikipedia. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the 92-5=? type - were they too elitist?77.86.47.174 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Too ineffective. Algebraist 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone writes individual captcha's. They are generated by a pseudorandom generator in a program (that someone wrote). I think we must accept occasional "unfortunate" combinations as the price of the technology. Requiring both letters and numbers in captcha's will reduce such accidents, but not eliminate them. An example is PEN15 (which was once issued as a vehicle registration plate in the U.K.). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this same discussion come up many times about this exact captcha. I don't know where to find exact links to the conversations, but it was decided that it was a combination of "heads" and "hits", and that there really isn't anything to do about it. It wasn't actually saying a "bad word", but you were looking for it. :) Some may not even notice. Besides, it's not viewed as an extremely offensive word, at least in the US. It's even allowed to be said on television. I wouldn't really worry about it. hmwith☮ 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably there is a wordlist somewhere that these words come from. Just remove "hits" from the list and you are done. --Tango (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Computer Desk - Nonsense Removed

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

Looks like a legitimate (homework-based) question, but a useless response. I'll restore the question. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dysfunctional links in archived section headings

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

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/August 2007
  • 2007 August 25 (username and timestamp in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/September 2007
  • 2007 September 1 (2 problematic section headings: unknown reason, italics in heading)
  • 2007 September 7 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/November 2007
  • 2007 November 23 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/December 2007
  • 2007 December 14 (italics in heading)
  • 2007 December 16 (discussion having been moved to another desk)
  • 2007 December 29 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/January 2008
  • 2008 January 7 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/February 2008
  • 2008 February 28 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/March 2008
  • 2008 March 2 (2 problematic section headings: strikeout in heading, wikified italics in heading)
  • 2008 March 3 (IPA symbols and square brackets in heading)
  • 2008 March 13 (wikified italics in heading)
  • 2008 March 18 (wikified italics in heading)
  • 2008 March 20 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/April 2008
  • 2008 April 1 (italics in section heading)
  • 2008 April 2 (italics in heading)
  • 2008 April 13 (italics in heading)
  • 2008 April 20 (unknown reason)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/May 2008
  • 2008 May 14 (strikeout in heading)
  • 2008 May 22 (discussion having been moved to another desk)
  • 2008 May 24 (discussion having been moved to another desk)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/June 2008
  • 2008 June 7 (italics in heading)
  • 2008 June 10 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/August 2008
  • 2008 August 21 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/September 2008
  • 2008 September 13 (italics in heading)
  • 2008 September 15 (foreign characters and boldface type in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/October 2008
  • 2008 October 14 (italics in heading)
  • 2008 October 16 (quotation marks and boldface type in heading)
  • 2008 October 17 (italics in heading)
  • 2008 October 24 (italics and 1 double quotation mark in heading)

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

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/January 2009
  • 2009 January 27 (italics in heading)
  • 2009 January 29 (italics and square brackets in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/February 2009
  • 2009 February 9 (italics in heading)
  • 2009 February 12 (italics in heading)
  • 2009 February 18 (italics in heading)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/March 2009
  • 2009 March 2 (discussion having been moved to another desk)
  • 2009 March 10 (discussion having been moved to another desk)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/August 2009
  • 2009 August 29 (empty section)

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

• User:Wavelength/About languages/Wikipedia reference desk#Answers
  • 2009 February 12 (square brackets)
    

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

This will likely cause our archivemaster Steve Summit to have a brain explosion. Most of the problems appear to be caused by a mismatch between the way the parser handles "anchors" and scsbot's way of transcibing them. I've looked at a few cases and I can pick out two:

• In the italics case, LangRef-01Sep-Q#4, hovering over Q4 gives the link [10], whereas the bot is transcribing [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 1#consultation on stress on word ''Chinese''|consultation on stress on word ''Chinese'']] as the link. The "'" (single-quote) character is disallowed in URL's and it looks as though the wiki parser just drops them in the heading-to-address translation.
• And in the case of your own upage .../Answers (why so many J questions), the square braces (which are also disallowed in a URL) are being replaced with escape-sequences in the TOC of the archive page [11], whereas the bot transcript onto your own page keeps the brackets as square, which the parser then refuses to render as a valid link.

Hehe, does that make it any clearer lol? Certain characters are not allowed in web URL's and every piece of software handles them differently. I think Steve is AWOL right now, so the coder answer might be delayed. In the meantime, I'd suggest you just fix up the links or ignore the problem. People can still just call up the day-page for the archive. Whether or not the archive search function is being affected, I dunno. My hour is up on this one! :) Franamax (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: it's a known bug. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be acceptable (for now) to proactively (?) fix headings that won't archive right. This not being considered a violation of "don't edit others posts" since there's a good reason (call it formatting) to do it.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Such agreement exists. We can't force everyone to adhere to it, though -- any sufficiently determined jerk will be able to offend someone. I hope you'll recognize the offending response as being distinctly outside the norm before railing against us in the future. — Lomn 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How is answering in some kind of bizarre riddle format "treating questioners like shit"? It's only unhelpful. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't trolling, it is just unhelpful. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this, yes, the first response had too many arcane clues - but with just a little more polishing it might have actually promoted what I think should be our primary aim - helping the questioner to develop their own research skills and discovery process. A little subtle wiki- and ext-linking would have made that answer quite helpful and maybe allowed the OP to find the answer themselves. Our better course is to try to educate the answerer on what the RD's are all about. Franamax (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Joke Room, revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Advice Removal (Sept 17 2009)

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

I don't think it could get much more obvious than that. Well, there's the PMS eyeache thing I replied to rather than replacing, but it's close. :-). 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good removal. Antenatal stuff is serious business - the only advice we should ever be giving in this situation is 'talk to a qualified medical professional'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Taxa

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

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

Note, also, that the IP address 70.171.239.21 (who wrote the unsigned comment above) is very likely to be Taxa himself. His own IP address is in the range 71.1* and he has been caught in the past using a false signature to disguise this (ie normal text formatted to resemble a Wiki signature) [12]. He has twice reverted my efforts to collapse his trolling thread on the Humanities desk about "Irish vs Germans in America"; I have no intention of breaking the three-revert rule to deal with him, so I'm taking it to Admin. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

ok I don't think IP address 70.171.239.21 is anything like User:TAXA , (unless there is a deliberate attempt to mislead by using different styles and apparent interest - which would be wrong under WP:AGF and I just wouldn't believe anyone would waste their time like that anyway..)

So lets forget about that link please.

And also try to avoid personal attacks as well as accusations of sockpuppetry and stop the mudslinging etc. (both of you)

however I agree that Taxa's posts are too soapboxy, (I've mentioned it already to them), wouldn't it be a better idea to talk to them, before going to the admin board...83.100.251.196 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The length of his sentences, the way he punctuates (note the overuse of commas), the fact that they're both trolling along similar lines and the fact that Taxa has done exactly this sort of thing before... All of these are sufficient for me. It's not a question of wasting HIS time in an elaborate deception, it's about wasting OUR time.

For this reason, I am not going to spend another second dealing with this blatant misuse of the Ref Desk. I'll leave it in others' hands.Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The anon IP has been blocked.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside it seems that many of these problematic questions come from posters who appear to be describing a purely local view, or a view of the world as they see it rather than being based in global reality. It might be helpful to consider trying to point out that the theories they have are not shared or confirmed by the majority of the population before calling troll.

Also consider that their experience of what the general population thinks or does might not match yours - eg they might live in a strict amish, or hassidic jewish community with little outside contact. (though I would hope they would be self aware of this)83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to do that, than jump and say 'meaningless post' which doesn't help them much. Also trying to extract an answerable question through requests for clarification may help a lot.

I accept though that that is not really part of what we have to do on the reference desk - but it's an option.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF no longer applies. Taxa is a sockpuppet of a well-known Ref Desk troll. [13] [14] [15] [16] Observe also the similarity between the responses given above by 70.171.239.21 and those given by User:Multimillionaire (another sockpuppet of the same user) when called out on his abuse of the Ref Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit I don't understand is the changing of signature. I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed at [17] - ie that the condition here is youth, poorly worded questions, and 'out of the box thinking' rather than an attempt to annoy or troll. Right or wrong labelling Taxa as a sockpuppet seems unfair (speaking as someone who has been briefly blocked for a false accusation of sockpuppetry I tend towards caution in this area).

I would suggest either to leave the questions to others, or take a deep breath, and attempt to get closure on whatever question can be extracted from their posts. I really don't like it either when we have to teach rather than answer, and when any answerable question is obscured in a maze of personal experience, and blinkered through linear thought processes.

Beyond that I think asking for comment (and an explanation of the odd signature editing) from TAXA on this page would be a good idea.83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Also is it not possible for an admin to check if TAXA's IP resolves to the same as the anon IP? Which should settle things - I would agree that there are sufficient grounds for this to be acceptable.83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That would require an SPI. Although asking an admin (or suggesting, as I did) to block all accounts on that IP address, could also tell us something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ok I don't know what a SPI is, I've asked TAXA to comment [18].83.100.251.196 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation (see WP:SPI). In cases where you're not sure of some procedure someone has mentioned, you can usually figure them out by typing wp: (followed by whatever the initialism was, no spaces) in the search box. Matt Deres (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at SPI so was trying to figure out if it was one of these painful sounding proceedures: System Packet Interface, Security Parameter Index, Service Package Interpreter, Stateful Packet Inspection, Sensitive personal information... 83.100.251.196 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Soapboxing

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

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

---

Soapboxy Question goes here...

please do not soapbox reason given etc

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

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