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 

Stock response

Bus stop wrote "Initial responders need simply pose a question to the OP asking for clarification or restatement or reframing of question.", and Jack of Oz proposed a stock response. Just after that, 87.81.230.195 reported Another "Is X black or white?" query, which also could have been simply answered with such a stock response. I therefore propose we use the following generic wording:

• Before we can answer your question, please explain to us why you are asking this question.

and mark the topic with {{Stale|Waiting for OP to reply.}}, so that other editors can skip over the question. — Sebastian 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good approach. It's worth a try. I would add that if someone somehow definitively knows the answer to the question the OP is asking, they could rub out the "stock response". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I even think it would be appropriate to do so when someone thought it was a cromulent question after all. In either case, the editor would naturally also remove the {{stale}} template and add a new post with either a reply or an interpretation/explanation of the question. — Sebastian 05:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple "Why do you ask?" would suffice. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, it should. But knowing the RD crowd, people will be so eager to post opinions, witticisms and off-topic talk that those four little words will quickly be drowned. — Sebastian 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that we've discussed this user's posting habits several times before (most recently in September), I think pre-emptive deletion is also a reasonable response to repeated questions of this sort -- though I avoid that once someone else has already answered. — Lomn 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Either of "please explain to us why you are asking.." and "why do you ask" seem quite intrusive to me. The object is to discover more about what information the OP is seeking, but the wording says "why do you want to know?", which we don't actually care about. How about "In order to answer your question, we need more information. Can you explain more clearly what problem you are trying to solve?" Franamax (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Or to keep it short, "Please elaborate" or "Please explain further". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I'm not in favour of tiptoeing around an issue or using a (mild and with a purpose) form of deceit with a questioner. I'm also not in favour of needing to know why a question is being asked - unless of course there's an actual need for clarification. If answering a question about someone's ethnic background makes you (in the generic sense of you, this isn't directed at anyone in particular), then you shouldn't answer the question, just as you shouldn't answer a question if you have no idea what the answer is.

I have a degree in anthropology; I've had it beaten into my head more than most that the idea of race is very much a social one and based only upon the flimsiest of genetic pretexts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can claim race has no scientific meaning (I'd agree), but there's no point claiming Barack Obama isn't black... because he is. If someone asks us if George Washington was white, why not just be honest and say "yes"? What would be the point of getting in their face about why they're asking? The answer is obvious, so say it. If the answer isn't obvious, then say so and explain why. A racist or unconscious racist isn't going to get educated by refusing to answer, but maybe they'll get an understanding of the realities involved if we say "x would be considered white by these standards, but Asian by those standards, which is why it's important to realize that classing people by race is just a social construct easily open to multiple interpretations." Matt Deres (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, even if race does not have much of any genetic meaning, it does still have that social meaning. It's a very real social meaning and one that has refused to be dismissed even in the face of knowing it has no genetic meaning. I think that the urge to say, "it has no genetic meaning!" is a nice knee-jerk approach that most of us who went to college in the last, oh, twenty years or so have been trained to say in response, but in many cases it is a non sequitur, since when people ask about someone's race they are often not intending us to give a genetic answer. I think explaining race in terms of who would think it is more useful than just saying "it's meaningless!" because it's not meaningless. It has loads of meaning—it just isn't something determined by straightforward one-drop-rule genetics. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Matt Deres, FWIW. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How about please see our article on xyz, if it is notable that will provide a citation listing their color. Dmcq (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

71.100 is back

71.100, a well known problematic RD contributor is back. I'm not sure whether he/she's a troll but ultimately the history shows major problems from this user and the recent contribs to RD/C aren't much better so I suggest they either be ignored or their questions deleted. I noticed this yesterday but sadly didn't do anything about it and even made a few responses, my bad. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a range, or is it a specific IP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Range. You can see that [2] where they changed IP from the previous one. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. It looks like the first three numbers are the same, the fourth one changes, so it might be a candidate for a range block. Its latest contrib at the Computer desk is this: [3] Is that a problematic entry? I can't really tell. But if a range of IP's is causing trouble, I would think you could take it to WP:ANI and report what's going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long but while I'm not an admin it's unlikely a range block is feasible. If you do a whois, you'll see the range is part of a netblock belong to Verizon that is from 71.96.0.0 - 71.127.255.255 so theoretically the editor could fall into that entire range. In reality, Verizon may distribute the netblock in such a way that the editor could only have a smaller subset. But the editor has definitely been under different parts of the 71.100 range before e.g. 71.100.0 and I see he/she's now at 71.100.160. In any case, even blocking the entire 71.100.4.x range for a total of 256 (well probably 254) addresses is likely to be seen as too much collateral damage for one user even given that the long term disruption, while annoying is not continous. And once we expand it to an entire netblock of 71.100 i.e. 65,536 addresses it'll be seen as even worse. This is similar with a number of other well known problematic users e.g. the one mentioned below or the one who harasses you I believe is similar. BTW, the latest entry was a continuation of a long running series of complaints relating to some bad experience this user alleged had with a product bought off Ebay where the user often attacked anyone who said something they didn't like or didn't read the entire series of complaints and started to came off as more of a rant then a genuine questions, which seems to be common trend with this user. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted joke

I've deleted this bit of puerility. I hope that's within-process. Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, sadly another well known problematic user Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And wouldn't you know what the SMBC was today... —Akrabbim^talk 04:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall Carl Sagan used to pronounce that planet's name with the emphasis on the first syllable, which is technically correct. That made it sound like "urine-us", which was presumed to be an improvement over the more common pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the contributor what you have done and on what basis when objectionable material is removed. Edison (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a UK-based IP with a grand total of 3 contributions, on the 3rd, 6th and 9th, of which the first two appear to be legit, so it's probably a dynamic IP. But this really highlights another issue. There's been plenty of discussion here about, "Yeh, we should zap inappropriate entries", but when someone actually does, even when it's obviously a junior-high level joke like this one, someone else says, "No, no, no!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

uw-v1 template added to the talk page. Tevildo (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They should have stuck with "The Georgian Star", I think - none of this would have happened. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything from 79.75.x and 79.67.x is a Tiscali DSL IP and can be deleted safely from the Reference Desks. It's a well-known banned user and sockpuppeteer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

After checking it's actually vandalism or whatever of course; this isn't a license to just blindly revert everything without assuming good faith, as said above that's a huge range of dynamic ips shared by loads of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been checked. In the last year, there has never been a contribution from those ranges (to the Ref Desks) that wasn't from the banned user in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't preclude the possibility of constructive edits coming from that range in the future. I'm just saying, before blindly reverting everything at least check to see if it's constructive or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

One should always check what an edit was before reverting. There's always a chance they might make a useful contribution, even if it's by accident. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not always, Bugs. Consider a volunteer at a real library reference desk. Suppose that half the time, they offer good, useful, constructive advice to library patrons, and half the time they respond with profanity and hurl excrement. Moreover, the volunteer in this case is an adult, and fully aware of what is, and is not, acceptable behaviour in society. In such a case, we ask that person to leave. It's no longer our desire to search through their shit looking for kernels of value, and such edits can and should be reverted on sight. See Wikipedia:Banning policy for more. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, you can't ban IP's. And I'm not talking about searching anything. I'm saying if an IP posts a reasonable question, you normally would not delete it. And I don't intend to memorize which subnets are considered to be vandals so as to blindly revert them as soon as you see it's from that subnet - I would still see what they wrote in that particular instance. Maybe a warning could be posted on the page somehow? "Watch out for the following IP range", or whatever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, you can't "ban" ips. TenOfAllTrades example of the volunteer at a real library reference desk doesn't work because we have no way of determining whether the person on the other side of the ip is the banned user or an innocent user trying to help out. Given this is a large range of ips we're dealing with, there is always the possibility that someone unrelated might try and edit constructively in the future. Of course, pay special attention to edits coming from that range, but do not just revert everything without checking if it's constructive or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To both of you — I'm not saying I expect everyone to know these IPs at a glance, though it would be unsurprising if many Ref Desk regulars did recognize them after years of experience. I just caution that you shouldn't be surprised if posts from these IPs are deleted on sight. We've accumulated sufficient experience (as I said, years) with this editor to know that he's almost certainly the only one from this IP range who edits the Ref Desk. (I have checked the 79.75 range's contributions; his style and interests are...distinctive.) His posts wouldn't be deleted if he didn't have such a long and (unfortunately) consistent history of trolling, stalking, vandalism (to the Desk, to user pages, and to article space), and harrassment. I'll even go out on a limb and say that if we mistakenly lose one or two posts a year from 'innocent' users of the same ISP, that's acceptable collateral damage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, regardless of the source, we should at least look at what the post is before zapping it. It might well be a case of "it's that guy again" most of the time, but it's still worth a look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Werewolf question

Some newly-registered user posted a question asking whether werewolves are real or not, then proceeded to mock the answers he got. Any reason not to delete the section? Or should we cut some slack to a supposed newbie? Especially as his first act was to ask to be "adopted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support deleting it. Even if we AGF it still is inappropriate and the newbie can be told this in a polite way. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose deletion. "Are werewolves real or fake?" is a perfectly legitimate question, if a little sad that it needs to be asked. The initial answer ("fake", plus a link) is perfectly legitimate. The only controversial bit is that a lot of stuff got added after that, and I note with some irony that Bugs generated a great deal of it. — Lomn 21:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP started it with his mocking response to the reasonable answer that you pointed out, and when I asked if the question was a joke, the response affirmed it was, so after that it didn't matter. However, as someone pointed out, that's the "Miscellaneous" ref desk, so trying to say that a question there is "inappropriate" is harder to justify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey ‘Bugs’. If you haven't already, read the OP's talk page. It explains all. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And judging by the answers which followed, the moral of this story is, don't feed the trolls unless you want a clusterf*ck of stupidity on the RefDesk. I joined in too, so I take part of the blame. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD/M

An anon user has been changing WP:RD/M from redirection to the Misc desk to the Math desk. It has been a redirect to the Misc desk for as long as I can remember and it stayed that way from 2007 until recently. Can we please establish a consensus on this issue and stop the edit war between IPs. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Establish consensus? I'm pretty sure we have a consensus, and have had for years. If someone wants to redesign the refdesk redirects, they should be discussing it here, not acting unilaterally. Revert any changes, and warn and block if necessary. Algebraist 11:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Medical advice on RD/Misc

I removed this dubious request for medical advice. Diff. Nimur (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"wot is the largst most painfulest boil?" Probably sitting in a kettle full of water that's on high heat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Monday everybody. Hopefully everyone's lo_ad^ed u_p on _co_ff^ee and ready to tackle another week of RD miscellany. Nimur (talk) 14:14 UTC 6:14 AM PST, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bring that coffee to a boil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nimur & Bugs. 'Boil Dude' also deleted a lot of text from the same page. Including Nimurs' reply about 'Private Ryan' if I recall correctly. IP's from England, they must be snowed in and have nothing better to do. :-) (Is it 'uncivil' of me to suggest that?:) ) AFAIK it's all been restored by Saddhiyama, except for this diff of Nimurs'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I wonder if it's vandalism or just a screwup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, us Brits don't screw up, so it must be vandalism. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We're the exception that proves Hanlon's razor, are we? --Tango (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"The exception that proves the rules" is an archaic phrase from the days when "prove" meant "test". The phrase is actually "the exception that tests the rule" when translated from Old. So yes, we test the razor and prove...nothing, since it's a razor and not a rule. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Which could be the reason that test prints of photos are called "proofs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. We have (of course) an article: Exception that proves the rule. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So when the Brits lost the 13 Colonies, it wasn't a screwup, it was vandalism? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Losing one colony, Mr 'Tiger', may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose 13 looks like carelessness" --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we just didn't have enough convicts to fill the place. Europe did. :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Quinion doesn't agree with you, Vimescarrot. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Go tell the QI elves that. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What does OP mean?

This question appears quite frequently on the Ref. Desk which shows that plenty of people who come here don't know the chatroom jargon. It also took me some time to figure out what it might refer to. I'm thinking that we should add some general guideline for RD respondents to either avoid or explain jargon and chatroom talk. Wikipedia:Explain jargon should apply to RD as much as to the rest of Wikipedia. How about adding a new bullet point to Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoanswer:

• Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and avoid Internet slang.

What do you guys think? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always disliked OP for the reasons of its relative obscurity. I'd hazard a guess that only a minority of people reading the boards know what it means. I'd be as happy to discourage its use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not obscure in the slightest; it's a very well known and frequently used term across the entire internet. We shouldn't stop using it, but I agree we should make it easier for people to learn what it means (mainly by fixing the article OP to be more informative, as I imagine most people will look there when they're unsure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not obscure... to you. The abreviation may be well known in some English-language chatrooms and forums, but that's far from being the "entire Internet". And we occasionally may get questions from people who don't use Internet a lot, but instead spend most of their lives in the so-called real world, where nobody know what "OP" means. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While that's true, this is the internet, not the real world. Perhaps we should start publishing the reference desks in books and running a phone service for people unfamiliar with the internet? What I'm trying to say here is, of course we should have a page somewhere to explain what "OP" means, but we shouldn't stop using the term just because some people might not know what it means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed quite some time ago; I found a reference here, but the original discussion mentioned must be in the RD/Talk archive, not the RD/Guidelines/Talk archives, and searching the latter brought up enough traumatic memories for one day. From a quick glance at the guidelines, it looks like the "avoid Netspeak" clause never made it to the final version. In any event I like Kpalion's suggestion. --LarryMac | Talk 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to use the abbreviation 'OP'. There was a day when I didn't know what it meant, as there was for all of us, but somehow we managed to get over it. I'm sure other people can, too. Besides, this is, after all, an encyclopaedia - a place people come when there is something they don't understand. If they can't ask us what 'OP' means, what CAN they ask us? My vote says it stays. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A general drive towards more formal language is okay; the language formalism used on the reference desk is already legions above the median level of internet discourse. But it would be silly for us to dictate the choice of words and abbreviations that are used - especially when in this case the jargon is so relevant and specifically applicable. "OP" unambiguously identifies a particular member of the discussion. This is useful terminology for a variety of purposes. Nimur (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How many standard deviations are in a legion? Anyway, I was thinking a template that linked OP to a definition might be handy... unfortunately it looks like {{OP}} is taken. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if the question comes up so frequently, then it really isn't all that well-known. "OP" is not "unambiguous" if people don't know what it means; it's not even ambiguous, it's just completely unknown. It can clearly be seen in many of the questions we get that some people are not jacked-in cyberspace veterans and some people are native English speakers; expecting those people to know all the acronyms is unrealistic.

If a person does participate in chat rooms, web forums, or whatever replacement for Usenet has been created this week, then the various idiosyncracies of such places can be learned. (I participate in one where we commonly use "HMGJJ" to indicate the same as "OMG" but I'd never expect anybody who hasn't been in that group for at least a month to pick that up and just "get over it"). But the desks aren't a cozy social circle, many of our questioners may visit once or twice and never come back. They don't have a chance to learn the language, the in-jokes and such. This is why "suitly emphazi" died a quick and needed death.

As I recall from the Guidelines Wars, one of the driving forces behind avoiding such jargon was to emphasize the "this is not a chat room" clause. The "regulars" have enough trouble with that, if a new visitor who is familiar with that type of discourse sees it being used here, it's hard then to scold him and say "no no, this r serious thread!"

We're supposed to be providing information, not needlessly confusing people. Eschew Obfuscation. --LarryMac | Talk 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What I hear is the argument: "I don't know what OP means. Therefore, most people don't know what OP means. Therefore, nobody can ever use OP." It isn't a convincing argument to me. -- kainaw™ 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read again. --LarryMac | Talk 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple, though repetitive, solution is when they ask, we tell them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what OP meant for a long time, because it's only used in some chat threads (no doubt descended from Usenet and AOL). I very rarely saw it in years on various Yahoo! Groups or http://www.Politics1.com . No one's fingers will break off if we use some more transparent term like [original] enquirer/inquirer; you won't even have to hit the [Shift] key, so what's the problem?

The purpose of the Reference Desk is, after all, to help people, and those who ask here (and answer) come from all backgrounds and degrees of Internet proficiency. This is not an Internet chat room. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I think I had to ask at one point with "OP" stands for. When I hear "OP" I think of that kid on the Andy Griffith Show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

However, "OP" never occurs in the actual answers to questions, it only occurs when discussing what the original enquirer meant by their question (i.e. in the long tail) - so OP doesn't impede understanding of the substantive answer. And what about BenRG's answers using words like "metric expansion of space"? What the heck does that mean? Oh yeah - I can look it up or ask what it means... So yes, we should have an explanation somewhere, perhaps up in the RD header (oops, "reference desk") or in an article and I would say "prefer the term not be used without explanation". But I'll still likely use it. Franamax (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OP can mean a pretty broad range of things (it's not always clear that "OP" refers to the Ref Desk itself, rather than the question's content); the uninitiated might assume it referred to a Roman Catholic priestly order. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. When I use it I mean "oafish palooka" but don't tell anyone. :) Franamax (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see there's an OP page in which this is the first definition given. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a recent change, BTW. Earlier today that definition was buried much lower. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at the earlier version. I oppose that edit, since when did the requirements of (a tiny subset of) Wikipedia become the priority for encyclopedic definitions? Franamax (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedic definition it's a disambiguation page. And many disambiguation pages that share names with Wikipedia terms have far more prominent links on them, for example edit, article, sandbox etc

Point taken. However your examples have italicized (template) notes at the top, whereas the edit in question just moves existing text to a more prominent place, which I find to be undue weight in context. A hatnote would be fine - but we would have to sell that to the rest of en:wiki. What wording would you propose? Franamax (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not solve this with a bot that automatically replaces all instances of OP with "the person or semi-intelligent animal or seemingly intelligent robot that posed the original question, assuming it was actually a question and a statement," -- kainaw™ 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that would lead to considerable confusion when talking about members of the Ordo Praedicatorum. This has already been said upstairs. I think we should just leave things the way they are. If someone asks what OP means, someone is bound to answer. If they don't ask, we can assume that either 1) they know; 2) they don't know but will find out; 3) they don't know and don't care; and we should not assume that not knowing what OP means completely destroys any possibility of them ever knowing the answer to the question they originally came her to post. Some people may be like that, but we needn't lose faith in the entirety of humanity just because of a mere few. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I hadn't heard of the term "OP" either (until I asked here). It would be nice to come up with a less cryptic term - but I can't think of one. Typing "Original poster" every time is a pain and we need something respectful. But what are the alternatives? "Questioner"? "Supplicant"?! Oh - I have an idea: Let's ask the Wikipedia language reference desk! SteveBaker (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the Opie parallel: A reader comes to the ref desk all childlike, wide-eyed and innocent, curious about the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to be assuming that a term is necessary. I don't think one is. Here's an example from RD/Misc - "I think what the OP is worried about is ..." Umm, hello, "the OP" is in the "same room" so to speak. It seems quite condescending to speak of someone in the third person like that. How about "JohnJacobSchmidt, are you asking if ..."? Involve the person in the discussion, don't treat him like someone who's come before a tribunal and who may not speak until the judges have discussed his fate. Another example - "In response to the OP, Craig Ferguson recently got a tattoo ..." In that case, the initial clause could be dropped completely - "Craig Ferguson recently got a tattoo..." Boom. Perhaps "Hey 292.51.22.1 (can I call you 292?), the other editors seem to have gone off on a tangent, but Craig Ferguson recently got a tattoo...". Again, involve the person in the discussion; maybe he'll stick around and help build an encyclopedia. --LarryMac | Talk 12:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Frequently the OP is an IP address. The IP OP as I call it. What should we call him? The IP? Call him by all of his nodes? Or just the first node? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my second example? --LarryMac | Talk 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a wild guess. :) Calling them by their IP address seems rather silly, especially as it could be a different body the next time. But if you want to do that, go ahead. And considering how poor their English can be, maybe you don't want them to stick around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is typing out an IP can take time (copying and pasting may be faster but still takes time). The reason why people may address the OP could be because they are were earlier discussing something else not addressed to the OP, because of confusing identing in the thread or something of that sort. In some cases, you may not even remember the OP's name or IP (which is understandable) but remember the question and may not want to bother with going back to find it Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP OP is an Origami Practitioner of the Internationally Prestigious variety. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about Origami, you surely meant Prestidigitational (?)—— Shakescene (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't call him Shirley. Unless his last name is Povich.

Is there any instance where referring to the questioner rather than the OP would not work? Really, it is to most bogus cant to suggest that there is any need whatsoever for this stupid and rarely understood initialism, given that the english language provides perfectly adaquate and comprehensible alternatives. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It takes longer to type. And since many of them come from IP's, calling them by their IP address seems weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just use the person's name or IP and it works fine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Between "takes a long time to write" (a word of ten characters, ffs) and an ill-understood initialism, you choose obscurity. I guess if it makes you feel in the know, that's fine. Never mind the alienation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I use abbreviations because this is an area for discussion. I write for my audience. Since the audience here are people who frequent Internet-message boards, I feel free to use such abbreviations. Whenever writing in a formal tone (such as in an entry), I avoid abbreviations. The OP is not being addressed directly when we use the abbreviation. It saves me a lot of time, just like it saves me time to use terms such as "IIRC," "YMMV," and "BTW." Taken individually, they only save a few seconds. But taken together, they save significant amounts of time.--Drknkn (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OP stands for "original poster." I don't know why any one didn't just say that up front in this thread.--Drknkn (talk)

Because the OP wasn't asking what OP means, he/she obviously knew what it means and was asking if we should be using it on the Desks or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IP questions on several RD's

An IP user 209.129.85.4 (talk) has posted several questions on several desks that range from "doh - read the article" questions to the totally incoherent (see [4]). Looking at the talk page, that IP has been blocked several times before, most recently in September. I don't think the current behaviour is disruptive, but the questions are so incoherent that I'm wondering. --ColinFine (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for a twist, try answering in Latin and see what Opie says. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the question I linked to wasn't completely incoherent: somebody has replied, and the reply supplied a missing piece of the question that makes it make sense. So perhaps the problem is just that the IP has difficulty expressing themselves. --ColinFine (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't think the questions are incoherent; they just seem very narrow so that only people with some previous knowledge of the subject area will understand what they're asking. Also, since the ip is a school there are likely many people on it - not all of those questions may have been from the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.124 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP may not have been blocked since September, but the user (User:Freewayguy) was blocked as recently as last week. Officially he's banned from all WM projects, but unofficially we've left him the Ref Desk to discourage having to clean up after him in the encyclopedia proper. If someone disagrees with this approach, you're more than welcome to take up the discussion somewhere, but I've decided that my involvement to this point means that such a discussion shouldn't be mine. — Lomn 13:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's banned, why is he not blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

His account is blocked, but IPs available to him rotate fairly frequently. This 209. address appears fairly stable, but he's usually editing from 69.something (I figure home vs school, and I note that the 209. has reasonable and intelligible contribs scattered throughout, which lends credence to "school"). I've made clear to him that admins are free to remove his remaining editing privileges at any time (given that he is, in fact, banned), but given my level of involvement, I'm not going to be the one to do it. On the other hand, I'm not going to stand in anybody's way, either. — Lomn 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

71.100 is back (again)

Following up #71.100 is back, he's back again today as 71.100.14.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), again with the same behaviour. A search of the RD archives notes the same range has been disrupting the RD since at least 2008. I agree that a rangeblock is to heavy handed, but the IP appears to be stable for a day or two at a stretch. So I propose we actively start blocking this individual as he appears. Comments? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous checkuser on now-indeffed Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indicates that this is her - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention who this was was per WP:DENY but I understand it's sometimes necessary to discuss who we're talking about so now that it's came up see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 65#GM Crops heads up for more info on the history of this IP (and [5] if you still have any doubts about who this is). This user has a very long history of problematic editing and soapboxing on the RD and elsewhere on wikipedia (and has had lots of accounts) since early 2007 or so, hence why I recommended deleting or ignoring their posts above. Ignoring doesn't seem to be going very well, as it almost never does so deleting would be best, combined with blocking the IP on sight would be fine with me. In fact, I noticed one of their posts before it received any responses and was very tempted to delete but ended up chickening out afraid it would generate needless drama which this IP may or may not like. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much cryptic bs; is this LightCurrent or someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else. As said, they've been known by various names which you can find from the above links, e.g. Taxa, Biggerbannana and I think Barringa. They've had various problems on the RD and given the various identities we've no real name except for 71.100. LC uses a Tiscali (UK) IP, this user a Verizon Florida IP. I've now found out (admitedly it doesn't surprise me, I wax expecting Barringa wasn't the oldest identity) the user has an even older identity, as Pce3@ij.net who signed as IMHO from 2006 (and was using a different ISP then). Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, I archived in situ the latest round from 71.100. I left the third question apparently from someone else. While some may feel this gives too much attention to a banned user, I'm reluctant to delete it since I know some people disagree with deleting questions and answers when others have responded and it's better then leaving it there for more responses Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll Be Bold and delete the ones on the science desk...they are junk - and so are the replies. SteveBaker (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll be bold and remove the childish responses he left about having the questions removed. -- kainaw™ 05:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. I should add it was also spammy since the 'meaningless, undirected babble' was his own work [6] Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

209 IP

On the Misc desk, I've made a subtle edit to remove what I consider to be racial trolling, or perhaps just offensively irrelevant comment and a reasonable response to it. I'm thinking about hacking out more such comments from this IP, but wanted to run it past you lot. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

diff links would be nice so we know what you're talking about.

Presumably, this diff [7]. Nothing good would have come from leaving it there, but no doubt people disagree as to the appropriateness of editing another's words in this way. Personally, I think the OP was almost certainly trolling, and the question was just an excuse for the comment which Dweller removed. They were probably hoping people would end up in a lengthy discussion of race, with some people claiming others were being over-sensitive, etc. 86.178.230.208 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am usually more clueless than most people here about being trolled. That said, the OP did post 4 questions involving race in a row; this last one was less explicitly about race than the others; I (naively, perhaps) don't think this is troll behavior. I think we should answer questions about race, including the offensive ones, and we should hedge and lecture as appropriate. Maybe the best response in this case would have been "don't remove his offtopic aside about race, but also don't rise to the bait and get drawn into a trollthread". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dweller, I understand your distaste for this user's obsession with miscegenation - and I share it - but you're not supposed to alter someone's signed posts on the RefDesk and I think you know that. And of all the things to decide to censor, the word "white" seems like a truly bizarre place to start. I know I don't have to tell you that WP isn't censored either. Then on top of all that you altered Comet Tuttle's post, where he/she was trying to simply set the poster straight. Will you now censor my post due to my use of the forbidden "w" word? Frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed - and even more shocked that nobody else has called you on it. If you really thought the thread was unacceptable, you should have removed it completely and discussed the situation here, which has been policy for quite some time. Matt Deres (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an overreaction. However, keep in mind that wikipedia articles are not censored for content, but discussion pages operate under somewhat different rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this mess again and I'm guessing SB is going to leave a strongly worded response but I feel I have no choice. IMHO removing the white bit was acceptable if Dweller made it clearer he did it, which he apparently didn't. E.g. a simple, 'I've removed the speculation on subject's racial identity, please don't speculate on such details per WP:BLP signed' perhaps with a <removed per WP:BLP then a sig> where the wording occured and informing the people who's posts you've modified. Removing the posts would also have been okay but if people feel the post have merit removing the speculation would often still be preferred. It's a potential WP:BLP vio and while occuring in the RD isn't so bad, it should still be avoided. Speaking as a regular at WP:BLP/N and also few other articles with such problems, removing the problematic bits is sometimes the best option because it avoids people yelling when their posts are removed, and reinserting the same problematic posts without removing the unacceptable content. Note that this should only be done if the content is clearly bad enough to require immediete removal. I should add that I've never done it here from memory, I'm referring to experience in other talk pages. (In fact I haven't done it much at all more referring to what I've seen and discussed and tend to be me of the 'screw it, if they can't be bothered to obey simple rules, I'm not going to help them' kind of person and just remove the post). P.S. Looking into this some more, I doubt this is a particular controversial claim, so I personally don't think it really needed to be removed, but I will generally support any removal of speculation on LPs as a matter of principle if it comes down to it. One of the obvious points is that it shouldn't be necessary for me to find out if speculation on LP has any merit or may be controversial, people should simply avoid it on wikipedia. P.P.S. I recognise Dweller hasn't explained why he/she removed the comments. If it was simply because he/she found them offensive then I agree it was probably best to leave as is. P.P.P.S. Wikipedia:TALK:Editing comments#Editing comments is of relevance Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I do strongly disagree. Aside from fixing egregious formatting problems that either make the question hard to read - or screws up the page layout - then I don't think there is ever a case for editing someone elses' post. It's not just my opinion - it's quite clearly set out in our guidelines: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers. If the post is so horrible that it's either contrary to our guidelines or worth 'being bold' about - then remove it and refer the poster here to discuss it. All or nothing - no removal or changing of words, paragraphs, punctuation - not even links. Either remove the whole thing and be prepared to justify your actions - or do nothing. It's grossly unfair to change someones' words and make it look like they said something other than they really did say. If they said something unbearably nasty - why should you make them look good by cleaning it up? That might cause respondants to spend a lot of time answering what appears to be a nice, friendly OP - when in fact they are the kind of evil bastard who you wouldn't help if they paid you to. So no! Don't clean up their questions - either delete them or leave them alone. But worst of all, this could become a slippery slope - how long would it be before people would start fixing wording - making it look like people said something completely different than what they actually said? The only safe rule is an absolute one...we don't edit the content of other people's posts...period. Don't even add links or correct spelling, etc. In an online community, all we have as individuals is our words - those at least should be sacrosanct. I made a stand about this in the past and will do so again if necessary. Editing other people's posts is quite utterly unacceptable to me - and that's what the WP:RD guidelines quite clearly say. SteveBaker (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are acceptable exceptions, such as vicious personal attacks or potential BLP violations or other gross rule-breaking. However, in those cases, it's best to make clear what's being done. Like what you could do if someone called you a [personal attack redacted]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not even then. Remove the whole damn thing and be done with it. The rules for BLP are a little different because we're talking about signed statements of opinion (rather than encyclopedia articles), but even so, the options are to either leave it or remove it completely. There's no gain to anyone for bowdlerizing the text and plenty of reasons not to do it. Matt Deres (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take it up with other users, including admins, who sometimes do things as I have illustrated above, typically on BLP issues, personal attacks, and too much personal information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "other users" elsewhere in Wikipedia - I'm concerned about people who violate the guidelines for the reference desk. They quite clearly state that you must not edit other people's posts (except, rarely, to fix formatting problems). If there is a vicious personal attack then delete the entire post and be prepared to justify doing so - or leave it alone. Why? Consider the scope for misinformation! You say something very mild indeed about me - I delete the mild words and stick in a [personal attack redacted] tag and everyone will assume you did something terrible! Anyway - we don't have to argue about this - it's a clearly stated, unambiguous refdesk guideline - and it would take a clear consensus of the group to change that. Trust me - you won't get a consensus, so that's not gonna happen. Please stick to the guidelines - thank you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying that if you see someone do that, you could speak to them about it. My attitude in general is, let it stand, no matter what it is (unless it's a gross violation of wikipedia policy). Someone took an unexplained vicious shot at me the other day, and someone else removed it shortly before the attacker was blocked. I was tempted to put it back, to let everyone see the poster for what he is, as I would on my own talk page, but I decided not to. But what's your view on that kind of situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Post Deleted on Misc Desk

I've deleted a post from an IP OP on the Misc Desk, as the post was not relevant to the thread it was posted on, and I didn't make a new section for it because it was a request for opinion (about what would happen if Steven Gerrard left Liverpool FC.) It can be reverted if anyone so wishes. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The only factual answer you can give to a question like that is, "What would happen? He would no longer be on the roster. That's what would happen." His stats could be cited. Anything beyond that information is guesswork. Does wikipedia have a forum page? And I don't mean the IIRC or whatever it's called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC is short for If I Recall Correctly. IRC is Internet Relay Chat. Took me a while to remember either of those, though... Vimescarrot (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And IICR ('If I Can Remember') is sometimes used instead of IIRC for those who can't remember nor recall what it stands for. :) --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

diff links would be nice so we know what you're talking about.

Yes. :) So, besides the infamous IRC, does wikipedia have a forum or chat page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I've ever seen. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the bit at the bottom of this is what I am talking about. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all relevant to the question above it, but sometimes newbies fail to create a new heading, and then someone will politely add it for them. In this case, however, the question is not appropriate for the ref desk anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Perhaps we should answer requests for opinion with suggestions for websites where that opinion can be found? For opinion about Steven Gerrard we could have sent the OP to the Liverpool FC fanclub forum at http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php - that's better than deleting what seems to the OP like a reasonable question. Deleting posts should be a matter of last resort in seeking to avoid disruption. Giving the OP something useful with a factual response - even if it's not exactly what they wanted - would be a friendlier, less intimidating, thing to do IMHO. SteveBaker (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many times the answerers will respond with non-wiki websites. However, you're proposing a more uniform approach. The question is, how far should we go in looking stuff up for the OP? I typically ask the OP if they've checked Google, or whatever, as there's no point in re-inventing the wheel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably 99% of our questioners could find their answers with a Google or Wikipedia search. The fact that they DO ask here is a reflection of the undeniable fact that most people don't know how to do good search. In the real world, reference desk librarians are there to use their expertise with book indices and bibliographies to find information for people who can't do that for themselves for whatever reason. We're fill the same position for Wikipedia. Rather than upsetting people by telling them off - why not spend that extra 10 seconds to do the search yourself and post a link? We're supposed to be nice to people - and the nicest way to respond to a question that we can't answer is to point them someplace where they can get the debate they crave. SteveBaker (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But what if the guy's so irritating that you can't help telling him off? Isn't irritation to one person irritation to all? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. – ClockworkSoul 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NeptuneRover: Please read WP:AGF. SteveBaker (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "can't help it" part, no one forces us to say or do anything here; we freely choose to do it (or not). That doesn't mean we always choose wisely. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my above post was meant to be taken as sarcasm, which can be difficult to portray in writing (at least for me, it seems). It was a play of devil's advocate to show the absurdity of one person feeling justified in defending everyone against their personally perceived irritation. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recommend telling them off, unless they're obvious trolls, and then just clobber the thread. But if the question appears sincere, no matter how misguided, we can help guide. If I have a clue of what to search for, I might go to google and enter some key words... and report back on how I did the google search, for the possible edification of the OP, or for that matter anyone else who might wonder how I found it. Sometimes, though, the question is too vague to know where to start. That's when you have to ask the OP some semi-probing questions to try to get more information; or ask him if he's tried this-or-that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so - but that's not what we're talking about. This is about requests for opinion - and I'm saying that while we can't/shouldn't simply come back with our own opinions, we can still be of help if we can post a link to someplace where they can legitimately express and receive opinions on the topic they are interested in...a forum or something. SteveBaker (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed mockery

I removed this response on the science desk; I found it unacceptable, content-free mockery of an honest question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. That post had no useful, encyclopedic contribution. Nimur (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The whole point of people asking questions is because they don't know or understand something. Mocking someone for that ignorance is, well, ignorant. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. Mockery has no place in attempts to help people. Ignorance is no more a sign of stupidity than education is a sign of intelligence. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. Though I would say that his tone was arrogant not ignorant - god, how I hate that slang usage! Matt Deres (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if the tone was not appropriate. But it was not content-free. If the OP has an understanding of velocity there is an easy bridge to the understanding of energy. If not, then explanation has to start at lower basics. 95.115.138.227 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have said that. Explain it properly. Incidentally - I disagree that velocity provides an easy bridge to understanding energy because when there is no energy transfer going on, constant velocity is still present. It's acceleration or deceleration that is the signature of energy having been converted from one form to another. But because we live here on earth where it's essentially impossible to get away from friction and air resistance - it's REALLY easy to come away with the idea that it takes energy to maintain a constant velocity...because that's what seems to happen when you drive a car or ride a bike. And even if you get the idea that energy is involved with acceleration - it's all to easy to assume that the energy is "consumed" - when in truth, it's conserved - although it is converted to another form. So for an already confused kid - invoking velocity in that way really only makes matters worse. SteveBaker (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NEED_YOUR_GREAT_RESPONSE

How do we handle this "NEED_YOUR_GREAT_RESPONSE" from the Computing reference desk. A handicapped gent from West Bengal seeking a data entry job. Suggestions/Comment please?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimur referred the OP (with links) to a few organisations in India that might help him, so I suppose thats all good! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimur's response was excellent and thorough. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Did someone change the thread heading? Your link is not working. Changing the title will make it more difficult for the OP to find their question... Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It was changed to "Looking for a data entry job". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has renamed the section and re-formatted the OP's text. This isn't really standard-practice - it can make it hard for the OP to find his question. Nimur (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I liked Nimur's answer - without being referred to the company by someone who knows, a large fraction of work-from-home, no-skill-required data entry jobs are scams of one sort or another. I don't think we should have changed the title - but fixing the formatting is generally considered OK. SteveBaker (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography pop quiz

One example.

This is one of a dozen or so pop quiz geography questions we've been given along the same vein over the past few months. Does anyone know where the OP is getting these questions from? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The only way to find out is for everyone to refuse to answer the question until the user explains where they are coming from. -- kainaw™ 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? If the questions are within guidelines and not overwhelming the desks, what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarry1250 identified the source of the questions in the last posting in this thread. Deor (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I never said it was a problem, IP, I just asked where it was coming from. Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If the OP wins the hundred bucks, maybe he should split it with whoever gives him the right answer. Or donate it to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How about if we just give our answers at the quiz site? Then we can decide whether to split the money with the OP. Franamax (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! A capital (as in "money") idea! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a circumstance that occurred to me quite some time ago. Key 103 has (or had, at least) a competition where, at a certain time of every day, a person is asked three questions. They return the next day if they get it right, leave without prizes if they get it wrong, and can choose to leave after any victorious Q&A session with a selection of prizes which increases based on how long they can go. Once one player leaves, another is plucked from the void to fill their shoes. The individual or group with the highest running total at the end of the year gets twelve tickets to go to some Christmas party thing. Would I (or anyone, in fact - I don't listen to the station any more) be allowed to ask the Ref Desk for help with these questions? Players are given the duration of one song to find out the answers themselves - group discussions and internet use are allowed. I wasn't sure if I should put this under a new heading, the subject matter is much the same... Vimescarrot (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly proper use of the desks to me. Editors can decide whether or not to engage, as they can with all questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem in the past is that the questioner doesn't explain where the questions come from. Since they are purposely vague questions, there are many possible answers. If the editor would come clean and explain where the questions come from, we could examine the quiz and see if we could find the correct answer for the quiz, not just an answer that meets the requirements stated. It is a matter of getting context so a proper answer may be given. -- kainaw™ 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and if people asked clearer questions in general, we could give them more specific clearer answers. I don't think there's technically anything wrong with the OPs using the information in some unstated way, including commercial ventures or profit. If they wish to submit our answers verbatim, that is also fine as long as they follow the rules of our license. It's worthwhile to point out that Wikipedia content, including our responses on the Desks, are all licensed under GFDL and/or Creative Commons license. If the user wants to submit our answers verbatim, they must be sure that this is in compliance with the (very real, and enforceable) terms of the GFDL. Nimur (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but it's irrelevant to the contest questions that started this thread. Their answers are simple facts such as place names, and therefore not subject to copyright; hence the GFDL does not apply. --Anonymous, 06:03 UTC, January 27, 2010.

Also they can comply with either the GFDL or the CC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic stuff. Since I'd have no use for twelve party tickets, I'd share them out among Ref Deskers, should this ever happen. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Persecution/Chinese ramble

Wow, I just skimmed through this extremely long rambling story on the humanities desk and am wondering how we should handle it. There really doesn't seem to be a coherent question here... Any thoughts? [8] 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed it and posted a "thanks no thanks" explanation. It's not Ref Desk appropriate in any way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with that. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. (!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

She must have us confused with Dr. Phil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if she feels oppressed by her government, living situation, society, whatever, I certainly empathize and wish her better. But this isn't the right place for such posts, alas. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't even bother to ask for questions like this. Once you see things that could be real names mentioned and accusations made, please remove with a passion. Although a regular at WP:BLP/N and strong supporter of WP:BLP I normally let things fly in the RD which wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere. But this sort of stuff most definitely crosses the line. Of course while I didn't read the whole thing, it sounded suspicious to me and reading the last two paragraphs doubly so, in other words, it may not even be a genuine request (and the names therefore made up), but that's just as good a reason to delete it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

religion & spirituality reference desk

I've just had a brief conversation with a couple of other editors about why there isn't a separate reference desk for religious and spiritual matters. currently religion is lumped in under humanities, which seems a bit odd. is there any support for setting up a separate desk for these issues? --Ludwigs2 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed (and smacked down) some months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

out of curiosity, why was it smacked down? (and yes, I am vying to be the patron saint of lost causes...) --Ludwigs2 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember that one specifically, but most new RefDesk proposals fizzle when their proponents cannot show that there is demonstrable harm in keeping it in the old desk, or that the new desk would get sufficient traffic. Being "a bit odd" isn't very convincing - why shouldn't religion questions be answered at Humanities? (That's where questions on other philosophy systems and non-governmental organizations go.) I'll also point you to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives - take a look at a representative month and estimate how many questions the new desk is likely to have. (There isn't a hard number, but 1-2 per day certainly isn't going to cut it.) - You're up against inertia and the status quo. The impetus is on the proposer to do the convincing. -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)