Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Banned user showing up again on Language desk?

Is it just me, or does User:Mr.Bitpart (see his RD/L post here) seem similar to User:Mihkaw napéw, who was more or less banned back in January? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Probably and likely. Shouldn't you be ignoring the question anyway rather than answering it if the questioneer annoys.. 'Don't cast your pearls before swine and all that.87.102.43.94 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is him, then he's violated his [admittedly de facto] ban by responding to someone else's question. If he keeps editing I might request a checkuser. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI started: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mihkaw napéw. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Current events desk?

Just a thought, take it or leave it: How about a current events desk. Humanities can still cover history, fine arts, etc. Aaronite (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The people who use desks don't add new ones for the fun of it. You'd need to come up with a convincing reason; one that is more important than, or counter-argues, the "split the desks too many times and they'll get barely any questions and die" argument that defeats the Religion desk. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk. I don't recall "current events" being suggested before; there could be an interesting case made for that one. Offhand, my first concern is that references may be difficult and polemics common, but that's neither guaranteed to happen nor a single point of failure. Perhaps most relevant, though, is this excerpt from the linked page: "Describe what is wrong with the current lineup and how a new desk would fix it." — Lomn 13:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I suspect for many current events people would prefer to ask in one of the subject desks anyway. For example if you have a science question about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill why ask at current events? Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, what's the need? If it ain't broke, don't (try to) fix it. In any case, "current events" is not exactly a great organizational principle. We organize Ref Desks in part based on the skill set one would assume the answerers have (e.g. you go to the Math desks if you want people who know about math to answer your questions). Knowing about "current events" (however defined) is not a skill set. You're essentially saying, "Miscellaneous, but only in the last few months," which seems totally useless, probably counter-productive. The existing desks are quite capable of handling "current" issues just as they are capable of handling issues from three centuries back. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As Aaronite said "take it or leave it" - leave it. hydnjo (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Penis troll

Flattened it. [1] Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! --Ludwigs2 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well-known troll. No need to tell anyone. Just delete his idiocy on sight. -- kainaw™ 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Somehow the new "Elsie" moniker seems fitting. hydnjo (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll or dwarf at work

Beautifully ironic trolling going on, in case anyone's interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 14:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have let that question stand, actually. And I also think a lifetime ban is a way over-the-top reaction. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:RBI—there's absolutely no need to let "nonsense" questions stand, particularly if they were posed with the intention of pissing people off. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't a sockpuppet of a user who is already permanently blocked, I wouldn't mind discussing it. However, this idiot is just here to see if he can be annoying. By removing all of his posts on sight and immediately blocking his accounts, most people don't even notice his failed attempts to be a troll. -- kainaw™ 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, I didn't realize the guy had form. Which banned user are we talking about? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure who it is, but I've already blocked about a dozen other accounts on the same IP with the same attitude. I think it's Swamilive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Buddy431 appears to have joined in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt that the question was very interesting, and piqued my curiosity such that I now want to know the answer to it. As an editor in good standing, such a question is entirely appropriate coming from me, and should not have been removed. Buddy431 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Typical sock question from Elsie or one of her unreasonable facsimiles. Zap on sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Err... just out of curiosity, is there some particular internet meaning to for the term 'dwarf' (as opposed to 'troll'), or is the thread title simply an unexpressed wish to ship this editor off to someplace where he might acceptably be 86ed? --Ludwigs2 22:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how about this? If it's a well-defined question, then somebody who checks the Ref Desk regularly and knows something about it can post an answer. However, if nobody really knows about it, then they don't answer it, and within seven days the question is archived. It's like reverting, banning, and ignoring all without actually drawing attention to it! SamuelRiv (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you assuming people want to answer something that wasn't a genuine question and so there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer? Bearing in mind even if someone knows the answer, they may spend a fair amount of time researching etc the answer. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I like reading interesting threads that I didn't personally start, so I don't think it's fair to say that only the OP of a question is interested in the answers it gets. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Postings by banned users are removable on sight, regardless of their alleged quality or how interesting they might be. Banned is banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) + ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said the OP is always the only one interested in the answers? I just said there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer which there is particularly for many of the stupid questions we get from trolls (yes there may be some odd balls like this one where apparently Buddy is interested in the answer, but that's somewhat beside the point). With a genuine question we can presume someone is interested in the answer, even if there's no guarantee they will read it or be interested in any particular answer. Of course anyone contributing much recognise that there's no guarantee anyone will be interested in their particular answer, or even read it and most of us hope that far more people then the OP will be interested but I for one have far less interested in answering a question when I have no reason to think anyone may be interested. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing by banned users is forbidden. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess disagreement has (occasionally) surfaced regarding the deletion of answers made in good faith by volunteers who didn't recognize the question as being posted by a banned user and who have expended brain power and research time to give good answers. I agree with 82... that it can be a shame to delete these threads entirely. My own conclusion is, if possible, to nip questions by banned users in the bud before anyone has had the chance to answer. When someone has already answered in good faith and with good sense, I tend not to bother with removing it anymore, or, at the very least, I weigh the pros and cons before deleting and inform the people who have responded in good faith. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a reasonable question and has already been answered, then the greater good is probably served by letting it stand; and then The Cow gets away with it, that time, but it also serves as a reminder that if she hadn't messed up then she wouldn't have been banned. Nonsense questions can still be zapped, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Elsie is a master at starting off with relatively plausible questions which begin to devolve more or less quickly. IMO their objective is to maximize disruption to this talk page, as the ongoing debates spring up about whether that one was a good question, sure the next one was about Uranus, but still... Much simpler is "banned is banned" and remove it - though I'd suggest maybe notification to the good-faith responders who took the time to do the research. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good approach. Zap it, and post a short courtesy note to anyone who answered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vranak redux

Here, I've asked Vranak to please stop posting unreferenced answers to the Reference Desk. Here and here are two threads with very poor Vranak answers. My hope is that Vranak will just start to look up and cite references in his replies instead of just posting his offhand opinion on topics. Unfortunately, his history here leads me to believe he'll ignore this request, and that the recent 3-day block for incivility won't change his behavior. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand behind my comments. Vranak (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Easy Solution: Let him post, and just correct everything he says that is wrong. The OP will see the references we add and if the OP chooses to ignore those references, the loss is theirs, not ours. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that 1 out of every 3 Vranak threads devolve into someone (often not the same person, or someone who has not even encountered this sort of nonsense before) saying, "that's the most wrong thing I've ever seen on here" and Vranak saying "I stand behind my comments" and some other unproductive back and forth. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with 70.... Let's not forget, however, that in one of the threads linked to by CT, Vranak gave his opinion on Russell's significance in 20th century philosophy, while the querent sought an answer to the (relatively) measurable question on prolificacy. These kind of opinions are only welcome when they are relevant to the question and referenced. No one is interested in Vranak's opinion per se (or mine, or anybody elses's). I don't advocate that anything be done about this except that Vranak either refrain from opining when his opinion has little to do with the question, or that he at least reference his replies when they contradict what Western academia has to say on the topic. Whether you stand behind your comments is lastly irrelevant, Vranak. The referencability of your comments is relevant though, and we ask you to give us some clue as to their provenance---Sluzzelin talk 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he stands behind them mostly mostly because he needs protection from rotten tomatoes... --Ludwigs2 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Russell topic, I don't see what the big deal is. Vranak posted an opinion, yes -- but he was clear that it was just his opinion. It's not referenced -- but many answers aren't referenced (only one wikilink exists in that whole discussion thread). He perhaps doesn't address the question directly point-by-point as it was phrased, but I do the same thing on a regular basis -- upon reading a question, I attempt to answer it not merely as written but as I think I am most capable and as I think will be most useful, and this often means redirecting the question a bit. So I have no idea why you're crucifying Vranak over this one. Maybe the opinion is utter hogwash (I find Russell tiresome, so I don't bother to stay familiar with the depth or breadth of his work), but a hogwash answer isn't exactly uncommon here, either, unfortunately.

Specifically breaking down the answer, what I see is, paraphrased, "Russell as 'one of the most prolific' is reasonable. Don't know if he's the most prolific. As a reminder, don't confuse 'prolific' with 'important' or 'leading', as quantity is not always quality. Oh, and stuff about media." Not the best answer I've ever seen, but not a useless one, either.

For the other topic, I don't see it on the RD. Can you provide a permalink? Note that I've added one for the Russell discussion, as it will undoubtedly drop off the RD soon as well. — Lomn 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the size of the deal stems from our perceptions on Vranak's specific ratio of helpful answers v casually phrased opinions that will probably provoke someone into responding. That perception is perhaps unfortunate, biased, and unfair, and the fact that we can't ignore it, as suggested by 70..., is unfortunate too, but it is the way our minds work. No surprise here. I don't believe Vranak is surprised at our reactions at this point anymore either. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Vranak has an unfavorable history, and that it'll color our perceptions, but as noted, I'd be far more impressed with 70's comment if, in the Russell thread, anyone else had bothered to reference a counterstatement. — Lomn 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A reference counter-statement to what? I replied twice in that thread, and provided a reference both times (though once was not wikilinked). 63.17 didn't provide a direct reference, but pointed out a specific counterexample (Sartre) for the OP to consider in one post and challenged Vranak's ignorance-steeped opinion in another. Saddhiyama pointed out the irrelevancy of Vranak's post, albeit more subtly than 63.17 and I. The three of us tried to provide help to the OP by providing facts, additional points to consider, and challenging a frankly unsupportable personal opinion. Vranak started trying to be helpful - and this is the real nub of the problem, he tries to be helpful - and then simply couldn't resist inserting his own opinion, despite the fact that i really had nothing whatever to do with the question. Saying all the replies are equally bad because none (well, two) of them are referenced is wronger than wrong. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A counterstatement that Vranak's comment (the "Russell was a pedant" part is what particularly seems contentious) was inaccurate. You're correct that (elsewhere in the thread) you mentioned a concrete verifiable number of pieces of correspondence -- I missed that the first time. Contrast, though, with 63.x's direct response to Vranak: "Wow. WOW. I've seen a lot of ignorant statements on these desks but this has to be the winner.... Do you know ANYTHING...?" That's not an impressive counterstatement; it's a rant. And it has no more credibility than the original statement, because both are fluff. You list off several more fields where Russell is prolific -- but as Vranak fairly notes, "prolific" is not a synonym of "important".

On the other hand, references are provided for volume of correspondence, by both you and 63.x. But how is that relevant here? Vranak made a weak "that seems reasonable" statement with regard to that part, but surely that's not the part of Vranak's response that prompts people to say "that's the most wrong thing I've ever seen on here", is it? I see (and post, I'm sure) half-hearted "well, that seems reasonable" answers on here all the time, and they don't incite the reaction of this thread.

So, summarizing: the cited rebuttals to Vranak are to the part that isn't relevant. The rebuttals to the relevant part aren't cited (or aren't cited convincingly; I really don't know how Russell and Einstein co-signing a paper on nuclear weapons is relevant to Russell's standing as a philosopher, nor how Einstein's opinion of a man who considered him a "dearest friend" (p9) would be sufficiently unbiased to use it as a single point even if it were relevant). — Lomn 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be a bit at cross purposes. I was under the impression that the person making wild claims was the one who was supposed to bring forth the references and supporting documents. I (and the IP, if I may speak for them a moment) posted a few replies to Vranak to illustrate to the OP (remember them? hint: it wasn't Vranak!) that Vranak's opinion was just that and not a very widely held one. Russell has a goddamn Nobel prize and there are plenty of references in the article speaking to the quality of his contributions; if this was a debate, I'd say that the onus is on Vranak to support his claims. But the RefDesk isn't a debating room nor a soapbox, so instead I'd just like Vranak to either go away or post things that are on-topic. Why you're defending Vranak's attempts to hijack the thread and spout his opinions is beyond me. Matt Deres (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your bad faith is simply astounding Matt. I will be relieved when you are through whatever personal crisis you are going through and have less inclination to try to make a scapegoat out of me. It's just sad. Man up already. Vranak (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, linking in the other one: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_19#Moral_relativism.2C_nihilism.2C_and_utilitariansm. I see even less problem with this one. The OP asks "is it possible to be X, Y, and Z belief?" I'll assume the intent is "is it possible to believe in X, Y, and Z", as the statement as-is is utterly meaningless. Vranak appears to take the same approach. One could argue that the response has little to do with the question as asked, but that's because the question as asked is badly phrased. I'd have done the same. So: Vranak answers conditionally with something that amounts to "you can believe whatever you like, and no objective answer to the question exists". I agree entirely. I give this answer here all the time. Again, please explain what exactly is wrong with the post? What reference is possibly required here?

I get that Vranak had serious issues here in the past, but right now, I don't see it at all. — Lomn 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, no one else provides a reference, either. Just opinion! If you're going to nail somebody for posting unreferenced garbage, nail them where they're the exception, not the rule. — Lomn 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Answering a badly phrased question with a useless, smug answer like "Yes, it's possible to believe X, Y, and Z simultaneously - why not?" is useless to the querent and serves only to reduce the quality of the RD. Rallette answered the question after Vranak, with an answer that, although lacking any references, was at least a little analytical and useful. 2. "Nail them where they're the exception, not the rule" — this is also garbage; this is a Reference Desk and we're supposed to provide references when possible. Claiming it's OK because somebody else didn't is a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I dislike the lack of references, but as I mentioned above, I thought Rallette's answer was at least useful — an unreferenced "yes" or "no" or "sure" also reduces the quality of the RD and should just be removed from the desk, in my opinion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I understand your concerns Tuttle. Really my rejoinder is on the Humanities desk though. Basically, if Russell wasn't a pedant, if he really is a major figure -- well, what were his major contributions? It's an open question and if there's some good answer, so much the better, it helps elucidate the topic for the question asker and anyone else who may be interested. Vranak (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—in the past, someone was banned from editing the RefDesks after this sort of behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather bad faith of you to raise the spectre of banning, Treasury. What do we call that, a chilling effect right. Let's not talk anymore about this, let's just shut up and leave well enough alone. That is the idea isn't it? Please tell me it isn't. Vranak (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal advice

I believe that Wikipedia:Reference_Desk/Miscellaneous#Will I get a criminal record?? constitutes legal advice. Due to the numerous responses, I have refrained from deleting it at this point. Anybody think that I should/shouldn't? Falconus^{p t c} 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's legal advice because the querent describes his situation and what he did, and how he will be affected; and who knows what important details he's omitting, so I think it's a legal advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's far closer to the line than the one below, IMO not just because it relates to the OP's personal circumstances but because an accurate factual cited answer can't be given. Crucially, he might potentially suffer harm if he acts on uninformed guesstimates as to what the police will do next. The answer linking to NSW law was useful and objective, but only suggests what might happen, not what will happen in this specific case, the details of which we don't know. I support a response of "Sorry, you need professional advice, not the speculations of a bunch of random strangers" on this one. Karenjc 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal advice II

I removed the following question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Number_of_executors_for_an_English_will where the asker was requesting advice on how to proceed with will writing. I removed it. If anybody disagrees, feel free to put it back. Falconus^{p t c} 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that question was ok. I thought it was a request for legal advice at first, but actually if you remove the first bit where he gives the background to the question, it becomes a simple question of legal fact: "Do wills under English law need to have more than one executor?" That's a question we can answer. I won't revert you until someone else agrees with me, though. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, thought this one was a question of legal fact and not a request for legal advice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango, I agree with you too, although I didn't feel strongly enough about it to revert Falconus when I posted my response to the question only to find that the question itself had disappeared in an edit conflict - I reverted myself instead. I do feel it would be helpful if we could achieve a better consensus on what constitues legal/medical advice on the refdesks and what constitutes fact, preferably reliably referenced fact. The underlying aim of the policy seems to be primum non nocere, which is good, but there's a kneejerk "don't-let's-risk-it" reaction that sometimes zaps any question that touches on health or the law, irrespective of whether advice has been sought or not. Of course we must on no account give subjective advice that the OP might act on and damage him/herself in the process, but I cannot see the harm in offering facts, links to places where facts can be found, or other useful information with an appropriate caveat. I hate to see good-faith questions, even misguided ones, squished and replaced with a few stern words; it can't be encouraging for the contributor. In the case of this particular question, the OP is asking how many executors the law says you must have because his online will company is asking for two but he wants to name just one. Why can't we say "the law definitely says X" (with appropriate citation) if it does? Or (as I intended to say) "my own solicitor recently explained to me why people can create problems when they name only one executor, and this is what he said. It's possible your company is erring on the side of caution to protect your interests by asking for two, so if you definitely want only one executor you need to take professional legal advice, which we cannot give". I cannot see how such an answer would expose the OP to any risk or Wikipedia to any potential comeback. But maybe I'm wrong. Karenjc 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the jump from "I found a link that says X" to "the law definitely says X [and there aren't any laws elsewhere that modify X]" is legal advice. If we just stuck to the former, that would probably be fine -- but experience has shown that, left visible, people won't respect the distinction. Thus, many such borderline questions are simply removed (or hidden, which seems to work pretty well, too). — Lomn 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I do know what you're saying, and I agree - experience confirms that leaving dubious questions up does result in some unsuitable answers. It could be that the risk of providing misinformation truly does outweigh any benefit from allowing carefully worded answers, hedged about with caveats, which address at least part of the question. But I feel that at present there is confusion over the distinction between information and advice, that we sometimes remove questions unnecessarily in consequence of this, and that even justifiable removals must often seem curt and snappish to the questioner if the standard templates are used. I wonder whether collapsing them as you suggest, with a standard caption explaining that this was done because it appeared to be a request for advice, would be a better default position than removing them? Karenjc 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I too think the question was clearly a request for guidance on what the law says, not a request for legal advice. Such information is relatively easy to find - for example with just a couple of minutes on Google, I found this 2009 leaflet from Age Concern (a UK charity), which says "The will should name one or more executors". There is also this page from a UK solicitor's website which states "The minimum number is one Executor...".

IMHO, Falconus was very hasty in removing the question and if the OP had not replied to the removal, I would have been bold and reinstated the question right away. My reply would have probably included the references I linked above and suggested they sought the advice of a solicitor if the online tools were insufficient for their needs. Astronaut (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can clear up the discussion right here. I was already taking whatever action I needed to progress my online stuff - but I had got curious about the legal situation and my question was purely a request for a legal fact. HOWEVER . . . I fully accept that the form in which it was framed made it easy to read as a request for legal advice.

I thank all of you for helping a relative beginner in Wiki to better understand how you run these reference desks (and for the answer to my question). Gurumaister (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How well would this work to keep Israel honest? appears to be nothing but vile anti-Semitism (not to mention a WP:CRYSTAL violation). Would anybody object if it were closed? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would term it Israel-bashing (and not only by the OP, some contentions being made in a response too) - and as it calls for speculation, does not belong on the Ref Desk at all. I'd like to see it entirely removed or occluded with a banner (? template?) stating that this is not Ref Desk material, period. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We could just as easily ask the same question about Israel's enemies. Or, we could take the prudent road, and box it up. Go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or I could do it myself. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't have as much of a problem with the question as you three. As far as I know we don't have a ban here on stupid questions or Israel-bashing questions, as long as they're not just trolling or soapboxing. I think the crystal ball criticism is weak — this wasn't an unanswerable "Who will win the World Cup" question; it was a question that wouldn't be a crystal ball question if it were rephrased, like "Have other countries or entities changed their behavior in situations like X when their enemies did Y in response?" I don't think we should be dropping CRYSTALBALL on querents as much as we have been. All that said, I don't mind it having been collapsed, because it's such a weak question that it's right on the edge of plain soapboxing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've slept on it = and I think:

• (a) User:Comet Tuttle didn't get it -- this query was not good faith albeit ignorant or even deluded crystal-balling but outright soapboxing, using the RD to propose (reiterated with examples "fresh" out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about so-called characteristic Jew behaviors) an antisemitic (not just anti-Israel) program. And
• (b) I'm not satisfied with occluding the text, accessible under a [show] button. I want it removed as trolling. I object to the RD being used by a racist troll. Don't think it's racist? Would "we" allow a similar what-if proposition thinly disguised as a query if the topic were Negroes or homosexuals or women, rather than Jews whom somewhere at any time it's always bon ton to target and demonize?

People, this is my community for four years now, asking and answering questions honestly and respectfully (usually, and sometimes even with humor I hope isn't inappropriate). Where are this community's standards? I hope the fact that I'm a Jew by birth and an Israeli by choice doesn't relegate my genuine concern here to the margins.-- Deborahjay (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was a stupid question that was not asked in good faith. It happens all the time as humans tend to act upon stupidity far more than intelligence. People are offensive just as they are stupid. Deleting all stupidity simply makes it a game. Add something stupid, vulgar, and offensive just to get a kick out of watching everyone race to delete it. As for your question about others, we've had plenty of questions about every race, every sexual persuasion, and gender (including cross-gendered people). I understand that you take it personal and want it deleted. Having a personal interest introduces conflict of interest and, from your previous posts, I am certain that you currently have conflict over your reaction to the question and your desire to avoid conflict of interest - which is likely why you asked about deleting the question here instead of simply deleting it. Personally, I'd chalk it up to being far more intelligent than the questioner. Yes, he's an idiot, but do you really think that anyone read his question and sided with his pathetic soapboxing? If anything, his idiocy pushes people away from his argument and, therefore, should be showcased as a sign of pure amazement that people can possess even the lowest levels of intelligence yet still be capable of asking questions on the RD. Well, how would you expect an extreme anti-social lunatic to react to a question like that? -- kainaw™ 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really mind the RD straight-facedly answering racist, idiotic "questions" like "Why are black people stupider than white people", because I was taught that the way to counter "bad speech" is with "more speech". I'd point to a study showing that the querent's premise was incorrect, and maybe that educates him or her, or, more likely, other hypothetical readers, and so in the end it possibly, possibly does some good. And I think it's less rewarding for the troll. On the other hand, yeah, I know, "yeah right, that person's going to be educated by this, fat chance", and this is sort of a political stance and I'm not at all sure it's better for the RD itself. I'm fine with both paths (removal and straight-faced answering). One final point: I'm personally more easily trolled than an average RD answerer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Comet your example "question" indeed makes a racial distinction, if you subscribe to the proposition that multiple human races exist, but it is only a complex, not an idiotic, question. Answering it properly demands consideration of how relative intelligence can be measured, whether the question's Presupposition is tenable and potentially of the perennial Nature versus nurture debate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Date Messup

Why is the date for June 30 questions still June 29? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the bot that adds the date headers apparently missed the science desk. (It happens.) I'll go add the header now. Deor (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. The date-header-adding portion of the bot isn't perfect, and I don't generally babysit it. If you see a date header missing or wrongly placed, just use that Edit button and fix it! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Longest serving RD contributors?

Who are the longest serving Reference Desk contributors? You see some names come and go, while others stay the same. I've been asking and answering questions here since April 2006 or thereabouts. I'm sure there must be many who have been here for longer, but who are they? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I win. I was here before there was a reference desk. Or any remaining records - so you can't disprove me. :} These questions used to be dealt with on a page that came to be called the Help desk. See [2] for perhaps the earliest surviving version of that page - which history I see got incorporated into RD/M. My earliest remaining edit seems to be to the Help Desk on Oct 2003 but I can remember Larry Sanger chiding me for seriously answering a question on ghosts from a probable troll (so that would have been before March 2002). Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(awesome, Rmhermen :) I am abusing this opportunity to point out Wikipedia:RD regulars which hasn't been updated for a while. Please feel free to add your name or the names of other regulars to that list. (I just added Viennese Waltz). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rmhermen being awesome. I came across their name in an RD question about early talk pages (there weren't any) and took a look at their page. I was stunned that we still have someone here who comes from back when they edited Wikipedia using Telex machines! :) Franamax (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Telex machines? Luxury. Why back in my day we had to write our articles on sheepskin ... --LarryMac | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Scrolling quickly through the first 5000 versions of RD/M (Sep02-Aug04), I would nominate the following editors for second place: Tagishsimon, JackofOz, Finlay McWalter, Kainaw and Adam Bishop (in the order I wrote them down). Other variously active names I noted were Theresa knott/(the otter sank), DJ Clayworth, Nichalp, Jdforrester, Jmabel, Raul654. An impressive collection that! Franamax (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I was just going to mention myself :) I'm pretty sure I was here before there were specific Reference Desks, but Rmhermen certainly predates me in any case. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the ip editors 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 69#Anyone ever studied the average coverage of authors vs desks? from March 2010.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between a long-time contributor and a regular? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A regular is someone who replies to questions at a reasonably high frequency (I think you and I would both qualify), while a long-time contributor has been here for, well, a long time. I've been here for a few years now, but I probably don't qualify as "long-time" yet - I only arrived after the desks were in their current places, for example. Matt Deres (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

About 20 additional hours per week of free time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I been here a few years now, but no one wants to give me credit for it :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.90.10 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 July 2010

I certainly believe in giving credit where credit is due, but how to verify identity? As a group, IP users have no authentication credentials, do they? -- Scray (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Id like to tell you who I am, but that would cause be to be blocked/banned and harrasssed to hell, but lets say Im the infamous contributor 8-)

There are a lot of contributors who believe they are infamous: which are you? 86.164.57.20 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Taser

On one of the ref desks, some guy has been asking how to defend himself against a taser, and some editors are actually trying to help him out. Since when is the ref desk a tool for evading police capture upon commission of a crime? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think there's any WP guidance that would forbid answering such a question. We have plenty of objectionable material on WP. If you don't like the question (or answers), if it doesn't violate policy then just move along. -- Scray (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Then in the spirit of "not censored", we should feel free to give out medical and legal advice also. In fact, asking about how to resist a taser is essentially asking for both medical and legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this question at WP:ANI now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the OP has or is intending to commit a crime? As it stands, it's a purely hypothetical question. The OP even said "Believe it or not, I was just curious.". Discussing methods to evade tasers isn't illegal. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Medical and legal advice are special cases, as explained in our guidelines and as frequently discussed here. Thus, they are outside the WP:NOTCENSORED guidance. There is no general prohibition against the discussion of illegal activity on WP, so it doesn't really matter whether the OP intended to do anything illegal or not. I don't think your statement (on AN/I) that "the ref desk regulars tend to operate in their own little world" is supported by the evidence: we follow policies and guidelines (established by consensus), we welcome anyone to join in (providing that they abide by the policy and guidance), and discuss openly when the application of those policies and guidelines is unclear. Happy editing! -- Scray (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting, Bugs. This is not too different from asking about how to avoid being injured when being attacked by a police nightstick. It's purely defensive. As for whether one should be able to defend oneself in such situations, I see no judgment that could possibly apply in every situation. In some situations police use of force is justified. In many cases it has clearly not been, even if one keeps ones attention on nations whose police forces we generally think of as being "just" (much less if one contemplates less "just" nations). Wanting to avoid personal physical harm at the hands of police forces is not unreasonable and it is not illegal or immoral. Resisting violence is not the same thing as resisting arrest.

The OP was not asking a legal question at all. I doubt whether self-defense information counts as "medical advice" under our guidelines. If you don't want to answer a question, then abstain from it. But I see nothing that violates any rules here, only your sensibilities. Your objection to me fits in the same category of a Catholic objecting to questions about contraceptives, because they believe that all sex should be reproductive. Your entitled to your opinions of course, but the Ref Desk should not be censored in such a way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to write YOU'RE ENTITLED to Bugs? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, why do you frequently ask people whether they meant to spell a word correctly after they've typoed it? Do you really think Mr.98 could have not meant YOU'RE ENTITLED (though without caps)? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As editors we are expected to put things right, and as article contributors we are warned that our contributions will receive corrections. The guidelines for signed posts are different: thou shall't not alter another's post. Specifically in the case of a confused homophone one may only ask what they really meant. Yes, it looks likely that what was posted was not what was intended, a case of indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

New essay prompted by taser question

In response to Bug's problems with that taser question, above, I've just thrown together an essay, part of which explains the difference between legal advice and simple legal information. See Wikipedia:Reference desk advice. It's a bit rough and ready at the moment. Futher contributions would be welcome.--Patton123 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too vague, and it shunts off too much to "subtle" differences, which isn't illuminating. I think the pre-existing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice does a better job, as does User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Patton your essay presently illustrates by 3 examples what you consider is common sense. The first example of "Don't ask the OP unecessary questions" is poorly conceived because good reasons for asking include 1) Clarification e.g. "When you say 'this country' which country do you mean; and 2) Suggesting a consideration that the OP may need to take on board. That includes your example of 'Which rocket fuel do you think of using (implied: because that will affect the answer)?' which I find to be a reasonable first response. I agree with Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Language Reference Desk contributions by Noetica

Visitors to the Language Reference Desk may wish to refer to archived contributions posted by Noetica. There is a convenient list of them at User talk:Noetica (permanent link here). If anyone wishes to comment about the list to me, please do so here instead of there. Noetica is away from Wikipedia, and will not respond to messages left there.—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone other than Noetica want a list of their contributions to the reference desk? No slight is intended; it just seems like an odd thing to do and/or advertise. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone who remembers a discussion to which Noetica contributed might find it more easily there than in the general archives.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammitical edits to question header on science desk causing offence

Copied across Some pedant has altered my title twice. 92.29.126.166 (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Correcting grammar is what editors do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers 87.102.23.18 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But not to other people's questions. I've altered my question title back, for the third time. There is plenty of other less than pedanticly-perfect grammar on these pages, go and interfere with them, not me please. 92.29.124.254 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Apostrophe explains the rôle of this punctuation mark in marking of possessives, as in the cat's whiskers. Editors have corrected the title of this question to Reptiles' sense of time. The title is not the question. When necessary, editors frequently correct a missing or faulty title. This is done so that the question and its responses can be properly archived. The guidelines[3] allow additions to titles that are lacking. Trovatare correctly punctuated [4] [5] the title. @92.15.12.165 your edit[6] moves the apostrophe from plural to singular possessive but Trovatore notes in edit summary[7] that the plural possessive is called for here. I think you should note that Trovatore whom you describe as "Some pedant" is a volunteer who answered[8] your question. I agree with Trovatore and advise you to observe the WP:3RR rule. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a great breach of etiquette to interfere with other people's wording. In any case, I'm only referring to one reptile, although I dont have to justify myself. I've changed it for the fourth time. Stop trolling. And I refer you to the link given by 87.102.23.18 above. 92.29.124.253 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please observe that I linked to exactly the same guideline as 87.102.23.18. You are now wilfully in breach of the WP:3RR ruling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)