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.

Refdesk Reform RFC

opened about a minute ago, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This was archived for a while, I've added it back as it should remain as long as the RFC is open. I'll stop the bot archiving it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still would like to comment there: The 30 days (customary duration of RFCs) will be up today, and the discussion might be closed anytime soon. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the RFC. I am not a neutral party, but I believe I've summarized the discussion in a neutral way. It doesn't make sense to force an uninvolved admin to wade through all the discussion when the end result is so obvious to the participants. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this was well-done and appropriate. Thanks. -- Scray (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WickWack is back

I removed [1] as it's fairly obviously WickWack and while the response didn't seem that bad, they are banned from the RD. BTW, this doesn't seem to have been noted in the earlier discussion but AFAIK whatever their claims about national pools, WickWack's IP has always looked up to WA (generally Perth but I suspect false precision and I found one which looks up to Wembley) which also concurs with what they've said before. Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proper removal in line with the terms of the ban. If Wickwack et al. wants to return to the fold, the ban discussion contained ways to do so, and/or he can appeal in six months as the closing admin noted. Given the nature of his ISP, blocking is futile at this point, but please keep vigilant in removing his contributions per the terms of the ban. --Jayron32 21:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed another of his posts just now. [2] -Modocc (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Similarly: [3] -- Scray (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It would seem appropriate to link the the ban discussion in edit summaries when removing possible WickWacks (or possibly to a subpage explaining the topic ban), just in case of false positives. Although, like a rangeblock, the way to get around the false positive should be to create an account. Plus then he has no possible defence of not being notified (not that it would be likely to work anyway). MChesterMC (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not see your comment (which is a great suggestion) before doing this. For future edit summaries on this topic, here is a link that we could use. -- Scray (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the topic ban is listed in the list in the topic ban page, and there is only one person currently topic banned from the RD there, although other topic bans could potentially apply (edit: although most wouldn't be dealt with by undiscussed summary reversion). That said, since Wickwack doesn't really appear to be a troll or at least not a typical one, I have no objection to linking to the ANI or simply naming Wickwack in the edit summary along with the link to the topicban page (which lists the Wickwack name), both of which should be sufficient to clearly establish who the editor is and establish that they are indeed topic banned. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• If I didn't get this deletion right can someone fix it? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• The malaria thread's archived page has been semiprotected for three days [4] and the roaming IP editor states that he is new to the desks and he has made an edit request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2013_July_1 to which I have responded. I removed the redirect and didn't move it here (although that might be proper if there is a way to do so, but I'm not sure) because the template refers to the semiprotected page that its placed on. --Modocc (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex situation and I agree with handling it there if possible for the reasons you indicate. More eyes/voices might help reassure the editor that their concerns are being addressed. -- Scray (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if something like this would ever come up, it seems it has. I've left a reply suggesting they create an account. While I have my doubts, if they really are not WickWack unfortunately I see no other choice. This isn't that dissimilar from editors behind a long term blocked IP like a school one. If they do create an account, I suggest more tolerance initially until it's totally clear from behavioural evidence they are WickWack. Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

While it was not formally part of the ban as enacted, there was still significant support for allowing the person who used the WickWack/Keit/Ratbone etc. aliases to return to the fold if they merely created one account and stuck to it. I suspect that many would support allowing that overtly. That is, if said person created one account, was upfront about who they were, and stuck to the one account, it would satisfy many people. --Jayron32 22:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if the IP is not wickwack, this sort of screaming obscenity is not exactly to be encouraged. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with turning the other cheek if they create an account. About the obscenity, you just can't be screaming that shit and get away with it. -- Scray (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, why is there swearing? Is there an issue? --JustBerry (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Swearing has been around for a long time - part of the English language. -- Scray (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that Scray, but please refrain from attacking other users. Try to make this a more positive working environment. --JustBerry (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Scray's the last person to be attacking users. The wickwack case is a long and complicated one. The user used IP accounts which he signed manually with various pseudonyms but did not register an account. His disruptive behavior was hard to deal with because his contributions were intentionally not searchable. He ended up being proven to sockpuppet and received a lengthy topic ban. This thread is about posts by him after that ban. The obscenity is not an active issue, but it should be documented, which is why I mentioned it. Scray's actually being generous to say he'd take wickwack back if he registers, even though the topic ban is unconditional. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Medeis - your endorsement is appreciated. JustBerry, please re-read this thread and try to find where I attacked anyone. Before you start flinging accusations I suggest you read more carefully. -- Scray (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

While I never bothered to comment in the topic ban discussion, I actually supported something similar and had intended to say it if I did. (I didn't support a last chance as IPs, as I felt their actions had pushed us beyond allowing a last chance there, particularly given the difficult it would cause for monitoring adherence.) However I have far less sympathy for this idea now that they returned despite the topic ban and even less sympathy if the IP above is the indeed WickWack since their denials and actions above appear to be similar to what got WickWack topic banned in the first place. Then again, I still wouldn't oppose allowing them back right now as a last chance under a single account. I mentioned something similar in the above page but suggested they wait months or years because I wasn't sure the community would be as generous. That said, WickWack has in the past indicated a strong reluctance to create an acccount, perhaps this was just because it would be easier to pretend to be multiple people, but IIRC they also said some stuff about being 'misidentified' and being blocked or banned because of it which makes me wonder if there's actually some other history we don't know about. Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is upper-case vulgarity part of Wickwack's typical behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Scray, I am not sure my endorsement will count in your favor in everyone's eyes. As for WW, my opinion before was if he registered he should get the benefit of the doubt. Now I think he should have to ask for the benefit of the doubt. To answer Bugs, how many hostile and cursitive people are there in Western Australia impersonating WW? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I did not explain it very well. I was referring to their comments in general in Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 July 1 as well as what they were trying to add to the thread in the first place, no the vulgarity. In particular, the IP in the malaria thread seemed to be trying to convince people that some other respondent is wrong and they are right and rather forcefully at that. Of course there's nothing wrong per se with disagreeing with someone on the RD provided you're not too uncivil and willing to support your claims with sources, and I'm not suggest the behaviour above necessarily crossed the line. But this was also what WickWack was doing and he seemed to be crossing the line. Then of course we realised they were pretending to be multiple people to try to support their view (which was what got them banned). Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The ISP owns an IP range of at least 8 million addresses, and 45% of the Australian broadband subscriber market. Seems to me that this makes the evidence on which the conclusion of socking was based worthless. With several million people having the opportunity and means to produce fake evidence, the odds of WW being a puppeteer would shift in favor of him being the victim of a troll. If one in 50000 customers is a troll, you still have hundred potential perpetrators. It's a completely risk-free way of cyberbullying: You target an IP who can be identified by his edits, you offer "support" whenever there's a conflict with other editors; if it's an IP who signs his posts like WW did it's even easier, you can destroy the credibility of the person and do some gaslighting at the same time; change some detail of a target's post, an edit that the target would later assume he made himself. Then using the same IP address you post under the sock-puppet's name, knowing that these edits will turn up in a review.

Different IPs will be interpreted as evidence of gaming the system, and when the posts with the same IP and different names are found, it's considered conclusive proof. And you're really messing with the targets mind, he'll get the impression that everyone is conspiring against him.

And the archives are pretty much a tutorial on how to make convincing sockpuppets, copy misspellings, vocabulary, etc.. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is backwards. You cannot argue from statistics about a potential number of trolls to arguing that there must be at least a second person wanting to impersonate wickwack. Trolls like to do their own trolling, not that of other trolls. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Escher "Belvedere" image

This is the image being discussed -- Scray (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Including this on a non-article page is technically in violation of Wikipedia Fair-use policies. AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are right, and I removed it, but left a link and explanation, since people had referred to it. diff. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for including a link, at least. My opinion is that, if the image is fair-use in the article about the artwork, it is fair-use when discussing said work on the ref desk -- but I'm no IP lawyer, and I suppose it's good to err on the side of caution. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This was not a technical violation of policy. Or the situation is at least unclear. The disclaimer says "commentary on the work in question" is considered fair use, but that "Any other uses of this image ... might be copyright infringement." (emphasis and elision added). Because I was discussing what the title means, I believe that my use on the ref desk was fair use. I don't care about this instance, but I want to clarify for if/when this type of thing happens again. I've read the disclaimer several times. While it might seem to be implying that you can only use the image on the artwork's article page, that is not what it actually says. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I'm not an expert in fair-use policy. During the past years I saw at least two images I had posted myself being removed for the same reasons (albeit these were different kinds of images: one was an album cover from the 1970s, one was a current company logo), and I thought I was doing the right thing. But I do hate removing stuff other people posted not only in good faith, but in the best spirit of the reference desks. I certainly won't oppose reposting the image, though I will ask Angr to weigh in, as he is quite familiar with the language desk as well as with how to handle non-free content. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC#9, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." The exemptions do not appear to apply to the reference desks, so displaying the image (as opposed to linking to it, which is fine) is a violation of our Nonfree Content Policy, regardless of whether it's a violation of U.S. copyright law. Angr (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! SemanticMantis (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well put. As in some other areas, WP has decided to take a more stringent line than is required. For example, how many other websites do you know that would bother listing the use licenses for stuff like the little-bitty icons we use on the RefDesk main page? Not too many... Matt Deres (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk → Wikipedia:Answer Desk – Ok, it seems pretty clear that pretty much nothing is going to come of the RFC. As i said when I opened it, that's ok, at least the discussion was had. However, there was almost no discussion of simply renaming it to better reflect how it actually works. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, in hindsight I wish I had thought of this from the beginning. Sometimes it takes an RFC that doesn't really accomplish anything to see an easier solution that could alleviate the underlying concern without upsetting a bunch of people. It seems to me to be a "have your cake and eat it too" solution. Refdesk is the same as it always was, we just don't call it that anymore. So, just to be abundantly clear, this would not change any aspect of how the refdesk works in any way. The rules would be exactly as they are now, just on a page with a different name. In this way we alleviate the main concern behind the RFC, that this isn't really a reference desk, without changing the way it actually works. Sigh. It seems so obvious now. What do you say everyone, keep it exactly the way it is, just don't imply that referencing is always being used to formulate answers. Sounds good to me! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a question of semantics, so that is the focus of my response: I think "Answer desk" would evoke superficial sites on the web that provide low-quality answers without reference to reliable sources; in contrast, the current name evokes the seriousness of the library reference desk, and serves as a reminder that providing references is an important aspect of answering. -- Scray (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, and agree with Scray's reasoning. I too would like to see more refs posted at the ref desk, so I post/provide them when I can. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(Also, take a look at the RD/S today. Almost all of the answers since July 2 have refs. There is at least one ref posted to every question in that range. There are a few responses that should/could have refs, but don't, and there are a few that don't need refs, because they are discussing previously ref'd responses. But don't say we don't provide refs!) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Answer" implies "anything goes". While the scrapping and silliness sometimes suggests that this is the standard we seek, it is not. The change in name would be at serious risk of changing the general approach, otherwise, why would we have done it? Bielle (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose At least with the current title, we still have obvious grounds to insist on references. I don't really see the point, otherwise. Mingmingla (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We really do try to provide references in preference to answers. We don't always succeed - and some people ignore that mission statement - but it is an accurate description of what we are trying to do. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm against this change of name for the same reasons mentioned above. I believe calling it "Answer Desk" would make it even more difficult to maintain a certain standard, which, as the request for comment has shown, is not that easy to uphold, let alone improve, as it is. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would be taking the line of least resistance. Not always a bad thing, but definitely a bad thing if one's focus is on the maintenance of a particular standard. We are not just any old Internet site that alleges it can answer any question posed. We provide references for people to read and investigate so that they can find their own answers. The "answer", much less the "truth", is not our business here, and it would be folly to make it appear that it is. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if it doesn't change anything, it doesn't change anything. The name itself is a good reminder that we're here to provide references, so changing the name actually works against that mission. Bad idea. --Jayron32 00:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Opose "Answer desk" is too general and undermines our gold standard which is to provide not just any old answers but answers that "refer to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're not here to provide answers. We're here to try and provide references to answers. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The name "Reference Desk" suggests we only provide references, but we try to do whatever is necessary to get questions aswered. For some subjects, giving references is the best way to address a question but for other subjectes, particularly the hard sciences, this doesn't usually work. If a student is stuck in the middle of a complicated calculation, giving references is usually irrelevant as the student already has the textbook and the lecture notes. The student needs step by step help that we can and do provide here. While everything we do is based on the contents of textbooks, the problem is usually interpreting and using the information you can find there. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Answer Desk" would imply that all questions will always get an answer; which is hardly the case (though we try.) The Refdesk may not be a Library reference desk, but it's still the Wikipedia reference desk. The name doesn't have to change just because not every answer includes a reference - it's still a reference desk. --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I intended to say something similar on the RFC where a rename was suggested but never got around to it (partially because it became increasingly clear that my projection early on was right and nothing much useful was coming from that RFC so I couldn't be bothered to pile on). But since this came up here, it seems many others are basically in agreement anyway. I'm opposed to a rename in general and this proposed rename in particlar as I feel the reference part is a helpful reminder that we are not simply an answer service and it's not unresonable to expect people to provide references when there is dispute as happens occassionally, and when answering in general whenever they can. This proposal particularly conflicts with that and would seem to suggest people shouldn't feel the need to provide references. In addition to answers, in terms of questions the proposed title would seem to imply any question goes but while we do tolerate to so e degree questions which don't have much of a chance of having references like personal advice questions, there is frequently objection when people feel it's going too far. I would consider other proposals for renames if they are really better but I don't consider the current title a bad one, in fact it seems fairly decent and while we're obviously not a library reference desk, as most or all participants in the RFC woth experience said, we're evidently not that far off as much as the concept transfers to a place like here. So I'm not really sure what a better title would be. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed change would be detrimental, in that it suggests there is no need to refer questioners to relevant articles, or to guide them to reliable sources outside Wikipedia, as is commonly done today. Edison (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, but It's a conversation that needed to happen, if only to explore and reject another possibility. "Answer desk" will encourage unreferenced answers and would sound, to those who want to see the RD vanish, even less relevant to their view of what Wikipedia should be doing and thus harder to justify. This constant self-questioning and scrutiny does seem to make us up our game though. SemanticMantis is right that there has been a good crop of useful, well-referenced answers lately and some nice teamwork to keep disruption to a minimum. -Karenjc 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just when you thought we were doing well, the pendulum swings the other way...this, too, shall pass. -- Scray (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Me and my big mouth - Karenjc 21:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal seems WP:POINTy to me, proposed by the originator of the RFC and based on the same false premises that something serious has gone wrong with the ref desks and a false, over restrictive, view of what the desks are here for. Sussexonian (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Race & Genetics/Intelligence questions.

We've been getting an unusually large number of questions about race and genetics or intelligence or whatever recently. It's beginning to seem like there is some POV pushing going on. Any thoughts? SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's put off any Inquisition until after the questions are answered. They're not actually so obvious - there's a great mystery behind the equality of race. However legally convenient it may be, how can we explain the evolution of the human mind when nowhere in the world can somebody come up with an island or valley of people who are incapable of working mathematics but can write a great song, or vice versa? Let the curiosity continue - I'm hoping someone will dig up something truly interesting to throw in.

Not sure if this is related, but there have been some stories in the last few weeks about coccidioidomycosis,[5] a bizarrely racist disease that led to a recent order to move some vulnerable prisoners in California. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact the disease is confined largely to certain ethnic groups doesn't make the disease "racist" but rather "race-specific" (using "race" in a rather loose way). And being vulnerable to a particular disease doesn't make that race "inferior" in some way, but only "different". The genetic disorder called Sickle cell anemia comes to mind, as something that's a problem in general, but it's actually helpful to those who live in malaria-prone areas, as it enables the individual to resist the disease better. So if a white guy and a black guy go to such an area, and they both get bit by malaria mosquitoes, and the white guy dies and the black guy recovers, does that mean the black race is "superior"? No, just "different" - locally fitted to an environment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Did I say otherwise? I don't base my political opinions on what some crummy borderland fungus has to say. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Techicality: You called a disease "racist". There's no such thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I only skimmed the articles you linked to, but didn't see anything about race. Could you elaborate? Matt Deres (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The disease affects Filipinos at something like 4x the frequency of whites, and blacks nearly that - it's almost comparable to the difference between AIDS and uninfected. And it's a disease that comes in spores from the air, which for some reason tend to get inhaled by prisoners in their cells even more often than by the general population of the region, which means that you have about as well-controlled an experiment in human exposure to pathogens as it is possible to construct. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An easy solution is to tell the OP to search our archives and come back if he has any questions. I suspect half the question we get are intentional chain pullers. I regret having effectively reopened the recent video question with comment that the first 20 minutes weren't self-evidently problematic. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "don't feed the troll" is generally a good plan - but it's not working out. Today's pointlessly repetitive question in this series was answered by several regulars. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, little point in blaming the beasts when negligent zookeepers leave the doors unlocked and enjoy feeding them their favorite intoxicants. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have to balance WP:DNFT against WP:AGF. Asking a similar/repetitive question is not necessarily trolling, in my book. For instance, we regularly get weird questions about black holes and dark matter, and other related arcane physics. I usually just skip it all, but I'm not about to suggest that our respondents are feeding trolls, simply because they are popular/common types of questions. I'm not sure which question you're referring to above, but I saw nothing trollish in this recent question about human genetics/race [6]. I was happy to AGF an possibly help the OP. I actually think that questions beget questions here, and I think maybe that OP was just trying to sort out the science. If he was inspired by recent, poorly phrased, and trollish questions, why should I care? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you'd get a better idea of the problem if you looked at threads that were hatted as requesting opinion or so forth, and were then reopened with the excuse that they were "interesting" (i.e., my answer was interesting), or that if the OP had actually asked something else (but he didn't) there wouldn't have been a problem, only to see the OP eventually blocked as a troll or a sock. The ref desks are plagued by a ridiculous number of single purpose (look at today's unsigned contributors) or trolling accounts, and the only reason for that is that regulars and admins don't put a stop to it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note for example, this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=563439777&oldid=563439585 created by a "new" Ańotede whose "first act as a wikipedia user is to creat a sophisticated question at the ref desk, image included, and who, when hatted at the consensus of myself and hilo is defended by Osman who claims to know what the OP really was asking. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The question as asked is unanswerable and was appropriately boxed up. Osman's re-invention of his "friend's" question comes closer to being answerable. As to whether it's truly the editor's first edit, I can assure you it was not. Oh, no. His first edits were to his user pages, to prevent them being redlinks. Something that would occur to every newbie. Ja, shoor, yoo betcha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Ańotede (talk · contribs)'s only edit since was a trolling comment on a random article. AGF! AGF! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 00:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That question has nothing to do with race or genetics (the topic of this thread), so I'm not sure why you bring it up here. I was mostly asking Steve Baker what question he was referring to, though I suspected it might have been the one I linked. As for "single purpose" accounts, I do not share your concern. We don't have any rule that says "you cannot create an account solely to ask questions on the ref desks." To the contrary, recent discussions here have lead me to believe that the community encourages posters to make accounts, or else be branded as "trolls" who dare to sign edits with IP only. I myself made many edits and posts as an IP before I made an account. I am very glad nobody accused me of being too savvy when I got an account, and made some edits that demonstrated familiarity with WP tools and techniques. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly correct. You need to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and see what the restrictions are on multiple accounts. And if you made sincere edits while still editing as an IP, you wouldn't likely be labeled a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, we have rules about using multiple accounts used for an "improper purpose" -- but that doesn't say anything about having a single account, that is only used to participate on the ref desk. I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to set the record straight. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You can make a single account to edit as much or as little as you want to. Or you can remain as an IP. Creating multiple accounts for different purposes can be a bad thing. IP-hopping also can be a bad thing. It all depends on what you're doing, or not doing. But when a new account shows up and goes right into questionable behavior, it sends up a flare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, but edits should be judged on their own merits (unless the editor has actually been banned). That an editor is unregistered should never, in itself, be a reason to question the bona fides of an editor. And that an account is used solely to ask ref desk questions should never, in itself, be a reason to question the bona fides of an editor. But so often, that's all some people need to know before they jump on an editor. To them, unregistered editor = troll, and single-purpose account = troll. And that is garbage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the edit the guy made to a wrestling talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My Question

I have asked a question on both the misc and computing desks 3 hours ago and still have no answer. Please answer me. 92.0.111.155 (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting a few more hours. Most of our American editors are sound asleep right now. The sheer numbers of editors there make it the most likely place to get your answer from. (I note from your IP address that you're in the UK. Spare a thought for us Aussie masochists who like to watch The Ashes and the Tour de France. It's already 6.30 pm at night here. Time zones are a real pain at times.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Three hours ago!? (a) Responses can take up to a couple of days, depending on the question. (b) We ask people not to post the same question on different desks, so take your pick and delete the other one. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think this is Miss Bono? She's from Cuba, while this IP is, as mentioned above, British. Rojomoke (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I read Misc and Computing as "Misc and Entertainment", and the only question on both of those desks was Miss Bono's "Lady Gaga's Telephone's cover". My response was an edit conflict with HiLo48, and it was drafted before I'd read his response.

Miss Bono's name removed (but point b still applies to her). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll say this here rather than in the question because some people may complain it's not really an answer. If you want to learn to code, you'll probably need to also learn more patience than waiting 3 hours for responses to your questions. Even if you don't need to ask for help, I expect someone with such low patience will have problems adapting to an atmosphere where you may spend days debugging some minor mistake. And since you may need to ask for help in various forums with low tolerance anyway, I also suggest you learn netiquette like when it's appropriate to crosspost and when it isn't and not to be too demanding of volunteers and others (like bumping or pushing your questions too hard). Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rojomoke why did you mention me? I don't get the point... I see I have a very bad reputation around the Ref Desk.. Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 18:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Relax, Ms. Bono. Rojomoke was actually pointing out that you were not the user in question when Jack of Oz tried to identify the question by user 92.0.111.155 Mingmingla (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Miss Bono (not sure why your user name is Miss Bono but you show it as Ms Bono, so I'll assume the latter is for your own personal use). I figured out the OP was you and addressed my reply to you. Then I was made aware it wasn't you, and I removed your name. I realise now that any subsequent mentions of your username seem to have just come out of thin air, as if people have got it in for you. That is not the case, at least not from me. My motto is: If you're going to stuff things up, do it comprehensively and cause as much trouble as possible to as many people as possible. I feel I've succeeded admirably. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok Jack of Oz and Mingmingla, so I don't have that bad reputation? And a question doesn't Ms. mean the same as Miss?English is not my first language and I am only 19 y-old Ms.Bono^(zootalk)☆ 12:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Ms is different from Miss. Ms is now the standard title for women, regardless of marital status. Miss was formerly used of unmarried women, and Mrs of married women. Mrs is still occasionally seen, but Miss is rare, in my experience. My comment was about why one would choose a certain username (Miss Bono), but then actually use a different one (Ms. Bono). I know a lot of users do this, but it eludes me. (In case people are wondering, I chose JackofOz, without spaces, as my username because at the time I believed that spaces were not permitted. Only latterly did I change my external appearance to include the spaces I would have included if I knew I could. But the words are identical.)

Being 19 means you're an adult, with all of adulthood's rights and responsibilities, so I'm not sure what the "only" is in reference to. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In my country you are an adult with 21 (I think) but i was refering to that maybe I am not an expert in English language as a 34 year old person. But I don't know how is where you live. Thanks for the explanation Jack of Oz, I've changed back my signature :) I didn't know you knew me (I am refering to when you mention me soemwhere above.) Actually i think the only users who knows me are the ones that interact everyday with me. Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 13:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "know me". Wikipedia does not operate like human life where people are introduced to each other by a third party. We all see what all the rest of us are doing wherever we happen to be, and we're welcome to just start a conversation with whomever. I had not had such an honour with you until now. The reason I thought the OP to this talk page question was you, was that it referred to posting the same question to 2 Ref Desks. I looked around, found that you had posted a question on 2 Ref Desks, added 1 to 1, and got 98. I goofed up. Your name should never have appeared in this thread, unless you had chosen to enter the conversation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry the misundertanding, Jack of Oz. What I meant to say by 'know me' is that I didn't know you were aware of my existence in Wikipedia. Again, sorry for my awful English. Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Miss Bono. Why wouldn't I be aware of you? I'm a ref desk regular, and even if I'm not involved in answering a particular thread, I read most of them. From time to time I check out various editors' user pages and their talk pages. I have a shifting carpet of users on my watchlist. Most users have many eyes on them from users they may rarely, or never, interact with. Just watching, watching .... You're never alone here at Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm interesting :). Thanks for your time, Jack of Oz. I will add you to my Watchlist :P Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jack of Oz!, I am a fan of Mandela and MLK. Pointing it out cuz I saw you Other People page :) Miss Bono^(zootalk)☆ 21:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're in plenty of good company - I'm pretty sure all of my friends and family are fans of Nelson Mandela (peace to him) and MLK (and this is not unusual among my acquaintances). Great people. -- Scray (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

archiving bot maintainer username change

Not a big deal, but for the record: my username is now User:scs, not User:Ummit, but I'm still me, and I'm still maintaining scsbot. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic dictionaries

Askers and answerers might find these dictionaries to be useful when they read information on the World Wide Web.

• Set 1
  • VoyCabulary.com - Online web dictionary & thesaurus word linking lookup reference tool. (Enter a web address or paste text.)
  • POPjisyo.com - Dictionary Translation Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Kanji/Hanzi (Enter a web address or paste text.)
  • Welcome to Doroja online dictionary : Double click on any word in any site to get English to Bengali and English to English meaning (Enter a web address.)
  • lingro: The coolest dictionary known to hombre! (Enter a web address.)

• Set 2
  • ProfessorWord: Improve your vocabulary while you surf the web (Drag the button to the bookmarks bar.)
  • Dictionary Bookmarklet: popup a definition of any word in your browser - Peter Coles (Drag the button to the bookmarks bar.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Start Snuggle

Wiki-mentors, I made you a tool. IRC discussion Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC

Snuggle users and the Teahouse are co-hosting an IRC office hours session (Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC - #wikimedia-office ^connect) to discuss the state of new editor support in Wikipedia and introduce you to WP:Snuggle, a web-based tool designed to make finding good-faith newcomers who need help fast and easy. Give it a try by pointing your browser to http://snuggle.grouplens.org.

See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail (talk), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hatting of answer to IMDb question

On the Entertainment desk ("Several replacements for one site?") I queried a response by Medeis as not being relevant to the topic. Her reply confirmed it was "obviously not" relevant. She attempted to justify it on spurious grounds, and I told her why it was unacceptable.

Then I hatted that whole section of the thread, including my part in it.

Medeis then amended the hatting to exclude her original post, with the edit summary "nothing bad faith about my suggestion".

Another irrelevance! Who ever mentioned bad faith? What made her answer inappropriate were:

• her introduction of the irrelevant topic of spying, something the OP never mentioned
• her failure to answer the question, which was "what other websites also do these same things?", and
• her incredible rudeness in telling the OP to return to the very site they said they want nothing more to do with.

It seems the Policewoman of the Reference Desk does not like being policed herself. Would someone else please deal with this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Medeis is a guy. But that aside, I agree with you. It's one rule for Medeis, another rule for everyone else. Here and at ITN/R. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? My answer was in good faith, I have clarified it for the OP in case it wasn't clear. It violates no policy. I happen to know various people who are leery of using various websites for want of not having data collected. If the policy is we don't just hat things because we disagree with them then stick to it. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your answer was extremely tangential and speculative. The OP had said "...for reasons that I'd rather not specify", yet you picked up exclusively on that element of the question, and speculated. Not just off-topic, but going directly against an implied request from the OP. Completely inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jack, Alex, And HiLo. Most of the time I try to ignore Medeis. He/She seems to spend more time being a not picking pedant than trying to actually help the OP. In this particular case, the NSA/security angle was pulled from his/her own nether regions. The OP didn't specify their reason for disliking IMDB and has no obligation to. Dismas|^(talk) 13:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the rest (except of course μηδείς). The answer as with a few answers from μηδείς was just bizzare. In fact the OP links to their email address in their user page and to a blog which links to a Google Plus account which suggests privacy is not necessarily something that is of great concern to them. And considering the majority of sites do some sort of tracking and I'm not aware IMDb is notorious for their tracking so it would likely to be something to mention if it was a concern to help look for suitable sites, yet OP specifically said they's rather not specify the reason (although did mention one thing they don't like about). And perhaps it's must me, but 'disenchanted' seems to imply wider and more general concerns than just their tracking. Of course it's still possible it's a reason but a better bet would be to ask the OP if they would change their mind. Perhaps I wouldn't have minded if μηδείς's post was polite and clear even if completely OT and commenting on something the OP sad they'd rather not comment on, something like 'If you are concerned by tracking, consider disabling cookies' or something similar. But to me, their responsive came across as dismissive and rude, not to mentioning easily confusing. Not to mention μηδείς'shistory of deleting and closing a lot of similar often better stuff.,Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This began with Jack arguing with me, and then deciding to hat my comment only after he had done so. If I hat an item it's because the item is a request for opinion or a blp violation or some such, which I specify, not because I don't personally care for the answer after arguing with someone. I find the implication that I should have looked for the OP's email address on his user page before telling him he can disable cookies if he wants to continue viewing a website without "dealing with them" quite weird. The notion that my suggestion was insulting is simply bizarre, and you'll forgive me if I don't find the advice of a person who calls users "idiots" in his edit summary and their contributions "bullshit" very helpful. Nothing I have sad to the OP is a personal attack or insulting in any way, and there's no policy anyone can point to that shows my advice to him is at all problematic. You may disagree with it's usefulness, but that's hardly a reason for this thread or Jack's actions. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You could have written that post as "Look over there, not at me". HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, do please look at me. I said to the OP "If you are simply concerned with the people who run IMDB you can disable cookies for them specifically, and continue to use IMDB. It's not like they're the NSA or something. μηδείς (talk) 3:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)". I stand behind that. The OP can tell me if he finds it insulting, in which case I will apologize. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It may not be insulting, but it didn't answer the question, and did address something the OP did not want to discuss. The problem was that it didn't address any issues at all in the question, because we don't even know if cookies and surveillance were the issues that the OP had with the site. Since the OP also explicitly stated that they were not interested in discussing the reasons, offering anything other than the requested information (other, similar, sites) is simply not answering the question. Your answer, while potentially not incorrect, was not relevant to the question as posed. That, I believe, is what Jack is objecting to: you answered a different question that that which was posed. Mingmingla (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I get that people besides the OP may not think my answer the best possible or most helpful one. The reaction above is way beyond that. I didn't advise the OP to tell us why he didn't want to deal with IMDb or question him. I suggested a way he could get the info he wanted from a site he said he found helpful without having to interact with them. Jack could easily have dropped a note suggesting he thought my initial response was abrupt, as I did here with Hilo. Instead, we have a forum where Jack pointily remarks on how I don't like it when he does to me what I don't actually do to others, and where others with standing grudges are invited to chime in with vague accusations. I have repeatedly said I'll apologize to the OP if he says I have insulted him. I don't think there's anything else for me to say at this point. I am also changing the header to something per WP:NEUTRAL that doesn't assume my conviction in its wording. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Some responses to the above:

... not because I don't personally care for the answer after arguing with someone. ... This began with Jack arguing with me

• I queried your post (How is that telling the OP "what other websites do these same things"?), and you quickly responded Obviously it's not and went on to explain what your post was about.
• You are the one who provided the argument in response to my legitimate query. That explanation made it very clear your post was irrelevant and off-topic. I hatted it because it was off-topic.
• Your characterisation of when anyone dares to take issue with anything you say as "arguing with you" is inaccurate and dishonest.

If I hat an item it's because the item is a request for opinion or a blp violation or some such, which I specify, not because I don't personally care for the answer

• This attribution of my reason is baseless, inaccurate and dishonest.
• I specified my reason, clearly, before I hatted it.
• The implication from your words is that others may only ever hat things for the same reasons Medeis would have done so. Yet again, Medeis is laying down the law for others to follow. Well, tough titties, baby.

... and then deciding to hat my comment only after he had done so

• You have considerable form when it comes to having your say about some issue in which you’re involved, then announcing at the end of your post that you are immediately taking the page off your watchlist. Meaning, you don't give a damn what anyone else might have to say about what you've just written. Medeis has spoken, the discussion is ended! So please do not criticise me for hatting something only after I have had my say. The matter was clear cut: I asked for evidence your post was relevant; you confirmed unambiguously it was not; I told you why it failed the relevance test; I hatted it.
• I only brought it here after you altered the hatting to make the irrelevance refer to me and not to you. More dishonesty. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's curious how continuing this benefits the OP, any party who's commented here, or the project. If I said "not relevant" to you on the Entertainment Desk Jack, I obviously meant "not irrelevant". That being clarified, unless it is still "tough titties", we could drop this. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than respond to my specific points, you prefer to drop it. May I take it you agree with everything I said?

These sorts of discussions benefit the project by improving the operation of policies and rules that are not working the way they were intended to; or where the actions of particular editors bear some discussion, so that we can all be clear about standards of behaviour and what approaches will work best, for all of us.

You have often asked me to bring issues right here, rather than continuing them on the Ref Desk itself or on your talk page - I've done exactly what you've asked.

I have not even begun to understand your second sentence, which is far from "clarified". Can you assist, please? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling: I wouldn't be so sure Medeis is a guy. I always thought of Medeis as an old grumpy woman. OsmanRF34 (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling & @OsmanRF34: Medeis has previously objected strongly to being gender-identified, archive link: [7], although having self-identified as having worked as a waitress (and explained that waitress does not necessarily imply female gender). Whatever you may think of the singular they, they is the most appropriate pronoun for Medeis, IMHO. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, as you want. When I think about they, I think of a group of grumpy old people. Better now?OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A statistical analysis indicates that the frequency of pipolar variations in the observable behaviour of the specimen coincides with the lunatic cycle. One may deduce intimate details from this observation, but, may be, one is not inclined thusly. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pipolar? According to Urban Dictionary: "The disorder when a polar bear changes it shape randomly into the pi symbol. This does not harm the bear as in anywhere from 2 minutes to one hour the bear changes back to its original shape.

Person 1: Dude, didn't you hear the polar bear at the zoo has been diagnosed with pi-polar disorder!!!" OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for prediction regarding Fed action this coming winter

We've got a rather odd command to advise an OP without prediction what will happen this winter if the US Fed should take an arbitrary action. It's rather obvious we have no reliable sources that will answer this, and I have closed it as a request for prediction. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"If the Fed does _____, who would know what the fed had done? Could people know what the fed had done?" Paraphrased, of course. I don't care whether you call that a request for prediction, but it is eminently answerable, and it is very clear that was the OP is looking for is a deeper understanding of the transparency (or lack thereof) of the asset buying program. Hatting a question simply because you don't like the way it was phrased when the core question is ripe reference desk material is simply unhelpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are quite free to off refs, until then, this is a request for prediction. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

One obvious example is the behavior of the stock market. When the Fed chairman floated the idea that they might cut stimulus early, the market plunged. When he backed off from the that, it rose again. However, that does not mean that when the stimulus ends it will guarantee a plunge again. Because I always hear the so-called experts saying that the markets like stability, and presumably advance notice, which I think was an angle to that poster's question. So if they know something's going to happen, they can prepare for it. But that is at best an educated guess (provided you can find an expert's guess, cause that ain't me). There is no absolute way to predict what will happen, only guesstimates of what might happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP isn't asking us to speculate what the stock market would do. He just wants to know whether and how someone can tell if the Fed has made a purchase. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, then maybe the right answer would be about how to determine where government spending goes. So whether the government gives notice or not, presumably there's a place that they would report their spending, after the fact, and someone in the know could check that information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, you seem to have a high regard for the respondents here; apparently if we few stalwarts cannot answer the question then that automatically means that the question is unanswerable and purely a call for speculation? Absurd! The question is about transparency - who watches the watchmen and all that good stuff. Just because the three or four dozen regulars here can't name that group or individual doesn't mean that nobody can. Let the question stand. Matt Deres (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You shure has got some purdy speechifyin. Question remains a request for purdiction what ain't got no references to hand nor given. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The current version of the question is "Who would notice? What would the general public see?" and that is potentially answerable, as it's really asking where such information is visible (if anywhere); and some users have attempted to point the poster in a potential direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would not pile on if there were a glimmer of realization in your responses, Medeis, but seeing none I will say that I agree with the consensus - a "what if" question is answerable if it's a Gedankenexperiment, meant to explore what is using a specific hypothetical set of conditions. The question is not about the conditions, it's about facts (what checks and balances are in place...). I realize that this discussion may have run its course, but it can be helpful to explore these issues from time to time. ...and a parody of multi-syllable explanations doesn't contribute anything but noise. -- Scray (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Humanities_reference_desk#Hypothetical_legal_question

I would like to hat this; it's in direct contravention of "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". Why is everyone feeding it? 174.88.9.124 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ta! 174.88.9.124 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That includes the pointless gun control debate that happened in there. While there is plenty of room for discussion on that front in general, this isn't the place for it. We aren't changing any minds on that one. Our positions are too strongly held (on both sides), and no amount of "logic" is going to help either way. These political debates should be zapped on sight before they derail the real question (not just in this one, but in general), or better yet, not engaged in in the first place. Mingmingla (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite what many Americans would like to be the case, gun control is seen by many, both outside and inside the USA, as a major issue surrounding that case. If that case is raised, you cannot ask that gun control issues be ignored. And this is a global encyclopaedia. You cannot demand that non-Americans not comment on it just because Americans can't deal with it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm Canadian and agree with your stance on the issue, Hilo. However, this is not the place for that debate. Do you really think your arguing with bUGs is going to change any minds on the issue? Mingmingla (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The real problem was that the poster's question was labeled "hypothetical" and yet was obviously about the Zimmerman case. Gun control is a side issue, as Zim could just as easily have pulled out a knife or a blackjack (if he had them) and delivered a fatal blow. As regards the second amendment, maybe HiLo could take his time machine back to the late 1700s and advise the founding fathers to word it differently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Whatever your stance (or mine) the ref desk is not the place to debate politics. It a place to answer questions (with references, preferably). Mingmingla (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against any particular position on gun control here in this thread. I am arguing that to ask people not to mention it is ridiculous. It simply IS a major reason why the Treyvon Martin case has received widespread attention, at least in my country and, I suspect, elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun control was not really a major issue in this case. It was about behavior and race and the competence of those handling the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have brought it up. This is exactly what I was trying to point out what we should avoid. It is no more appropriate to debate the case here that it was there. The talk page is for discussion of the ref desk and its policies. The Ref Desk is to answer questions with references wherever possible. This is neither. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)