Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

WT:RD

fixing the shortcut link

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

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

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

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

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

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

mobile accessibility

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

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

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

Side by side search fields

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

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

article gripes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layout problem

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

Topics are not desks

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

"Choose" or "Select"?

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

Where are the recent archives???

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

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

Skip to the bottom

Bot to add internal links

What would everyone think if i were to build a bot that would go though the reference desks and add internal links. This is still just an idea that would need to be refined before implementing. The first step is to get approval(and i don't know how to go about doing that so any help would be helpful). Thank you – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, what do you all think about adding internal links for other peoples questions. As i did here and here. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of the either idea (the bot or the edits). In general, we should refrain from changing other people's signed contributions. --LarryMac | Talk 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought about it that way. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec*2) While the intent is good, we actually discourage editing other editors' posts – especially the original questions – to add links to Wikipedia articles. (See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers.) The first problem is that the original poster may not notice that someone has modified their question or realize that the newly-added links contain the answers to their question. The second is that subsequent responders may assume the original poster added the links and is already aware of our article. A much better strategy is to just a comment pointing explicitly to relevant articles. (Optional advice about using Wikipedia's 'search' box may also be provided.) It avoids any confusion about who said what.

On the topic of automatic linking, I'm not sure that it would be possible for a bot to do so sufficiently intelligently. Look at my last sentence — which words should have links? 'Topic', 'automatic', 'linking', 'possible', 'bot' all point to dab pages. Of those, 'bot' and 'linking' might justifiably require links to help out the less computer literate; how does our bot figure out how to proceed? 'Intelligently' is a redlink, and there's no easy way for a bot to guess that the desired piped link is probably to artificial intelligence. What you've described – the generation of automatic, sensible internal wikilinks – is actually an extraordinarily difficult task. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, don't edit other peoples posts. Just provide internal links in your response, that's good enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - bad idea. The actual core of the problem is that your addition of a link implies a particular meaning of a word or phrase that the original author may not have intended. It's hard enough for a human to figure out which meaning is intended - but a bot stands no chance. At best, the results might be humourous - at worst, we might end up picking up the wrong meaning and answering completely the wrong question rather than asking the OP for clarification. Also - when the OP makes a link, there is an underlying assumption that this means that (s)he read that article - we actually lose that information if you go around automatically making links. So I've gotta oppose this (well-intentioned) idea. SteveBaker (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if this idea was applied to normal articles? – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem: how can a bot decide from the context what is relevant or even correct? Possibly you could write it as a module for AWB where editors could review the proposed changes. Franamax (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm pretty sure there is a semiautomated bot / mechanically-assisted specialty wiki-editing browser out there somewhere that does precisely this. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the skillz to write a bot, I'm sure there's better use for your talents than polishing these transient pages. But if you must ... how about implementing the oft-suggested feature of making each refdesk question its own page, similar to WP:FPC? That way questions could be bookmarked easily and edit conflicts wouldn't be such a bear. --Sean --76.182.94.172 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like that at all. My watchlist would be huge, and how would one's watchlist alert one to a new question? Edit conflicts aren't a huge problem on the desks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts are a minor concern; the bigger issue (from my POV, of course) is the way that links break after threads are archived. It's been proposed before and deserves (another) thread of its own, but I'd be in favour of making it happen, if it was feasible to do in a user-friendly way. Matt Deres (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more relevant thread is this one from two months earlier, which I haven't forgotten. Indeed, I may yet get around to figuring out the refactor I alluded to... —Steve Summit (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet colours???

Is it me or is this question not entirely dissimilar to some we've had before? --Tango (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were thinking of this one. As it was deleted it probably did not make it into the archives. SpinningSpark 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is itself referring back to this question. He/she doesn't seem to realise that there have been thousasnds of edits in between his/her posts and just carries on the conversation as if we had just been sitting here for weeks waiting for the reply. SpinningSpark 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it goes back rather further. See here. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the same person who asked before (and before and before and before...), he/she is not interested in an answer. I have failed to figure out the benefit for this user's arguments. Next will come questions about the color of Jupiter, then Pluto, and finally Uranus. Perhaps, this user just thinks it is funny to lead up to the question, "What is the color of Uranus?" -- kainaw ™ 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wanting to implement the previous decision of deleting this guys questions, you have my permission to delete my replies along with it. SpinningSpark 00:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no NO. I know the answers to these. I'm just afraid to explain it. Since I don't want this thing to turn into a dialogue, I spent 3000 hours learning it, now I 99.99% got it. Let's just STOP criticize me now, what' the color of Jupiter, Uranus, and Pluto I know the answer. I don't enjoy leading this question. Let's just leave the answer on, since i have to study it. I've been studying older ones many, many times, I understood most of them. I just keep it to myself to avoid dialogue of No, No, No, Saturn is this, Mars is this, Neptune is this. Just go away since this is the FINAL LAST ONE.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just close these answers. I'm done now.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - and on my own talk: page, we find User_talk:SteveBaker#This_is_the_last_OP_then_I.27m_done...I_promise - followed by: User_talk:SteveBaker#Sorry_to_ask_you_again_but_I_found_some_errors_on_some_response - what we have here is a rock solid, chromium plated, turbo-charged troll. Which part of "I promise" did you decide not to bother with? SteveBaker (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid he won't be able to answer you for another 24 hours when his block expires. SpinningSpark 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to SB's question is on my talkpage, I promise Steve, I will not hassle you again. Sorry, I thought you made some mistake, and purposely mislead me. I do not have problem grabbing your information. I just have to think further and make connection. my promise is I will try to stop, and I will try to white flag myself from keep asking planets colors. Whatever it is i will not ask you any further questions, I swear to God and Bible.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible request for medical advice.

Meta discussion moved by NorwegianBlue^talk 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about this question, which I interpreted like this:

I have a very weak teeth. I have visited many dentists, but they weren't a lot of help. Now, after so many advances in other fields, I find it weird that no-one has found a preventive treatment for dental cavities. I think it should be pretty simple. Some kind of mouth wash that will produce a thin film on the surface of the tooth, so it won't be in contact with food left, so no cavity will form. Really, I don't think it should be that hard. We've built space ships, rockets, submarines, airplanes - I think it should be a pretty easy task. I say this, because I visit the dentist so often, and it's frightening every time.

As Captain Disdain pointed out, there's technically no question in there. My interpretation was that the implicit question was Why has no-one come up with such a preventive treatment? --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion cut-and-pasted from the refdesk:

This is clearly a medical question - and we aren't allowed to answer those - I'm sorry but you REALLY need to discuss this with your dentist (or perhaps a doctor). If your present dentist can't answer your questions to your satisfaction - then find another dentist who can. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical questions aren't disallowed, only medical advice. Since some of my wording above may be construed as medical advice, I edited it slightly. The questioner is not asking for a diagnosis, but about whether caries can be prevented by surface treatment of tooth enamel. --NorwegianBlue^talk 15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - medical questions are indeed disallowed. If you scroll to the top of this page, it says: "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead." SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Steve's talk page. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally acknowledge that there is a difference between a question about medicine and a request for medical advice. "What is the surgery called where they remove an appendix?" is a perfectly acceptable question, for example, despite clearly being about medicine. This particular question, however, does seem to be a request for medical advice (although it is difficult to be sure since the OP has only got about 50% of the characters correct...). --Tango (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't seem like he's asking for medical advice, just telling an anecdote relating to the subject. "Why can't we create a mouthwash that leaves a thin film of material covering the tooth so the tooth does not contact the food?" He's not actaully asking about how he should deal with his teeth. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I find this constant medical advice paranoia very silly. --Taraborn (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly isn't a request for medical advice, it's a request for information on the feasibility of creating a mouthwash that coats teeth in a thin film. Just because someone relates a question to personal experience doesn't mean they are asking for advice on it. Instead, the OP would like a scientific opinion on whether such a mouthwash could be created. At least that's how I took it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on NorwegianBlue's talk page that this is a difficult question to mark as either a request for advice or information because it isn't a request at all. There is no question. If you read the question as "What can I do about my teeth?", then it is a request for advice. If you read the question as "What can some person do about his or her teeth?", then it is a request for information. Therefore, I feel that it is important to come to consensus about what the question may be before arguing about medical advice. Otherwise, people are arguing about how they personally added an implied question, not about the (absence of a) question itself. Another opinion - replace the replies with a note to tell the questioner to ask a question. As of now, it is just a rant and we've normally removed rants. -- kainaw ™ 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kainaw - respondents are left to infer a question, and may or may not infer a request for medical advice. I would err on the side of asking for a clearly-stated question. --Scray (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers removed --NorwegianBlue^talk 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Porno

I removed this [2] question. I trust that's uncontroversial? APL (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious link spam. Good decision. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these exact same links posted on several other websites over the last few days, dude is desperate for a rapidshare premium account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed Password

Just removed this post. The user posted his password.– Elliott(Talk|Cont) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some form of wiki suicide? I don't think there is much of a problem here, leave a short note on his talk page telling him to change it as soon as possible and remove this thread to draw less attention. Besides, he has only a few edits, it's not like an admin account has been compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on they way he edited, the things he used in his edits and the way he knew to format the code with the <source lang="bash"> tag I'd have to say that that user is an experienced user. But based on his edit history and lack of contributions i'd have to say that he made that account for the sol purpose of posting that question. That also leads me to think that he is doing illegal things with that program. These are merely my speculations. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if he was doing something illegal, which we can't be sure of since we don't know what country he's from, it's not really Wikipedias job to ensure editors are abiding to the laws of whichever country they happen to be in. Obviously there are exceptions, but on the whole minor things like editors smoking drugs or cracking wi-fi routers are ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MICROPROCESSOR

This dude has posted the same question six times today. I asked him to stop and he has not. Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he's still at it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has removed the comments saying this is homework and he should produce evidence of his working first. He should be banned for a period. Dmcq (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the user isn't responding to warnings, the next step is to go to the admins. Now if only {{tilde}} counted as a warning. . . :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong desk

What do I do if the desk I posted a question on turned out to be wrong or only be the right place for part of the answer. Can/should I move my partially answered question or would I get dinged for that? Should I post it as a new question on another desk? Current case I'm asking about is my language desk Q "English "legalese" meaning of assign", but I'm interested in the proper procedure in general. (And how do I get the edit window to do a line break without adding a paragraph space above the new line?)71.236.24.129 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clearly in the wrong section, like a computing question on the entertainment desk, you can move it. Cut and past the question to the correct desk using the same heading, and provide a link under the previous question heading to the questions new location, so that OP can find where it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just re read and you're the op, sorry. Yeah, feel free to move it, but same as above provide a link to it's new location —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do so. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD Templet

What is the opinion on the template below? Would people use it? Would it be accepted? How can it be inproved? Is there already a template like this? Input would be greatly appreciated. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Template
Usage: {{questionresolved\|Computer}} Welcome to Wikipedia! This has been placed on your talk page to inform you that your question(s) at the Computer Reference desk has an unconfirmed solution(s). If you feel that your question has been resolved to your satisfaction feel free to place a {{resolved}} tag at the bottom of your question. And thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

Could be helpful. I have a feeling lots of the questions are "drive by" and the user won't be willing to spend extra time once they have gotten the information they needed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, i will look in to placing a link in my templet that will allow the user to add the {{resolved}} tag with 2 click of his/her/it/them mouse.– Elliott(Talk|Cont) 18:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy idea, but what if every thread was in a collapse box? Nah, probably a bad idea, I'm just thinking of a page full of nice little colored boxes :D never mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have an aswer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E_smith2000#What_if– Elliott(Talk|Cont) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both this and the box with the big green {{resolved}} check box is that it assumes that the person who puts it there (either respondant or supplicant) knows that the question has been fully and correctly answered. I can't begin to count the number of times that an incorrect answer has been given and the check-box added. This is dangerous stuff because there may be yet more answers - or corrections - or total rejections of previous answers yet to come - yet we've told the OP that he/she can stop looking for any more answers. I suppose there is a case for saying to the OP "Hey come and look back at the RD page because a new answer has been added - but having to go to the OP's user page and add a template for every single answer you give during the course of a day would significantly impact the time it takes to offer answers. So I have to say that I don't like this idea. Sorry. What I'd like to see happen would be for every question to somehow wind up on its own sub-page so that the OP and respondants would see it in their Watchlists...we've talked about that before - but somehow it didn't get anywhere. SteveBaker (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I'm not really a fan of link message spam. There are already too many warnings and automated messages flying about. If the OP wants to know if the question has been answered, they'll simply check the ref desk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP?

From what i have gathered the meaning of "OP" is the person asking the question. But what does "OP" standfor? – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Poster". It does not originate here so it don't fit perfectly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can also mean "Original Post". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those are the real meanings, but I believe I've heard people use it as though it just meant 'other poster'. I believe this is a corruption however. 94.27.244.146 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"other poster" would not be a useful meaning, since it doesn't specify what poster. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour of Science Desk

Has anyone noticed that when you ask or answer a question on the science desk then publish it, the page appears then immediately begins to scroll up? It only happens on this desk and none of the others. What is happening and can it be fixed by someone?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied to a question and didn't see any of that kind of behaviour. Have you seen it do this more than once? I'm using Firefox 3.0.1.0 on XP sp3; maybe it's a browser issue? Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I doubted it was a browser problem (Google Chrome on Vista SP1) was because it only happened on the one desk. It doesn't happen all the time, but actually most of the time. I don't want to open Firefox to check because I am on limited bandwidth and Firefox takes much longer than chrome to load (plus the incessant updates for addons). I'll do it when I get to a Wifi Hotspot and check then. Cheers. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what I think is the same phenomenon on the maths desk when there's a lot of math markup, especially when using a link to a specific question from my watchlist. The browser loads the page to the anchor specified, but the larger math "characters" cause portions of the page above the anchor to become "larger." I notice there's some math markup on the RD/S now, maybe the same thing is happening? --LarryMac | Talk 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

troll question removed

Diff --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've answered that before... or a variant thereof. Dismas|^(talk) 10:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't realise that. If you think it's a valid question, please feel free to reinstate. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question was added back by the OP. While I'm not going to remove it now, I personally concur with the original removal. I think the key issue here is 'variant thereof'. It's one thing to ask about how to hide a human body. It's a resonable thought experiment that easily results from TV etc. However when you add 'need a quick answer' that takes it beyond the realm of a serious question to just plain trolling to me. There may be a few odd cases where you'll need such an answer fast (e.g. your competing with someone to come up with the best answer) but 99.9% of the time... Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks rather troll-like to me. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone asking the question legitimately would instantly realize "how it sounds" and add something to the effect that their question was merely theoretical (even if it wasn't.)

This person added something about needing a "quick answer". It's pretty obviously a troll in my opinion. APL (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another 'colour of planets' guy's question removed.

This one. IIRC, this is banned/indef blocked User:Freewayguy. Feel free to restore if you think I'm in error. I won't mind. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I don't need this question, and I'm not trying to ask about planets color. I was trying to ask something a little different but a quick one. I didn't know I was doing wrong, I'm just asking for a source to clear it up, but not about planets color. This question is probably just common sense.--69.226.39.79 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scsbot holiday

For various reasons, Scsbot, the RD archiving bot, is not fully automatic, but rather, is manually kicked off by me each night. It is not quite reliable enough to run in a fully automated manner.

I'm going to be out on a boat for the next two weeks without, I belatedly discover, any Internet access at all. Therefore, there's no way I'll be able to archive the desks for those two weeks.

And of course two weeks is far too long for the desks to go unarchived; the high-traffic ones would be completely unwieldy if they accreted that much backlog. I see two options:

Someone (or someones) can perform a simplified fully-manual archive of the desks. (See below.)

If that's too much trouble or there are no willing volunteers, someone (or anyone) can do a wholesale deletion of swaths of old questions on the high-traffic desks. Then, when I get back to civilization, I can retroactively run the bot on the appropriate old revisions from the page history, effectively reconstituting the archive pages. (But until I did that, the "archived" content would not be visible except in page history; it would not appear either transcluded or on the appropriate archive page.)

The only tricky part about #1 is inserting the boilerplate header at the top of a new daily archive page. That's done with this template invocation:

<noinclude>{{subst:RD Archive header|day|month|desk|year}}</noinclude>

Oh, and I guess the other tricky part is creating the daily table of contents on the monthly archive page. Feel free to not link the individual questions (that is, feel free to settle for how the monthly archive pages used to look, for example this one from 2006).

If anybody falls back on #2, it wouldn't hurt to leave a note here indicating when you did it, and for which desk(s).

Finally, if anybody is able to step in and help out with some manual archiving, feel free to wander over to the Help Desk, which will be needing the same sort of attention. (The instructions are slightly different; see the Help Desk talk page.)

Thanks, and apologies for the inconvenience. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are simple and easy are generally (in my opinion) not interesting. This seems to be complex and not easy. I'll help you out. Just tell me what i need to do, when i need to do it. and the mathematical formula explaining why the theory of gravitational propulsion could not make a fish talk to me. :) The only thing is that i really dont know how to do is to archive anything. Besides from that i wm fully willing to help you out. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe do some of type 1 (I've done it before), but I cannot create new pages. If someone else was willing just to create the new archive pages I could do some moving of content. 80.41.99.250 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:troll?

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Mouse_issues seems to be trolling. And in fact seems to be an exact repeat of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2009_January_1#Mouse_issues– Elliott(Talk|Cont) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be significant that this IP made several edits to the talk page of a known Avril troll sockpuppet here. SpinningSpark 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote troll - there are enough posts that exhibit significantly more knowledge - mixed in with ridiculous quasi-humor like this one. So - we all know the procedure - right? No more feeding. SteveBaker (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had this same problem called in from a lawyer. He did understand that he could lift up the mouse and move it to the center of the pad to move the cursor further to the side of the screen. His issue was that he wanted his mouse pad to be relative to his screen - never requiring him to lift the mouse. It is possible to do by changing the mouse speed. So, while this is possibly a valid complaint, I seriously doubt this questioner is being honest in any way. -- kainaw ™ 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to do with a larger pad. The mouse doesn't measure absolute position with any degree of precision - so over time, the position 'drifts' so if you put both the mouse and curson in the center of the pad/screen at the start of day - then after only a few hours of work, the cursor won't come back to the center of the screen when you move the mouse to the center of the pad. Worse still, if your mouse pad is big enough to allow the mouse to reach the edges of the screen - then as you slide the physical mouse past that position ("off the edge of the screen"), the screen cursor will move to the edge of the screen and stay there. If you move your mouse off still further - then move it a little back towards the center, the cursor will start to move immediately - it doesn't know that the mouse is "off the edge of the screen"...this kind of behavior will make your absolute position still further from where you expect it to be. So a bigger mouse pad will only delay the problem. It's basically a silly idea - mice are 'relative' devices and that's that. This is an oft-repeated stupid question and NOBODY who knows even the slightest bit about computers makes this mistake. Honestly - both the OP and the lawyer who called you were yanking your chain. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of Matt Eason's comment that includes :this link it has become clear that this is an attempt at trolling. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now please don't take this as a personal attack, because I like you E smith2000, you help out at the desk and all, and I sincearly hope I've made a mistake with what I'm about to say. But I think there is something more going on to this. I'm not trying to point fingers here, and I'm only mentioning it since SpinningSpark brought it up above, but when 64.172.159.131 first edited User talk:82.43.88.87 I thought it was E smith2000 who had forgotten to sign in, as they posted very similar things, see here and here, and has also edited User talk:E smith2000 here. E smith2000 is also the OP of this thread. Coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps the edit summary "repeating characters" attributed to my above post was not entered by me, and I've stated a thread at WP:HD to ask what the hell caused it

Very keen observations! I did indeed make those edits you mintion, but i did not add that question to the reference desk. The only explanation that i can offer to this phenomenon Is this: My daily commute takes me from the capital of California to the edge of Lake Tahoe. I commonly stop by coffee shops on my way to and from work. While there i browse wikipedia. I cant remember which shoppe i made those edits from. But i will compile a list of ip address of my most common shopps. And it is just a coincidence that i happen to be the one to bring this to the RD's talk page. But i do not think it is a coincidence that some edits from 64.172.159.131 were made to an artical i created; Here and Here, this will really help when trying to figure out what shoppe those edits came from. This edit i did mistakenly on my way home. And thank you for pointing this out to me! – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with this answer, I just thought it would best to point it out. Thank you for explaining.

I am afraid that i know where that ip address resolves to; My office. One of my co-workers has been making those edits. This is now an internal matter. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious joke/troll that several people have now fed. Can we just delete the thread and move on? Matt Deres (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the vote to delete that post. I am not really sure as to what preseduals must be followed when removing questions from the WP:RD. – Elliott(Talk|Cont) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make it crystal clear that if your account is used by someone else for making bad posts - Wikipedia's admin staff WILL hold you responsible and apply blocks and bans accordingly just as if you had behaved like that yourself. That is because it is considered your personal responsibility not to leave your computer turned on with screen not-locked when you aren't there - and not to use the "remember me" function on computers with shared accounts such as Internet cafe's. We have to hold you responsible because the "Oh! It wasn't me - my little brother did it." defense is old and tired and far too many vandals and other obnoxious people use it. So - be very sure you don't let this happen again - because we WILL assume that you're lying to us! SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Request for Medical Advice?

This thread (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Avoiding_sexual_arousal) on the Science Desk seems to be skirting medical advice territory. The poster says that a friend is easily aroused sexually and asks what can be done about it. The current responses seem to be very diagnosis-like in character. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]