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.

yet another racialist question

I guess I should be used to the racialist questions, but I have closed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Biracial_people as having no obvious purpose other than to solicit opinion and inflame debate. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)3

It didn't seem particularly inflammatory, and it's a legit question to ask, even if the premise is faulty. Where I live, most biracial people are "half-white". We don't need our OPs to give sources to their questions, and Matt Deres gave, as you noted, a very good answer to it. I won't undo your close, but I also won't agree with it. Mingmingla (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I guess we can't demand sources, but we can challenge silly, ignorant assumptions. Rather than my fairly polite "Are they?". I could have said "They're not. Your question is based on a silly, ignorant assumption." It would have been true, but would it have helped? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the question reminds me of this one: "Why do flamingoes stand with one foot up in the air?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general point: μηδείς may want to let another user catch the next potentially controversial change. Just so that the potential controversy gets balanced out. Sazea (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume there's a joke in there somewhere. Speaking of which, the answer to the flamingo thing is, "Because if they lifted the other foot, they would fall down." In regard to bi-racial, "Why are they half-white? Because the other half isn't." Seems simple enough, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are people who are half-African and half-Asian; or half-Hispanic and half-American native; or any number of other combinations of multiple races that don't involve whiteness. It may have been a trollish question, but I don't see an open-and-shut case. In such cases, I'd prefer we just answer them with a straight bat, as Matt has done, mark it Resolved and leave it at that. If it was a troll, this very thread is giving them the oxygen they crave. So I'll shut up now. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic is considered to be of the Caucasoid race, Mediterranean sub-race. In any case, it might be interesting to see some stats, if there are any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with the closure. The user has asked two questions previously, neither of which smelled even a bit like trolling and were quite legitimate. While I think most regs here recognize that discrete races is a concept that has no merit, you can still talk broadly about how various societies have historically interacted with the world. It's not racist nor racialist to note that Europeans have historically been interested in expanding their influence over a wide area of the globe and that, because of that, there might seem to be a larger number of people that are "half-white" than there are people who are "half-Polynesian" or "half-Aborigine". It needn't have been like that; things could have been very different if a few chance occurrences had happened differently. But it did, and so there are a lot of people all over the world with some European heritage. But for some 14th century Chinese politics, it could have been the situation that there were more half-Chinese folks spread all over the world. Why not let the questioner know about this stuff? Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that User:Tango has now unhidden it. I endorse that move. It wasn't trolling. It was an odd question based on a false assumption, perhaps because of limited experience and knowledge on the part of the OP. How to respond is the tricky bit. Our article on Race (human classification) makes it pretty clear that there are no universally agreed definitions in this area, as some of the above posts and those in the thread in question make clear. Because of this, responses have to digress somewhat from the original question. Our challenge is to agree on when they have digressed enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I am suspicious of so many IP and new user questions that ask for the explanation of some sort of racial nonsense with no wikipedia venue such as the why "they" call the Italians the Chinamen of Europe question. The "denigrate" question is only the most recent. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You're forgiven :-) I'm pretty suspicious about a lot of those kinds of questions too. It's an ugly area. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspicion is a natural human reaction, but this is really about how we implement WP:AGF. Sometimes, a post is so blatantly racist, homophobic or sexist in its outright vilification that there's no possible doubt, and we're within our rights to delete it, box it, or whatever we think is appropriate. But where there could be a reasonable basis for asking a question - a basis that doesn't imply any of those sorts of attitudes, or any agenda to foment hatred - we are required to "assume good faith". That is, of all the possible motives that might lie behind a question, we are required to assume the least negative one, not the most negative one. It's called giving them the benefit of the doubt (and anyone who thinks these things are never in doubt, read below). That's our rule, and if anyone has an issue with it, they can take it up in the relevant forum.

Here and in other online places we generally have no idea what led the OP to ask their question in the first place, and there's no requirement for them to tell us. It's folly to assume in any given case we know what's in their minds. We have to get by without any of the non-verbals that in most human communications comprise, depending on who you read, somewhere between 70% and 95% of the meaning of an utterance. Out there, You're a bastard can be a total put-down or a compliment, depending on how it's said, and their voice tones and inflexions, their body language, and the context tell much more of the story than the mere words used. Here, there'd be a whole lot of misinterpretation going on, even amongst ourselves, if it were not for the LOLs and smileys that usually accompany jokes. Most of us have to be trained to do this, because it's quite unnatural to always have to give some overt signal that "This is a joke". So, when questions come out of left field, and pretty much ALL the questions we deal with come out of left field (not that they're all sinister :), we have to recognise we're dealing with far more unknowns than knowns, and our responses should be conditioned by this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"assume good faith" is usually a good policy throughout Wikipedia, but I personally believe, based on my occasional forays into the reference desk pages, that many questions about race and sexual practices (especially), that are apparently treated seriously, are actually trolling or baiting. I would not oppose a more sceptical policy on those. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we all think that about some posts. But how do we tell the real ones (the ones that arise from academic research or natural curiosity, with no sinister agenda) from the nefarious ones? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

request for advice on murder

this IP is requesting how to kill rats, with the side comment that he would be quite happy if it led to the death of his neighbor's children as well--I think it should be deleted entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Rat_poison μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The user removed the hatting. I removed the section entirely. We are not in a position to advise him on poisoning in any case. I have placed a warning on his user page. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Directly below a user wants advice on poisoning himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#iodine_reacting_with_titanium μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dodger67 opined, and I agree, that this was not a request for medical advice, and the hide box was removed. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a severe overreaction. They are not asking for advice on murder, this is an intentional misrepresentation on your part. They made a joke, as obviously their neighbor's kids are not going to be eating rat poison in their roof. I reverted your deletion. Plasma Physics answered, and had no problem with the Q, and neither do I. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We should not be giving advice on the use of poison in any case, we are not professionals or privy to the circumstances. I believe the item should be deleted, regardless of how fun it might be for editors to give answers. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Half the stuff on the Science Desk is about poisonous chemicals. Please don't remove it again unless you first develop a consensus to do so. Threatening the user with a block on his talk page was also out of line. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, StuRat, having seen the tarbabies you've stuck your fingers in here, yours is the last advice I'd be comfortable taking on any matters of judgment, thank you. Advice on poisoning is simply beyond the pale. I think your action is quite irresponsible. The least you could do is err on the side of caution and wait to restore the thread. There is no hurry in answering this question. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And seeing your actions here recently, you are the last person with sufficient judgement to act unilaterally, and then threaten to have the OP blocked if he reverts your unilateral deletion. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing about the kids was a joke. Strike it or delete it if you want. I seem to remember something about humor being permitted on the rd so long as it's not an inside joke (you know since if my neighbour's kids are in the roof then they're probably not wanted), but if you're offended, then I'm happy to have it redacted. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In case it is still not clear, we shouldn't be giving advice on the use of environmental poisons at all. This has nothing to do with being "offended"--its about not giving amateur advice on how to treat an infestation using deadly chemicals. μηδείς (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and we shouldn't give people car advice because they might screw it up and explode if we're wrong. We shouldn't help people identify pictures of berries because they might eat it and die if we're wrong. We shouldn't even identify flowers for them because they might think it's safe to take inside and their cat eats it and dies. Anyway, if it's clear the OP is already intending to go so far as to spray his roof with industrial chemicals, the only way we could make it worse is to recommend he take a flamethrower to the creepy crawlies. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but unless/until a consensus is reached and the guidelines are modified to add this sort of prohibition to the others, I don't agree that your opinion translates to a blanket "we shouldn't". —Steve Summit (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the RD has previously given advice on poisoning rats. 112.215.36.174 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate language?

There's a question on the Humanities desk asking about the sexual abuse of children using language that is somewhat unfortunate given the topic. Whilst I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, I wonder if it could be appropriate to moderate the language a little in this case. I was tempted to do it myself, but I haven't - a) because I think the question itself is valid, so doesn't need removing, and b) because it would be rude and presumptuous of me to edit someone else's post. Looking at the OP's talk page leads me to suspect that they would be inclined not to change it if asked. Am I being too squeamish here? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's a cutural thing, but it's not a problem to me. A comment I've added on that page is that while I can accept that the word "fuck" on its own is seen as profane by some people under any circumstances (not to me), the expression "fuck him up" should not be so regarded. We all know that the meaning of that expression has nothing to do with the sex act. It's just our amazing English language at work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Substitute "rape", and it falls into place. There's physical rape, and there's also metaphorical rape of the mind. Often, the one is bound with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You've lost me there. Again, maybe it's a cultural thing, but I've never heard of "metaphorical rape of the mind". Want to expand on that? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

More politely put, "messed up", is the same thing. In this case, psychological rape as well as physical rape. The victim is a torrent of emotions over this violation. The perp doesn't care, he just wants what he wants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the closing of this thread. No matter how high emotions run on the subject, it is an important area of academic inquiry. There have been a number of children subjected to recovered memory therapy who now are said to be subject to false memory syndrome, and it is said that by being deluded into thinking that they were sexually molested, that they suffer long-term psychological harm akin to - in some versions of the story, even equivalent to - that arising from actual rape. Which would mean that whatever appalling physical indignities are done to the child, that the child can heal, and it's really the part about having to talk about it, or having people know about it, or being psychoanalyzed about it, or something ... is really where the damage occurs. (some sources deny there's such a thing as false recovered memory syndrome [1]) That might seem absurd, but let's bear in mind that little kids endure various types of probing for medical purposes that can range from a rectal thermometer to genital reconstructive surgery for birth defects, and people assume that they don't have any psychological aftereffects! So there's every reason to look into this part of the intellectual map and put something there for our users besides a fanciful drawing and "Here There Be Monsters". And I am inclined to assume good faith and assume that the original poster asked a question honestly and legitimately. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef banned user socking?

Does anyone else feel Special:Contributions/DriveByWire who appears to have a good knowledge of how things work in Norway and appears to be inviting some sort of admin response over correcting others spellings of it's/its [2] and makes a big fuss over other such spelling and grammar things in general (and also appears to like a spherical cow response although they're hardly unique in this) bears strong similarities with another indefinitely blocked former RDer? Worth filing an SPI? Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm 12. What is this? DriveByWire (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you're 12 or 21 or "3", you are not allowed to mess with other editors' comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember another odd user -- I think it was "Bred Ivy" or something -- who came out of nowhere and started kvetching about grammer in a pretty characteristic way, and I wondered if he might be a sock. I also note that "Bred Ivy" is an anagram of "Drive By". —Steve Summit (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bred Ivy (talk · contribs) was a pure troll. DriveByWire (talk · contribs) might not be either a pure troll nor the same user. But Bred Ivy would have been indef'd if he hadn't disappeared on his own (under that ID, anyway), and if DriveBy is not careful, he could be driving down that path too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it very hard to accept that someone who wrote the following posts - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - is only 12 years old. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe unless he's reporting it in hexadecimal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

An anagram is no reason for the comparison, in my humble opinion. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, experience indicates otherwise. Regardless, it's odd how Bred Ivy magically turned up here, after over a 3-month abscence, just when he was being talked about. Must be psychic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's much simpler than that. Lots of people read Wikipedia and its various tentacles who choose not to get involved as editors. I'd warrant that most banned editors continue to read WP, at least for a while. Some so keenly feel the need to continue making their invaluable contributions to world knowledge that they arrange to be reincarnated.

Actually, on a more serious note, I wonder who will be the first WP editor who really is a reincarnation of a deceased editor. We're probably in the zone where that's possible now. Assuming reincarnation actually occurs. The ex-editor would have had to die very early on, like 2001, and the newby would only be 11 tops now, but still ... Hey, DriveByWire claims to be only 12, so maybe ... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why says an extracorporeal time line has to have a certain slant? I'm not sure about the details of certain religions, but a person could be reincarnated before or during their previous incarnation; indeed, there's one Atman and the rest is done with mirrors. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have missed it but I don't think BredIvy complained much about grammar or spelling, instead randomly complaining about some post Tango made and other similar stuff. It is clear neither is new. Perhaps Steve Summit is thinking of Cerlomin, who we pretty much established was a sock of another editor who liked to complain about spelling/grammar but who was only temporarily blocked (and both of them disappeared anyway). Speaking of anagrams, [8] is somewhat revealing. Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[9]. Yup, trolol. DMacks (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To DMacks and Nil's revelations, I can only say this:[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Joke policy

Do we need a joke policy? I've seen numerous threads over the past few months where the ratio of joke-to-content is unbalanced, where the jokes come well before the good answers to, and where OPs who complain about jokes getting in the way of their answers are told that they, not the jokester, have committed the faux pas, by complaining.

Hey, I'm not opposed to a little community. Joking does wonders and we're all volunteers. But I sort of thing some really basic courtesy is called for. Some thoughts:

1. Don't start with a joke. If the question hasn't gotten at least one or two serious answers to it, don't start off with the bad puns or small quips. (Possible exceptions are questions that have no possible serious answers, though even then, tread lightly, give it a few days. Just because you don't think a serious answer is possible doesn't mean it's impossible.)
2. Keep the jokes pretty inoffensive. The Ref Desk is used by people of all ages, genders, sexes, classes, races, nations, languages, religions, and what have you. Don't post something that you wouldn't say in a room full of diverse strangers. Don't let the relative anonymity of the Internet turn you into a jerk, inadvertently or not. We're not censored, but we don't have to be pointlessly offensive. If it's considered racy in your culture, it's probably worth just keeping under your hat. (We're not asking you to try and guess what's offensive in all cultures, but it's a healthy assumption that if it's racy in yours, it may be truly offensive in another's. There's really no need for that either way.)
3. If the OP complains about the joking, just apologize and/or cease and desist. Engaging in a long, drawn-out conversation about whether your joke was appropriate or not is not productive for the Ref Desk's overall goal of answering questions. A simple, "OK, sorry about that" will do, and nobody will think less of you for being big about it. It really doesn't matter if your joke was or was not appropriate or not. Part of being civil is recognizing when you're irritating the very person you're supposed to be helping and just backing off.

I'm not a fan of bureaucratic bloat, so I'm not really proposing that this go through some sort of long, drawn-out process of agreement and hemming and hawing, but I will just put it forward as a suggestion for best practices. Again, I'm not opposed to a bit of joking and whatnot — I do it myself. But I do think we should not let the chatty, community aspects overshadow the ultimate justification for the Reference Desk — because Wikipedia is not a chatroom.

To use the physical metaphor, I'd be pretty irritated if I went to a real-world library reference desk with an earnest question, and all the people behind the desk did was make little puns, trying to one-up each other, without actually answering the question. Just my two cents; not trying to single any one user out in particular, this is something I've seen coming from a lot of people. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 98's proposal in general. I think this is really just a special-case restatement of WP:TONE. If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk. We might do well to more aggressively remove unencyclopedic contributions, whether by regular or non-regular contributors. Nimur (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing goes a bit far, and should only be used in extreme cases. Hatting is sufficient in most cases. Otherwise, you could end up with people deleting any contribution which they feel doesn't have adequate sources, as "nonencyclopedic", leading to edit wars.

I also disagree with "If it doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia, it probably does not belong on the reference desk". For example, if a user posts a homework problem he did and got marked wrong, and wants us to help find the error, that's not the type of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia, but it does belong here. There are many other examples. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Helping with the homework question in the tone of an encyclopedia is fine; only the content need be different. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The tone needs to be different, too. For example, you wouldn't use the first person when writing an article, but it's fine when answering a Ref Desk Q: "When doing such a problem, I first...". StuRat (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Content_and_tone. It doesn't cover Mr. 98's third point though. I agree with that one too, and it could be added to the guidelines. No need to lecture an OP for complaining about the jokes. Obviously, in these cases, the joke wasn't appreciated. Swallow it and move on. Don't berate the OP for not sharing your sense of humor or for having the cheek to insist on an answer rather than a joking post which doesn't include an answer). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/cx2) I agree with Mr.98. Matt Deres (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to 98's physical example, I'd be amused if a ref desk at a library was as lively and responsive as you describe, as long as my question did get answered. The Ref Desk is "staffed" by volunteers, so, Nimur, talk of "aggressive" action, however well intentioned, is completely inappropriate absent an "aggressive" cause. All that said, most of what is proposed is fine. You might consider putting it up for reference in the same way the we sometimes use Kainaw's parameters for "Is this medical advice?". I doubt you will get agreement for anything stronger than that. Bielle (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I Also agree, jokes should not interfere with answering the questions. A possible exception could be if a joke is actually to the point and would contribute to addressing the posted problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the 3 points raised, but as noted, more appropriate as an essay. On #1, if all you are going to post is a joke as the first response, don't bother - though a combined joke and refutation ("this can't be answered as science does not address this question, but I would use a pink flying unicorn") is OK. The humour:content ratio ebbs and flows over time, it shouldn't be overwhelming in any thread or from any one user, and beyond just hatting bits of a thread, approaching individual editors on their own talk pages to calmly and politely discuss the level and appropriateness of their RefDesk humour quotient is always the best way to go. Even if they tell you to screw off, you can just say your piece and give them time to think about it. If there was going to be a "policy", that is what I would write up: the 3 principles above, discuss on user talk first. And my own thing too - use -small- notation and indent an extra level so that it's very very clear you are stepping out from the actual purpose of the desks and not taking yourself seriously when you make a joke. Franamax (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think worrying about jokes when we don't worry about editors wanting to poison themselves or others is itself a joke. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think bringing up one's own pet peeve in a completely unrelated thread is disruptive and narcissistic, but you don't see me banging on about it here there and everywhere. Franamax (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? My merely expressing the fact that your (pl) concern with jokes--but not the irresponsible giving of advice on deadly matters--is a huge inversion of priorities is hardly "disruptive". As for jokes as such, humor is often the only appropriate response to some of the absurd questions posted here, the outright trolling, and especially self-important moralizing. Something about the mote in your own eye, pal. μηδείς (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're referring to, sorry. Please feel free to start your own thread if you have a separate point to make. Please don't try and hijack this one, though, just because you think it is less important than other issues. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. There are many places on the internet for posting jokes, but the Reference Desk is not one of them. If someone absolutely must post a joke it should be after the OP of a question has gotten a good answer, and should not detract from the question or lower the tone of the thread AvrillirvA (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And if there is no "good answer"? Or if it's a really dumb question? Or trolling? Or completely unclear? The other day we had a post that said "uv". Nothing more. Please suggest a "good answer". HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed they wanted to know about ultraviolet light, and gave them the link to our article. I could be wrong, but it's a reasonable guess. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! If the question has no good answer, the answer is "There is no good answer because _____." If the question is actually dumb, the answer should be easy. If it's trolling, ignore or hat etc. If it's completely unclear, say "This is not clear because _____." If it's funny, say, "This is funny because _____." or make a joke which explains the humor by being both another example of the same joke, and funny in a different way. If too many of the most recent questions are funny, treat them as trolling. If it's offensive, say, "This is offensive because _____." 75.166.192.187 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, if there is no reasonably good answer to give, it's pretty simple: don't answer at all. Leave it for someone else, or just let it lie fallow. Mingmingla (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mingmingla's response is generally mine on these sorts of things. If one absolutely does feel the need to engage the un-engaging, a simple, "What's your question?" might suffice. I still don't see humor (especially mocking humor) as the answer, here. I'm not sure who you imagine is on the other end, but it could easily be a child, a confused elderly person, someone with a disability, someone whose computer is acting up in strange ways, or whatever. There's no need to assume they're a troll or a jerk or an idiot. AGF. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mocking is not acceptable, whether done jokingly or in any other way. The whole thing whereby people decide, explain, pontificate or judge what is or is not funny, is completely beside the point of humour. When you hear something that makes you laugh or smile, your experience is joy, which you express by laughter or a smile. Transferring that onto the thing that caused it, and saying you "find" it funny, is just that, transference. But humour is far more complex and subtle and individual than that. One joke might make 10 people laugh, but cause distress to 10 others. The first lot would say it was funny, the second lot would disagree. And who would be right? Answer: None of them, because it's not about whether it is or is not funny. It's solely about whether a listener does or does not experience joy.

If someone makes a post here that was not intended as any sort of joke, but still had the effect of producing laughter in a number of editors, how would we deal with that? Would we say it was inappropriate because of the effect it had? The answer is obvious. So really, it comes down to the intent of a post. If the intent clearly is to make people laugh, that seems to be not-OK in the eyes of some people, but if there was no such intent (whether laughter was actually produced or not), that's perfectly all right (as long as it was appropriate in every other way). Is this a sane basis for assessing the appropriateness of posts? When did it become not-OK to actually want to spread joy?

Sure, sure, we have to remember the purpose of the ref desks, and keep them a welcoming place and not inadvertently drive people away, and keep things in perspective. But that can all be achieved in an atmosphere that is not as dry as dust and boring as batshit. Who would want to work in a workplace where no communications are ever permitted that are not strictly about the work, and nobody ever laughed? This isn't a Dickensian workhouse. I've never worked in a place where there was a formal policy about joke-telling, specifying what jokes are acceptable or not, and under what circumstances they may or may not be told, and I'd hate to see such a Stalinist policy instituted here. I have worked under policies that promote mutual respect and forbid racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise inappropriately discriminatory behaviour; and I've certainly worked in environments where the serious purpose of the team and the pressing nature of the work meant that people didn't have the time or inclination to be joking every 5 minutes - but there were still regular opportunities to have a break and let our hair down and let off a little steam and have a laugh.

Well, guess what, the Ref Desks are not even a workplace to begin with, and it's not like we're all working on some grand project that has a budget and a deadline and there are chains of command. People have their own reasons for being involved here, but in 100% of cases there is an absence of compulsion - other than their own inner drives. People often turn up at work every day because in a very real and practical sense they have to, and not necessarily because they particularly enjoy the work or the environment. These Ref Deks are the exact opposite of that. There is zero compulsion, and we keep on turning up only because we DO particularly enjoy the work and the environment. Having some rules is important, but it's so easy to overdo it. Zealots can do just as much harm in their way as vandals and trolls do in theirs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What Jack said. Also, if this is to continue, shouldn't people be giving diffs? And funny '98 should mention computer acting up. If you see an edit summary by me that makes no sense it's because my computer decided to hit the RETURN key all by itself before I was finished typing. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We do need to be aware of medical implications. It's a well-documented fact that many people have died laughing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a few jokes and a bit of banter is OK once the thread has developed. What I find annoying, in my experience of using the ref. desk from time to time, is when the first person to answer does so with no real intention of being helpful but simply to show how witty or clever they are. That does occasionally happen. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Bugs did make me laugh. Most of us (myself certainly included) don't wish for a boring, dry workhouse. I don't think we need to dichotomize into "no joke is ever appropriate" vs "all jokes are always appropriate because no one gets to decide what's appropriate". I think the key reason these (and other) threads pop up occasionally has to do with how certain types of posts produce distraction. When a distraction from the question or topic is presented before a relevant reply has been posted, a number of askers may feel turned off and not taken seriously. We've received such feedback multiple times since the desks exist.

Of course I too keep turning up because I enjoy the work and the environment. Once again, I point to point three of "Steve Summit's take on the reference desk" :

"The purposes of the Reference Desks are [...] To have fun showing off our knowledge, expertise, and erudition."

"[...] I think it's just as important to acknowledge, because it explains why those of us who participate are actually here. It's all well and good to state highfalutin virtuous altruistic principles for these desks, but people aren't going to come here and volunteer their time and expertise to answer questions unless they enjoy doing it. So their enjoyment is important. In fact, to the extent that a certain amount of humor and friendly banter are enjoyable, those aspects are important, too. They certainly can't be denied and shouldn't be discouraged. But, again, they come at a lower priority: if (when) they come into conflict with the helping-the-project and helping-the-questioners goals, they've got to give way first."

I enjoy receiving a joking comment from the librarian most when it comes with the answer or service I'm looking for. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I go along with all that (while acknowledging that I do occasionally offend against the "answers first, jokes later" rule). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any new/special policy here - it should be uncontroversial to say that the purpose of these pages is to answer questions, and humor is welcome as long as it helps rather than hinders this activity. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I find lengthy discussions conducted all in small font to be probably ultimately more annoying than jokes. The usefulness of small font tagging for even single asides or off-topic comments is dubious at best, and entire sub-threads in small font are ridiculous... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What if a template like this existed, and could be encouraged instead of small tags? [Edit: my code for a collapsing "joke" template was removed because I did a half-assed job of it and broke something. Sorry Tango.] Like a self-imposed collapse (but not in bold text on a green background). Subsequent jokes could go inside the same collapse, all tidy-like. Has the advantage of clearly labelling the content "joke" to reduce possible distress.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, offer editors the option of purchasing rose-tinted glasses which will make comments posted in joke-pink become invisible. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the small font convention is intended to make the off-topic joke less intrusive. The problem I have with this collapsing box convention is that it makes it more intrusive (when compared to small text). A collapsible box, even without bold text and bright background, draws attention to itself and cuts up the flow of thread. While such collapsible boxes do discourage contributing further to the off-topicness, I think it's outweighed by the disruptiveness of introducing such a box in the midst of a conversation. -- 71.35.99.136 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If the template was properly made, it could be only as high as a normal line of text (reduce the padding) and the box could be indented like any other text (not sure how to do this, but removing "indent|0px" seems like a good start). So it would fit into the flow. Could remove the border, too, and give it a fixed small width, so it just says "joke" in small text with a "show" link right beside it. (I guess all that would entail an inner div and ... but anyway.)  Card Zero  (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If this template existed it could be abused. It raises the reader's expectation of finding something funny. What they get in return for investing in an extra click on show may not fulfil expectation. There is also endless possibility for mischief in applying the template to posts by others. Some of the best humour is subtle humour that is not improved by painting a red nose on it. DriveByWire (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's already a rule against modifying other people's posts, e.g. by collapsing them with the ordinary collapse template. And we already make disappointingly lame jokes. You may be right that these are less disappointing when kept in plain view.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to any such uses of hidden text with a "show" button, for all the reasons mentioned. This device merely draws special attention to the content and tempts the reader with an almost irresistible "read me!". "show" is fine for factual content that you know you may or may not be interested in. 86.181.206.183 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to raise another point about jokes that I haven't seen expressed yet. I don't want to overstate it, but I'd like to point out that the use of friendly banter and in-jokes and hidden text wiki-links, etc. can serve to make newcomers feel nervous about participating. By creating a "culture" on the desks, we make it so that people must become part of - or at least deal with - that culture. This can be very off-putting, especially to people who aren't native speakers or who are unfamiliar with using technology at all, let alone the use of wiki-markup. Like I said, I don't want to imply that there's this horrible hegemony in place, where newbies have to run a gauntlet of social pressure to take part. But there is a barrier of sorts, and it probably becomes more noticeable when we get bogged down with engaging in snappy patter with each other (never mind cracking jokes about spelling or grammar mistakes, however good-naturedly). What we see as two regs engaging in some one-upsmanship punning, the newcomer may see as a kind of hazing that they fear to be subjected to.

To return to the physical model, when we go to a real-life library help desk, we know it's not a corporation, but we probably want to deal with someone who has some small sense of decorum and we'd probably hesitate before walking up to someone who appeared more interested in reciting his favourite Monty Python skit than manning the desk. In fact, we'd probably surmise that the guy wasn't actually there to help us. Which was the entire point of having the desk in the first place, right?

In RL, I chair a school council and a regional council in an area with a very diverse group of parents. It's truly been an education to me to see how easily people can be turned off by the subtlest hints of non-inclusion. I've already written longer than I intended, so I'll forbear the tedious examples I've witnessed; suffice it to say that, unless you've had to try to engage a wide variety of ethnically and socially diverse people, you probably won't grasp how easy it is to make someone think that what's going on is "more trouble than it's worth".

This isn't an admonition on anyone in particular and I'll say for a third time that I don't think we've really gotten that bad at this, but it's something that I've learned (from personal experience) is good to bear in mind. Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed racist comment

I've removed this comment because it looks racist to me. Do people agree? If so, do people think we should take any further action? --Tango (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think any further action is needed, other than to keep an eye on the question, which seems to be drifting a little off-topic. The two comments previous to the one you removed (not StuRat's, the other two) make some rather sweeping generalisations about Muslim women and their ability to join in university life, but I think the posters were misinformed rather than mal-intentioned. The later comment didn't allow any doubt, so it's well removed. I don't think we should worry about further action though - now it's gone there's no lasting harm done. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "racist". There's no such thing as a Muslim race. However, it's xenophobic and religionist and obscenely rude to the questioner. So it's fair to zap it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment was more about the countries the poster assumes a Muslim must be from rather than the religion itself, which is why I said "racist". It doesn't really matter, though, "xenophobic" will do. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. Terms like "vicious" and "hateful" come to mind also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. Other RD posts from Myles325a (talk · contribs) today include this (since removed) and this - some sort of user talk page warning about making more constructive contributions may be in order ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are more like crude jokes. I expected to hear a "rimshot" after each of them. The editor's been here 5 years, but I don't recall running across him before. Has he always been like this, or is this a recent change of behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at the editors talk page reveals that it is far from the first notice about inappropriate behaviour at the ref desk that this editor has received. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This does seem to be the first that was so clearly unacceptable, though. There is a trend we need to keep a very close eye one, definitely. I asked about further action because I thought people might feel we should take a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of thing. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no question it was correct to remove it, and also the user should be cautioned if that has not already been done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted to the user's talk page to inform them of this discussion. If they read this thread, they'll know we consider their actions unacceptable. Is that sufficient? --Tango (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's been warned, then that should be good enough for now. If he does it again, take him to a neutral corner and sic an admin on him. He's been here 5 years. He should know better than to say what he said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Myles325a's history, I can see 3 distinct issues.

One is they seem to like to try and use the RD to get feedback on whatever random theory they came up with. Some of these like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 October 28#My theory on why we often can’t run in dreams – is it valid? and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 January 10#Krakatoa explosion – must it happen again? we can perhaps provide some meaningful feedback via references but in other cases like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 19#Is my brainwave re: Joining Interplanetary Federation genius or loony? and especially Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 April 21#What would Earth be like if it was 82% more wonderful? the theories are just so bizzare that it doesn't seem to me to be the sort of thing suitable for the RD.

A second issue is historically at least, they seem to have posted followups that may be annoying or even offensive as they appear to berate respondents sometimes because of the Myles325a's own misunderstandings or inability to understand the responses. (There's of course nothing wrong with saying you don't understand a response or saying it's wrong or confusing but many of the OPs replies come across as unnecessarily incivil or attacking of the respondents particularly given they are the one asking for help.) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 February 15#What exactly is a magnetic field? is a clear example but Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 May 10#Conditioning Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 August 7#Possibility of landing on a neutron star (also see the 'Joining Interplanetary Federation' question). While these aren't the sort of thing likely to lead to blocks in themselves (rather just people declining to help Myles325a in the future), given the other civility problems and behaviour on the RD they don't helpo.

The third issue appears to be offensive remarks directed at countries or people based on their places of origin or other things like religion or English ability, e.g. this response [11] seems unnecessary inflammatory even given the apparent soapboxing of the OP (even if the followup [12] made things worse). (While joking about another country does happen, it's the sort of thing which can cause offense and problematic followups particular if the wording is poor. In a real discussion on the advances of India, it would generally be fine to point out ongoing problems but as said earlier, the post seems unnecessarily inflammatory.) Another more extreme example of course is what started off this thread (even if considering the nature of the question, I'm guessing there's a fair chance the OP will never be back). A third arguably even worse example is where they attacked someone on their talk page [13] (from something that arose from the RD) which reached ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671#Can someone take a look please?. While in all 3 cases the OP who was attacked misunderstood the purpose of the RD (although in the case that started this it was a harmless issue) but I don't think that excuses anything, particularly since IMO anyway Myles325a doesn't seem to always use the RD in the fashion intended.

BTW, while the name sounded familiar, I myself didn't particularly remember the responded but now I do remember their characteristic manner of posting follows in the form of OP Myles325a back live (or similar). (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, simply it's distinctive enough that I remember it so perhaps others will too.)

P.S. I removed [14] as a BLP violation. If people want to joke about themselves, that's up to them but I think we should be wary of jokes about potentially identifiable living people even if they're people the person joking knows closely.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a particularly difficult question, but my first impulse is it implies that Wikiversity should include PeerWise (the question-and-answer database, not the routing optimization protocol.) Characterization of the unfamiliar should not include phrases such as "toilet (sorry, nation)" so I tentatively agree with the removal, but suggest a wider issue concerning international relations, diplomacy, education, and income equality. 75.166.192.187 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand most of the words I just read, but not what they are supposed to mean in sequence. "But suggest a wider issue concerning...income equality"? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We just had an exchange student basically looking for advice, and someone suggested Wikiversity. That would be great advice if it had PeerWise or better (i.e. open source.) But Wikiversity doesn't even have Moodle, which is what I suppose the open source better version of PeerWise would be based on. Anyway, so someone suggested study in Australia, and someone apparently took offense on the mistaken assumption that exchange students are bad, or unfair to natives, or whatever, and responded in what they thought was in kind. But the intention to offend was present so the removal was proper. The wider issue of income equality involves the reason that the Australian took offense to an exchange student. Normally I wouldn't be inclined to care, but in this case it does suggest to me that Wikiversity should be upgraded. 75.166.192.187 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to call an editor "you cretin"  ?

Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth. The term cretin describes a person so affected, but, as with words such as spastic, idiot and lunatic, also is a derogatory word of abuse. DriveByWire (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. I called the editor on it, but there's been no response. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack do you mean this post from you? It ignored the grammatical point just made and instead you reacted provocatively to the perceived insult "you cretin". I think you muddied the water further by introducing a Biblical exhortation, apparently using the words of Jesus reported in Mat. 7:3-5. DriveByWire (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus called someone a cretin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't bringing this up several days later without any kind of notification to the editor in question stirring a bit? It was clearly a joke, perhaps not a very funny or tasteful one but there are more important things to be worrying about--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

::::I do believe, given Medeis's proven fluency in linguistics and a number of languages, one of which is French, that he/she would not make that mistake, especially given that she/he was apparently correcting the so-called "cretin". I believe it was a joke. It should have been in small letters so that everyone would understand, no doubt, and the joke would only be funny to those who had some experience with French, but it is just too blatant to be anything else. That's how I read it, in any case.Bielle (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC) So much for assume good faith. Bielle (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(The secret truth is I was mocking his Christianity, not his thyroid condition... μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC))(This is a joke, Bielle. I assumed you knew the etymology of the word.)

Slow news day, Driveby? For what it's worth I had no problem with Jack's comment, and he was correct with the demand for an accent aigu if I was going to kid the guy about his barbarism. (An insult, presumably, to Barbaras.) I am waiting for driveby's apology to myself, Jack, and this board for trying to pick a fight. But I won't be back here to look for it. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully not. Adhering to common civility will probably prevent further need for you to "pick any fights" with this board or anyone else. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

barbarian, barbarism mid-14c. (adj.), from M.L. barbarinus (cf. O.Fr. barbarin "Berber, pagan, Saracen, barbarian"), from L. barbaria "foreign country," from Gk. barbaros "foreign, strange, ignorant," from PIE root *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- "stammering," also "non-Aryan"). Greek barbaroi (n.) meant "all that are not Greek," but especially the Medes and Persians. Originally not entirely pejorative, its sense darkened after the Persian wars. The Romans (technically themselves barbaroi) took up the word and applied it to tribes or nations which had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. The noun is from late 14c., "person speaking a language different from one's own," also (c.1400) "native of the Barbary coast;" meaning "rude, wild person" is from 1610s. -- online etymology dictionary. The word has nothing to do with the Biblical reprieved prisoner Barabas "son of the father, master or teacher" Matt. 27:15-26. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@ DriveByWire: No, I didn't "ignore" the grammatical point Medeis made. Medeis was perfectly correct to bring to attention that coup d'état is pluralised by adding an -s to the first word and not the second. That correction per se needed no further comment from me or anyone. "React provocatively" is not an expression I'd accept here, but I did take issue with "you cretin". I didn't see anything joke-like about it, and I still don't. I don't even get the joke that everyone else seems to be in on, so can someone please come to my aid here?

Up above at "Joke policy", Medeis had used the "mote in your own eye" analogy on 2 July in a reply to Franamax. So, when I saw the lack of capital letter on the opening word of Medeis's post, and the lack of an acute accent on état, in a post that was correcting another editor's orthography and spelling - and apparently calling them a cretin to boot - I figured it was more than fair enough to reflect the mote/eye thing back at Medeis. So, no muddying of waters from this quarter.

You are the one who opened this thread by asking whether it's appropriate to call people cretins. Now, you're taking issue with me, the only editor who seems to have had a strong objection to the use of such language. What is your agenda here? Entrapment? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In respect of Medeis's joke: Medeis first denied that what I saw as a joke was a joke, and accepted Jack's correction. Then she/he did make a joke, addressed to me, on the word "cretin". It shares a Latinate origin with the word "Christian", which in French (which was a part of the whole shtick) is pronounced in a similar way to "cretin", having no "s" (chrétien). It is always a bad idea to try and explain a joke. And I didn't get it right away, either. Bielle (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe Medeis's remark to have been hyperbole for effect. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If this be so, then Medeis must win the "extremely obscure joke of the month" award. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now too. Dangerous stuff, this humour thing. Please handle with extreme care. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A good example why joking must be limited on the boards, I think. Mingmingla (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A half a box of bad eggs is still a box of bad eggs. I think it's a much better argument for an editor, before they post their joke, considering whether it could possibly be misinterpreted. This means putting oneself in the shoes of others and hearing with their eyes. :) This case shows that the reasoning "It's so over the top, there's no way anyone could think I was serious, so there's no need for me to make any overt sign that I'm joking" does not work. And WP:AGF doesn't assist here either. AGF does not require readers to assume that a post that looks for all the world like a direct insult or a direct personal attack is actually the editor's idea of humour, and to let it through. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I said that you "ignored" the grammatical point made by Medeis because although you indented your response directly under Medeis' post you neither confirmed nor denied her point, and instead merely characterized her negatively as being in a nit-picking mood. Now, days later, you say you accept her point about "coups" not "coup". That's nice to know but I have no opinion here about that. I say that listing faults in someone's action may be ok but ascribing them to that person's mental state or "mood" is a provocative reaction (especially when addressing a lady, but you didn't hear that from me). I don't get the cretin=chrétien joke either. I think it is an afterthought that only serves to convert the abuse "you cretin" into an admitted mockery of a person's religion, and neither action is civil. When you indent your post in a particular thread under a particular question, it has to be judged in that context and no reader should be expected to check what Medeis said to someone else somewhere else....you don't give many diffs, do you? Therefore your "mote in the eye" expression comes across as a vague incivility towards Medeis. Now you have explained where it came from, it seems your formulation owes its long-term sourcing to Jesus via St. Mathew and its short-term motivation is your wish to snap back at Medeis by reflecting her words. That looks muddy to me. It is clear that you are not the only editor who finds Medeis' post objectionable but you need not have inflamed the issue as you did with your mixed message, and you could instead have been the first to raise it in a calm way on this page.

We should spare a thought for the editor whom Medeis called a cretin. Rmhermen is informed of this discussion and I surely speak on behalf of the desk editors in expressing our apology to Rmhermen. DriveByWire (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's diffs you're after, particularly in relation to others' mental states or moods, try this for size.

I must rush now. I have to dash off a quick thank you note to the Cornish Ogre, and the mails won't wait. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are best used like footnotes to substantiate or exemplify something stated in one's post. When you have a moment, please explain how it is helpful here to "reflect" a post of mine that was given in a different context on a different page (your own). I remember that you reacted strangely at that time, hence my bewilderment at that diff appearing now. DriveByWire (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The rules of indentation have recently been the subject of talk on the ref desk itself, but it is very clear that many, many, many people are not aware of them (they were characterised by one editor as "unwritten rules", which is certainly not the case), or are aware but choose to ignore them. I myself sometimes prefer to act in flagrant violation of the indentation rules, when it suits the occasion to do so. Like language, we might think we prefer everyone to always and in all circumstances talk and write the way the prescriptivists prescribe, but we have to actually work with the stuff the descriptivists describe, because people have a funny knack of working out for themselves what works best. Besides, if everyone always talked and wrote only the way the prescriptivists prescribe, the human race would have died out millennia ago as a result of mass suicide occasioned by excruciating boredom.

You came to my talk page and posted "These questions will serve you as a reality check". You did not address that remark to anyone. You did indent it under StuRat's previous post, which might mean you were talking to StuRat, or, given the above, it might not. Regardless, anyone (C) with any sense of courtesy would not just inject themselves into a conversation between A and B, on either of their talk pages, without at least making it unambiguous to whom they are addressing their remarks. Opening with the name of the editor they are addressing is normally considered de rigeur in these situations. Otherwise, it can be reasonably inferred their remarks are addressed generally to all the participants in that conversation to which they were not previously a party. Or, it can be reasonably inferred they're addressed specifically to the owner of the talk page. I chose the latter of those 2 reasonable assumptions. It's not my job to check all the previous posts of interlopers (you) to see what if any history they may have had with my interlocutor (StuRat), and if I may quote your own words here: "... and no reader should be expected to check what [Medeis] said to someone else somewhere else". Further, you are not the incarnation of an earlier editor with a cuddly name or any other name - are you; so that wasn't a factor I could have taken into account in assessing to whom you were talking. Given all that, my assumption that you were talking to me was a perfectly valid one.

Your link was to a page headed Bipolar Mania Test. I did not read it, as I assumed the tacky and childish point you were making was encapsulated in the title alone. My response to that was, under those circumstances, remarkably measured and controlled, if not without a soupçon of irony. It was not a "reaction" at all, and it wasn't "strange". But it was conditioned by the earlier goings on in this Ref Desk talk page thread. You've gone on and on about my supposed ignoring of Medeis's grammatical point. I explained why I fully accepted that point when it was made and saw no need to make any comment on it, then or since. But now you say "that's nice to know but I have no opinion here about that". If you have no opinion of it, why did you make a point of making a point of it after I answered your opening question? This thread was supposed to be about the inappropriateness of Medeis's use of "you cretin". (That issue has been resolved here and elsewhere, so that's history now.) Yet you, the questioner, (a) have engaged in equally inappropriate behaviour with your bipolar link, and (b) have massively hijacked your own thread, to make it not about what Medeis wrote, but about me and my initial response to what Medeis wrote, at the time he wrote it. It's hard to believe it was ever about Medeis at all.

Do you begin to get why I have suspected your motives ever since post no. 3 of this thread, and why I am not disposed to show you any of the bountiful generosity for which I am world-famous, but have extended only the obligatory courtesies to you?

We are all responsible for the words we actually utter and the effects they produce, particularly here where the words are all we have. Our intention is not even a close second. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Verbal diarrhea. Read it all. Doubt if anyone else bothered. The mania test is also linked by Wikipedia article editors who find it within WP:RS. I suggest you read what is offered there. (It's nothing to be afraid of, just 5 self-rating questions with an automated response so no one will ever know the result.) It could actually be useful to someone whose grasp on reality includes having unstoppable evil minions and gloating over an imagined power to cause Aspro to stumble. I think you are safe but you can reassure everyone by more posting about how everything is about you, vulnerable as you are to those with an agenda to entrap you, and an even longer essay on the indignities that a saint suffers. Such as being told that you are NOT world famous and that making other people wrong (or disparaging their editorial effort as "nit picking") doesn't make anyone right. DriveByWire (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will allow the "quality" of the above to speak for itself. Me, I'm off for second and third helpings of Baked Troll à la nouvelle-hollandaise. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should make a comment. I certainly wasn't offended, seeing it as an attempt at a joke - especially after I looked up the correct plural, per the American Heritage Dictionary: [15]. Rmhermen (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Any ref deskers currently in DC or coming to DC soon that would like to meet up? --Tango (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you be issuing Nerf bats, or should we bring our own? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DC = Drag Costume ? It takes 2 2 tan go. DriveByWire (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Warshington", DC, most likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, Warshington Drag Costume. Sounds fun. DriveByWire (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikimania 2012 in Washington, D.C. (July 12–15).

—Wavelength (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories"

This line, on the main reference desk page, looks a little out of place, no? It's not a sentence, doesn't even have an end mark, and appears to begin on a new line for no reason, placing the word "here" (from "Ask here!") on a line by itself. Do we even need that line, and even if we do, couldn't it be formatted in a more visually-pleasing manner?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a qualifier for the Miscellaneous Desk, formatted in a similar fashion to the qualifiers for the other desks, except that, instead of single words, it is a phrase. What would you suggest would work better? Bielle (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest doing away with either the qualifier itself or "Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!", so that the link to the desk only has one block of text beneath it. An alternative would be to place the "Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!" beneath the qualifier, in smaller text, and wrap it in parentheses, so that it doesn't look like it's part of the qualifier, does not occupy the space occupied by the qualifier for all the other desks, and doesn't stand out so much. But hey, I get a little (okay, very) obsessive about design and layout, haha  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could always try it out, assuming you can do so without breaking the page. The worst that will happen is that you are reverted, and then we all come back here to talk. Personally, I prefer your second suggestion, but am not troubled either way. You've been around long enough not to be run off in a huff (horse drawn) or a snit (motorized) if someone objects. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've put the second alternative in. And hey, running off in any way, be it motorized or horse drawn, is better than exploding in everyone's face, then playing victim and accusing the reverter of "harassment" because I don't like what they did.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but I don't get the feeling you would do that either. My design sense says that the "Ask here" should be slightly closer to the preceding line of type. The small type in the standard spacing looks a bit lost. Just an idea! Bielle (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried eliminating the line break between the qualifier and the "ask here" line, but it ended up looking more awkward, because the text flows onto a fourth line again, as it did before I changed anything. If someone objects to the current version, we'll see about messing with it some more, but I think it works for now.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It currently reads: "Questions that don't fit in any of the other categories (Not sure where your question belongs? Ask here!)" This seems a little redundant to me. I'm also not a big fan of the exclamation mark here — it seems a little too imperative. Personally I think the first sentence ("Questions...") is probably enough, and an improvement over "Subjects." --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)