Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Myrvin (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 21 July 2015 (→‎Blobs and editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to the bottom
Shortcut

[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.


Squabbling @ Misc desk

OK, so User:StuRat has a long and ignoble track record of spouting stuff without benefit of references (not that he's the only offender). He's been called out many times, but refuses to change his ways. We have the power to do something about that.

But can whatever we do please not take the form of a very public catfight on the Misc desk (@ Cases of Addiction and Counselling in USA)? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. My bad. I've redacted my distraction from the discussion. It was unnecessary and did not answer the OP's question in any meaningful way. --Jayron32 07:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your deletion and with Jack's comment. There was nothing wrong with your condemnation of StuRat on the desk – that (not his talk page, and not this page) is the right and proper place to call him out on his ridiculous assertions. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to have a discussion, because I have long been under the impression that we have a consensus to confine such inter-personal debates to this talk page. "Citation required" or equivalent obviously belongs with the thing that requires a citation, but when the conversation diverts off to discussing the editor's pattern of behaviour, or anything else not directly related to the OP's question, that comes back here. But I also note that it's a consensus that has often been more honoured in the breach than the observance, so maybe this is an opportunity to revisit the consensus and either re-affirm it or establish some other protocol. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-affirming that we don't argue in front of the kids. I could be wrong but I think we're unanimous on this with the above single exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hat the whole thing and start over. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Take him around back and then deal with him. Nice and professional-like, without witnesses. But like, not in the way some professionals "deal with" rats with a history of spouting off. That would be uncivil. And illegal. And virtually impossible online.
I just mean make him an offer he can't refuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
Suggested username change: Comeditor. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No sir, I don't like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
I mean I don't like it for my username. It's some fine wordplay. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, July 8, 2015 (UTC)
[[File:|20px]] I suggest Brainier, Brainiest, ItsMeHaters, ReferenceProvidedAtRequest, RequestForReferenceDon'tpullmyBallsBeforeIt and so on. -- Space Ghost (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just stick with what I've stuck with this far, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
Idea/Solution 1:Jack of Oz, There is a strong consensus to not carry on "such inter-personal debates" to the main help desk pages. The consensus for confining "such inter-personal debates" to this talk page is far weaker. Some editors (I am among them) think that criticism of other editor's behavior should happen on that user's talk page and then on ANI if that doesn't work. Can anyone name a single case where criticizing a regular refdesk participant on this talk page has ever had any positive effect? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Idea/Solution 2:I believe, first in this page, then in the 'user's talk page', then to ANI or wherever. Note: More or less than 20 vote is sufficient to take it to the second stage, and to the third after warning the 'user' using the 1st method 'three times'; after three strikes. 😇 -- Space Ghost (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone point to the Wikipedia policy that says that we can't respond to people posting unsourced crap on the ref desk by pointing out on the refdesk that their crap is unsourced? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a "citation needed" is sometimes appropriate, but let's not get carried away. These are refdesk questions, and nothing is ever as appreciated as a well-referenced correct answer. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to toot my own horn, but I think this was nice. No attack on the poster or post, just a simple request which led to the source. The whole thing was later hatted, but for other reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your example. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's begin with the basic facts. Nobody here can name a single case where criticizing a regular refdesk participant on this talk page has ever had any positive effect. So what is the basis for supporting the practice? It clearly isn't because it is effective or good for the encyclopedia. Is it because it feels good to do it or see it done? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Idea/Solution 3:That would seem to depend on your definition of "positive effect" and "criticism". Definitely commentary on behaviour on the RD, this talk page, and editor talk pages has changed behaviour.

To give personal examples, I take more care with it's/its, than/then and some other grammar issues after commentary in various places. Also, while I haven't really reduced my post length, I do paragraph more than I used to. I believe I sometimes give more references even when I feel they aren't really needed for a variety of reasons including commentary (but also my own criticism of others). I've also sometimes considered commentary from others about how people are too quick to respond even when they don't know the answer (and similar stuff), in choosing whether to respond, or what to respond. A related example, I've mellowed a bit and changed the way I respond to questions which can easily be answer with a simple web search for vaious reasons including commentary from others. I'm fairly sure I've changed my behaviour in various other ways in response to commentary in various places that I can't remember off hand.

Ultimately, while I can't say for sure what my behaviour would be like if people had offered no commentary of other editor behaviour, I do believe it would be different. In my opinion it is mostly better, but not everyone may agree. (Note I'm not just referring to commentary directed at me in particular.

For an example which isn't me, to give credit where credit is due, μηδείς does seem to have changed their behaviour, even if it isn't enough for many. I presume this is at least partially due to commentary and criticism they've received at various places.

I'm not saying it's always a good idea to discuss behaviour here or on the RD, sometimes a person's talk page is better. But I wouldn't say the RD or here are always inappropriate, while there is a risk of it being see like a "lynch mob", there is also the possibility it helps people see it's a wider concern than just one editor. And people also have the opportunity to explain things in a different way that may get through to a person better. Plus other people also have the opprtunity to contradict or disagree with the commentary/criticism, so perhaos the person who offered it originally, rather than the person who offered it simply getting more and more annoyed, perhaps they will see things from a different perspective.

The other issue when it comes to the RD proper is that the commentary may help not regulars see a problem, that may not be obvious to them, but which will add perspective to their reading of answers. (On the flip side, I think most agree long discussions about behaviour don't belong on the RD proper, and there is a risk that when discussion starts there, everyone will just continue it there. In particular, it's perhaps mostly fair to let the person who was criticised respond on the RD proper if they so desire.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the record shows that Medeis/μηδείς has never changed her behavior after being criticized on the refdesks or refdesk talk pages, but has only done so after being reported at ANI. I am still of the opinion that talk:Reference desk is a spectacularly bad (and toothless!) behavior noticeboard.
Of course we could try my idea and, for a limited time criticize users on their talk page, then ANI if needeed. That experiment would prove me right or wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am now inclined to agree with User:Guy Macon that discussion of Reference Desk behavior at this talk page is not useful. It is better than going directly to ANI, and so I have favored it in the past as a way to dispel anger, but discussions on user talk pages should be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being honest! Appreciated. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about a limited-time experiment? Perhaps the entire month of August? On September 1st we could examine how well it worked and then decide where we want to go from there.
If there is a concern about having more eyes on a problem we could allow a link without commentary to the talk page or ANI discussion here.
Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None here. I've long said Wikipedia should be more open to "try it and see" in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand Medeis's desire to cleanse the archives of her crusade against Venustar84, but that is not a valid reason to falsify the boards as preserved in the archives. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of StuRat's behaviour completely. I believe you guys have used your past experiences or memory. This post needs 'referencing' in order for analysis peeps.

Also, what I done above and below, I've done to the best of my English reading knowledge (I only found 3 ideas), if I'm wrong, please make it right - Myself and Guy should've started it the way I designed it, I believe; however, I could be wrong... -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Vote:

Idea/Solution 1:

Idea/Solution 2:

Idea/Solution 2:

Note for a new voter: Please use "|" after the previous voter. If you wish to make a comment, you'll receive a chance next time (under the Idea/Solution: section, and or, you'll also have the 'Please Vote:' section to vote/display the majority). I won't be here (like Stu) all the time to help out, to help you have an idea, to help you understand somehow or someway, to say something anonymous which will make you think or might give you an idea, or say something i.e. relative, so, follow this design if you wish or make a new one; whatever suits you guys. This design is just a thought. Thanks in advance. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering why the above has received zero responses, everyone has given up on straw polls and RfCs. The last 300 polls didn't change anything, so why would anyone believe that the result will be different this time? The weird format didn't help, either. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment for a better format. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary question

Now that we've figured out who the OP was asking about on the Humanities desk, should the entire thing be rev-del'd as protection for the ordinary citizen whom it's about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP (original poster) of the "obituary question". I don't understand this thread, here at this page. The comment above was time-stamped at 16:27. In effect, the editor asserts: "now that we have figured out who the person is". However, on my Talk Page, time-stamped at 16:38, the same editor specifically asks me, in effect, "have we figured out who this person is?". I don't understand the sequence. The first post (16:27) was eleven minutes before the second post (16:38). The first post claims that "we" (not sure who "we" refers to) "figured it out". And the second post, eleven minutes later, contradicts that by asking if "we" have figured it out. What's going on here? This is the link to my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Obit question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "think we have" figured it out. And I'm not saying it should be rev-del'd - I'm asking others whether they think it should be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking in a public forum, and this is a public forum, whether something should be redacted draws attention to it, known as the Streisand effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right in general. But the info in question is already on the internet in various places. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The great thing about dead people is they don't need protection. Don't need anything. Won't actually "roll over in their graves", and if they did, who'd notice? If this obituary is about a living person, disregard this opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, July 14, 2015 (UTC)
Funny. The dilemma is obituaries which contain the names of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had to hazard a guess, that looked too long to read. From what I saw, though, nothing harmful, in a slander way. Naming alone isn't so bad. Might have missed something (because I definitely did). Some of that discussion is a bit shameful, but we're (mostly) pseudonymous here.
Still half-disregard this as an uneducated opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, July 14, 2015 (UTC)
No, your comments are good. And in a circuitous way, the OP's question was answered - and hopefully he's got a better idea now, of how to do "detective work" in Google. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. (I am the OP.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel like beating my laptop with a phonebook when Google "corrects" me. But then I can't find a physical phonebook, thanks to Google. Probably for the best. Going around in circles isn't exactly quick, but widens the scope of knowledge. All's well that ends well. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Blanking

There has recently been an attack on the Reference Desks by throw-away accounts who blank each of the entire Reference Desks. The users include User:Enochwasright666, User:TheLPStick, User:Perchingpros, and User:Haydiddlediddle44. I would like to thank the users who have reverted the vandalism and the admins who have blocked the sockpuppet accounts. (That is, all but one of them are sockpuppet accounts, since the duck test implies that there is only one human behind the accounts.) User:Gogo Dodo has semi-protected the Reference Desks for 31 hours, which will prevent new throw-away accounts from editing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to do this one too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to protect this talk page. It hasn't been subject to blanking. One troll doesn't warrant protecting a talk page. In general, semi-protecting a talk page is a last resort. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this one:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, is anyone at this talk page an administrator? Can someone block trolling IP addresses? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the vandal did blank this talk page once. It appears that this talk page was semi-protected by User:Gogo Dodo, but only for a few hours, and that the semi-protection had expired when the troll got in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racist troll on Humanities

Whats the procedure for dealing with questions like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#big_jewry_and_white_Christian_europeans ? Iapetus (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RBI or hatting it as has been done is fine. For this sort of obvious trolling even a simple WP:ANV would probably result in a block and since it's an account even if a throwaway one it can be worth pursuing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we apparently have two trolls, a religious-racist troll and an anti-LGBT troll, one of whom is nearly unblockable because they hop around. Semi-protection is effective against trolling from IPs or from throw-away accounts; we just don't want to overuse it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep reverting, keep it boring, they'll get tired. Generally, anyway. There are insane trolls, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, July 14, 2015 (UTC)
The "revert" part of RBI requires constant vigilance, and the "block" part requires constant vigilance by an admin. The right answer is semi-protection for a long enough stretch that the troll will go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarilly. It really depends on how dedicated the troll is. Some trolls give up quickly. So far, it looks like this one did. And as I already mentioned, it's likely an editor like this will be blocked by a report at AIV so you don't require constant admin monitoring. Heck probably even without a warning despite it normally being a requirement. Considering the page was not semi protected after this [2], and they only made one reversion of the closure of their thread [3], before being blocked [4] and so far have not reappeared, all of which happened before I posted, I'm not sure why you're claiming it's always necessary. Sure sometimes trolls are more persistent. In fact the earlier holocaust revisionism troll is probably the same editor (perhaps from Toronto) and they did lead to the RD being protected. But there's no point assuming that semi protection will be needed not least because if it's only been a single account with no recent persistent disruption, a request for semi protection may very well be denied. Or to put it a different way, escalate as and when necessary to semi protection. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking an IP-hopper is pointless. Semi-protection (for a few days, not 3 hours) is the better solution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again we're talking an account (albeit a throw away one) not an IP. And semi protected was not needed yet since the editor so far disappeared after that throw away account was blocked. I'm not sure what you mean by a few days, but that editor has not reappeared so far nor other editors bothering the RDh and it's been over 2, so protecting the page for those 2 days would have actually achieved nothing more than blocking the account. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the hat, so I've deleted it completely. Iapetus (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong apologies for allowing that crap to show again. Fairly sure that was my mistake. I only saw the hat when editing the previous section and thought the section had been deleted but someone had left the hat. However I realise now since the hat was part of the previous section and the comment was a new section, only the hat would shown when I was editing the previous section. (Also since I only saw a hat, it would have hidden the entire rest of the RD if that was all that was left.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this sounds overwrought. If you can step over a coyote turd when you're out on a hike without calling in the cops, you can handle stuff like this without calling in admins. The first thought is "is there something to answer here?" and the next is "well then don't answer it". Wnt (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when the coyote keeps coming into your house to take a shit on your living room carpet, and THEN when you politely remove the shit, the coyote insists on picking the same piece of shit back up, putting it back in your living room and saying "NO! MY SHIT WILL STAY IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!" and he comes back every few days to take a new shit in your living room, and exhibits the same "MY SHIT WILL STAY IN YOUR PARLOR!" behavior, and has for years, eventually, you're going to lock your front door, even if it keeps the good coyotes from stopping by for a nice cup of tea and a pleasant chat once in a while. --Jayron32 22:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does a bear shit in the woods? So does a coyote. Natural order, no harm, no foul. At the craps table, though, that's another story. I hope they don't destroy the poor thing, but we all know how hairy things get in Buffalo. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, July 16, 2015 (UTC)

Joke of the Day

Has anybody noticed this. Mars had a face, this one looks like it has God's left foot stamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto_by_LORRI_and_Ralph,_13_July_2015.jpg -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, most people were calling it a heart, but these images do make it look more like a left foot print [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to a forum, folks. This isn't such a place. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the National Geographic TV series "Brain Games", they often talk about how our brains are wired to try to make sense out of random phenomena, such as seeing the face of Jesus or Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. Or the "Louis, Louis" situation. A recent example would be the "Minions" character toys being given away at McDonald's. The toys can utter a few phrases of gibberish, but some customers insist they are hearing profanity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term you're searching for is Apophenia. --Jayron32 04:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also Pareidolia, which has a nice gallery of examples. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
: You guys mean perihelion and aphelion - http://www.slideshare.net/ricdagdagan/dwarf-planet-pluto-2015?related=1 -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blobs and editing

Question moved here as being off topic on the Project page.

  • Some editors, not all by a long way, seem to tend to begin some of their contributions with a blob. I wonder why they do this? Is it to draw particular attention to their own thoughts at the expense of others', or is there some other reason?

I'm not counting lists here, it tends to happen at indent level 1, or maybe when there wouldn't normally be an indent - in this case, it produces a sort of indent. Also, sometimes a contribution that you might expect at level 2 or lower becomes a level 1 by putting the blob. Perhaps all entries at level 1 should begin with a blob - but I don't understand why.

I use no indent when I think I am starting another thought that follows directly from the question - as opposed to any intermediate contribution. Should this be a blob?
On the current page, the first two questions seem quite happy without blobs. The third has a couple of them, and the fourth and fifth have none. Then for some other questions they are present in more profusion. Is this because there are more contributions by certified blob-users?
Bullets (what you call "blobs") seem to be a personal preference thing. One advantage is that it can make it easier to tell one person's contributions from another's (unless each person uses multiple bullets for each point). One disadvantage is how multiple bullets on one line display seems to depend on if there is a blank before that line:
    • Line 1, with a blank line before and no blank after.
    • Line 2, with no blank before, and one after.
    • Line 3, with a blank line before and after.
Personally I think it doesn't matter, as long as you indent from the person who you are responding to. So, no indents when asking a Q, one indent when responding to it, 2 indents when responding to that responder, etc. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By a blob, do you mean a bullet at the beginning of the post, created by starting the post with an asterisk? I never heard a bullet referred to as a blob until now. A blob is a binary large object, an unstructured mass of data (or a mass of data whose structure is only known outside the DBMS). I certainly don't want to see a post starting with a massive piece of data whose structure is defined outside the schema. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have a dictionary I do not possess. Chambers says "1.A drop or globule; 2.Anything soft and round; 3.A round spot; 4.A score of zero, a duck (cricket sl)" Myrvin (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do know people call them bullet points. Chambers says of these: "4.(also bullet point) a solid dot used to highlight items in a list (printing)". I spent an awful long time producing lectures using PowerPoint. I've used a considerable number of them. However, I excluded lists from my question. This seems to be an odd use of the little beggar. Myrvin (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Is this question unique to the Reference Desk, or does it concern talk pages in general? If it concerns talk pages in general, should it be at the Village pump (policy) or the Help Desk? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've not noticed it so much elsewhere. Myrvin (talk)
Per WP:INDENT, you should never use zero-level indentation when replying to a question on the ref desks. I personally find that very rude - it makes it so everything else posted below looks like it is a reply to that comment, and there's no way to resume proper indent style. (As I type, I realize Robert did just this! See how it is confusing? I'm not replying to him, I'm replying to the OP. So I have to either add an indent to Robert's post, or post above his, or suffer the broken threading. Sorry Robert, nothing personal, just a timely example :)
Bullets are mostly used by personal preference and when someone feels it is needed for clarity. Sometimes it is a call for attention; sometimes I'll use a bullet if I'm providing actual references after a long thread of guesses, jokes, etc. Sometimes it's useful for list-like things that aren't lists, such as the examples here [6]. Also, often once one responder uses a bullet, others will follow suit, that's why they pile up in some threads but not others. I essentially agree with Stu - it doesn't matter much one way or the other. Use them if you like, don't if you don't. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(The layout is confusing, so I need to state explicitly that I am replying to the original post by the original poster.) The present layout makes it difficult to identify the original poster, and it makes it appear that the original post ends with the words "but I don't understand why" and a full stop. I checked the history and found that the original poster is Myrvin and the original post was made at 18:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC). Instructions on using indentation on talk pages can be found at WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD. However, I have noticed that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost has different instructions for its talk pages. For example, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/WikiProject report says, in part, "Please start your comment with a star sign (*), ..." I propose that the latter be revised to be in harmony with WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD.[reply]
—Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&oldid=672470500"