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.

"Help:Score" for musical notation

Editors can use "Help:Score" for musical notation.—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks. 86.161.209.128 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Intermarriage in Israel

This legitimate and carefully worded question is clearly about Jewish-Arab intermarriage, particularly between Jewish women and Arab men (and stated as such). Then this remark appears:

*How much support is there for gay marriage among the Orthodox? It would offer an in-house alternative to those who Jewish men might otherwise consort with Arabs or seculars. On the other hand gay miscegenation might be seen as weakening Israel's enemies. And what about the rights of Stan? μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I - as a frequent contributor to queries on Israel/Jewish content - find this only tangentially related to the query and moreso: flippant, disrespectful to several minority groups, inciteful given the volatile nature of the subject (certainly in today's Israel, if anyone here follows the news), and disruptive to the WP:RD process, especially on the Humanities desk. The response politely expressed confusion as to User:Medeis' point; rather than state my objections there, I've brought them here. Is there a consensus that it can be hatted or whatever would isolate it from the discussion? I don't know the rules about this; if I'm overreacting please explain how the remark is within the bounds of good-faith discourse and helping the querant. Thank you! -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment does seem to be kind of off-the-wall, but I don't see any comments in that section that resemble a practical answer to the OP's question. And the OP is missing the obvious - if an ethnic group's leaders have declared their intentions to destroy you, that tends to trump other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not easily offended, so I personally don't see a problem with Medeis' post (other than its lack of relevance to the OP's question). That said, I'm concerned that the OP has received no useful responses, and that his question was hatted because of the immaturity of Reference Desk volunteers. If there's something wrong with the OP or his question, that's a legitimate reason to hat the question, but "we can't control ourselves" shouldn't be a legitimate reason. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a flippant comment and could be hatted per Deborahjay. My jaw drops at Bugs' level of ignorance. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My jaw drops at those who defend nations who have vowed to destroy Israel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

George W Bush vows to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime, would that then justify any Iraqi coming around to do all sorts of nasty things to any American? I hesitate to say you are behaving like the stereotypical prejudiced racist American, because you don't normally, but these comments cut pretty close. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't you dare play the race card, son. While I'm no fan of Bush, he never threatened to destroy Iraq itself, but only to remove that dictator Saddam. Whether that was a good idea remains to be seen. I haven't heard Iran talk about removing the leader of Israel, but only about destroying Israel itself. Israeli Jewish wariness is fully justified from an emotional and practical standpoint, even if it seems intellectually narrow-minded to those who aren't in their shoes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You do know that Iran is not an Arab state, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The article cited by the OP makes it very clear that the marriages being considered were of Israeli Jews to Arab citizens of Israel. Iran has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is not a neighbour of Israel either. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• The OP has asked for unbiased confirmation that his shock at the uncivilized opinions of Jews in this day and age is correct. Funny how no one has yet provided him with an unbiased reference commenting on the correctness of the contents of his mind. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could help him. I don't know enough about current public opinion in Israel. In the meantime Bugs must apologise to me for the unfounded assertion that I have in any way defended any government that has vowed to destroy Israel. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I could, but I'm too ignorant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not shameful to be ignorant about some things, but it's nothing to be particularly proud of. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh. When these various radical Islamist groups stop threatening to destroy Israel, then get back to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Bugs - the OP asked about attitudes to Jewish-Arab intermarriage. You leap from "Arab" to "radical Islamist" seems to be completely unjustified. There are many Arabs who are not radical Islamists (and, indeed, many who are not even Muslims), and there are radical Islamists who are not Arabs. I believe you are stereotyping. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

More discussion spoiling by them at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Link_between_watching_porn_and_sexual_violence with:

That may be obvious, but what is confusing is why someone would preferentially name non-men and non-animals as the victims of pornography readers? Are only children and women sympathetic enough? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

They should not be diverting off questioners good questions this way. If they really think there is something useful that should be added to the question then just say it without this posturing and sniping at the questioners. In this case what good were the contributions to anyone? Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, in the past I have hazarded answers when I didn't really know. In my defence, they were usually awkward questions, and I did have some knowledge that would put the OP on the right track. Here, Bugs, you had absolutely no information to supply. So why chip in? All you have done is shown yourself as, well, so far I have just said ignorant, but your comments could easily be read as both antisemitic and islamophobic. Don't do this again, if you believe that Wikipedia has a reputation to be upheld. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone actually supply any information to the OP in that discussion? (Excluding VW and others whose agenda was strictly to make personal attacks.) And did any of the critics follow up on your complaint about Medeis' obscure comment? Or has this shifted from yell-at-Medeis week to yell-at-Bugs week? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The responses to the query appear to be back on track. In my case, it was a matter of too much knowledge on the topic and it took me two days to decide how best and briefly to provide a meaningful picture of what the Macquarie University graduate anthropology paper didn't include in its narrow focus on expat intermarried couples. So much is written about Israel, Jews and Palestinians, I didn't want to provoke a daisy chain of my-source-your-source, including scriptures. I appreciate the input here, and hopefully I understand the RD dynamics better now. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just today, in Egypt: "The people want the destruction of Israel."[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that your best shot? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's got to do with someone recently claiming that no one was calling for Israel's destruction. I think this is the second time in a week that I've posted a recent reference proving that claim wrong. The original OP asked why "intelligent" Israeli Jews would have such strongly negative views of intermarrying. The constant threat of anhiliation is one factor that keeps Israeli Jews wary. That should be as obvious as the nose on the OP's face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Batman ergonomically efficient? Hatted by Medeis

Diff [2]. I respectfully disagree with the hat when there are numerous references available. A simple Google search for "the science of batman" yield roughly 92 million results. End Result [3] with OP InedibleHulk's Edit summary (Reverted past own apparently stupid question. I think it was valid, but no point making something out of it.). Thoughts? Royor (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Trolling by a new account from an obviously experienced user.

An user obviously familiar with Wikipedia has started a new account, and after getting it autoconfirmed with some minor edits, has dived into trolling the ref desks. [4]. I can't place this particular user into any sock drawers yet. Does anyone recognize this person? --Jayron32 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Who cares, really? If he puts it back again, apply an indef. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The M.O. kind of fits with the many socks of Timothyhere (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions about "newborn" pics at Wikipedia

At least two IPs (62.31.89.173 and 94.174.103.196) have complained that they're seeing photos of their kids on Wikipedia without their permission. They're mistaking a Facebook page (which hosts Wikipedia content) for Wikipedia. Send them to WP:HD#Re: pictures of my child without my permission. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 08:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack (60.228.250.110) and flagrant WP:AGF violations.

I know that several admins frequent the reference desk talk page. Would someone please take appropriate action against Wickwack (User:60.228.250.110 and other IP accounts) who has now violated WP:AGF on at least a couple of occasions. I warned that this is not allowed - but Wickwack replied with further personal attacks and AGF violations both on the public-facing Science ref desk and on my own talk page. I think it's time to institute some kind of response. If nobody here feels able to help, I can take it to the admin's noticeboard in a couple of days - but it just seems easier to keep it here as a RefDesk matter if a refdesk-knowledgable admin can help. Here is one diff [5] - I can provide more if needed. SteveBaker (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

SteveBaker, Wickwack's response which you supplied the dif to was to a serious accusation by you: "And please, you are required to WP:AGF in your conversations here...your continual accusations that I'm deliberately lying or fabricating some story or other is not acceptable here - and I won't put up with it. You've done it several times now - and if you do so again, I will call in the admins and demand some kind of disciplinary action against you." [6] Did he ever say you were lying? No, please provide evidence he did if I missed it. Did he break wp:AGF prior to your accusation he did? I just don't see it because from what I understand of Wickwack's previous posts, he didn't say you were personally lying nor was his assertion that your assessment of the illusion is wrong unjustified....he has a right to express his disagreement, for disagreements between respondents are par for the course. Thus, I found your initial accusation of wp:AGF violation on Wickwack's part disturbing, even more so than Wickwack's curt reply. --Modocc (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"Or maybe you jiggled the answers to fit your pre-determined theory." SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Such things can in deed happen unintentionally. You know that, because if editors bring up personal experience and research on these boards, its fair game to various criticisms,like confirmation bias (even if what is being said is true and is in support of the findings of others), especially personal anecdotal evidence that is brought up on the science board. -Modocc (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's generous assessment with that wording, particularly in the context of the rest of that exchange - I found it consistent with a personal attack in that context. That said, all involved needed to take a breather. -- Scray (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't know for sure, do we? AGF. -Modocc (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC) "I don't think I'm too forgiving. I am more so than a stubby stubborn Vogon perhaps, but there is plenty of pseudo-tea and some hand-waving towels available to consider. -Modocc (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you that I do assume good faith, then I describe what I see. -- Scray (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice request removed

I've removed this request for both medical and legal advice. Far enough over the line not to be controversial, I hope. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you probably should leave such cases to me, but the disclaimer is good enough in case the OP wants to ask for legal advice about medical treatment here. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

horatio snickers requests an SPI

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=554679538&oldid=554671400 μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So it seems you are talkng about me behind my back. I consider this to be rude. Plus I think you are reading too much into things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a question about murderers is just that? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Medeis means she has hatted a question by Horatio Snickers, to which she had responded "This user has been mentioned before as an SPI candidate". If anyone has actually requested an SPI, please link to it. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

off-topic discussion of username referencing - best taken to user space if it is to continue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Medeis, what's wrong with me linking your name to your talkpage? Everyone's name links like that. You edited my posting to change it. Please explain? Thanks 184.147.137.171 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) I think the problem was that you copied the user's signature code. To avoid authorship confusion, it may be better to use a simple link: [[User:Scray|Scray]] (produces Scray) or one of the templates designed for this purpose: {{user|Scray}} (produces Scray (talk · contribs)) rather than a signature (which follows, of course). -- Scray (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation! I thought that was her name and it was polite to spell correctly. I will modify my post again to use the formula you have provided. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack (roaming IP editor) comments on RD/S

An editor who has a roaming IP and signs posts as "Wickwack" is disrupting the RD/S page with poorly-informed critical comments about others' answers (in this edit I hatted one such rant). If they had a Talk page I'd go there to ask them to tone it down, but I cannot. I don't think any action (beyond discussion) needs to be taken, but I do think that (if I'm not alone in finding this behavior disruptive) Wickwack might take constructive suggestions to heart. My suggestion is that they try harder to restrict their comments on RD/S to answering questions, and bring any constructive commentary here. -- Scray (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You've made your self look silly by getting your facts horibly wrong, Scray. While PUBMED is a service sourced from the US National Library of Medicine, if you try as an ordinary internet user to access articles, you'll find that access is managed by Elsevier Science Direct, and articles have to be paid for. In particular, the article you cited on Ref Desk is priced at $31.50 USD. Log into the internet as an ordinary user, go to Ref Desk, click on the link you provided, and see. Don't log in using your student or university/research institute/employer ID if you have one - such organisations often pay a subscription and you get automatically vectored to articles with out seeing the request for payment. Wickwack 124.182.156.152 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If what you're saying were true, then this PMID 23652774 would also link to Elsevier, but it doesn't. Pubmed is not part of the Elsevier "empire" (as you've comically asserted); rather it is a publicly-funded and -managed database that provides links to a variety of sources, depending on what is currently available for an article. It's a very useful database and I won't apologize for providing links there. -- Scray (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that specific article is tagged for free access in PUBMED, so Elsevier doesn't come into it. There can be no objection to citing free articles, but citing articles requiring payment as you did before, and as many others do, is not good etiquette. Wickwack 58.170.150.236 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ref Desk doesn't exist in a vacuum, and we don't have to always provide instant, free, full-text access in order to provide a useful service or fulfil our mission. Even when we can't offer the free full-text of a source, sometimes a references is enough for independent-minded individuals to find what they're looking for on their own. Or they can ask us for help in locating the full text. Or they can ask us if we know of any free alternative sources with similar information. (And Ref Desk volunteers who can access the paywalled source may well find it useful in answering that follow-up.) Or they can take the reference to their own (school or city) librarian, and ask for help in retrieving the article.

In short, we shouldn't be secretly hiding and discarding otherwise-reasonable sources because we've pre-judged the OP incapable of locating/affording them; that would be a genuine breach of etiquette. I mean, we sometimes even – shockingly! – mention information that only appears in print. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate from the facts of the matter, I am appealing to you to keep color commentary about answers off the RefDesk - bring it here or to the answerer's Talk page. The RefDesk is for answers, not your opinions about other peoples' answers. -- Scray (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said to a certain other chap who objected to me recently, I only refute/critise other responses on Ref Desk if certain citeria are met: Either bad practice is repeated (as was the case with citing expensive PUBMED articles that are probably over the OP's head anyway - no offence meant toward the OP), or I think the OP is being misled. There are many posts I think are wrong, but I don't respond, as I assess that probably neither the OP nor other readers with similar interests will be misled. Most are in this category. Sometimes I will respond if the erroneous posts are very very wrong, but is a common misconception, as in SteveBaker's assertion that the SI unit Hertz is a reciprocal unit of the Second. The rapid reinforcement of plausible misconceptions is a dissadvantage of internet forums. (Of course if the topic is not one that I am familiar with, I generally will not post at all - it's a pity certain others who post on just about anything don't follow the same reasoning).

As for colourful language, I make no appology. Check and you'll find that in every case it was the other chap who turned a friendly and factual comment into abuse first. Or, as did you above, made an unjustified and unfactual accusation ("disruption" etc) in colourful terms!

Wickwack 58.170.150.236 (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to ask, but what's this about Hertz not being inverse seconds? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look on Science Ref Desk, under question What do you call the inverse of speed? Steve said it is, but it is not, which I explained under that question. Wickwack 120.145.81.185 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack - why don't you make life easier for yourself by registering? It makes it so much easier for others to talk with you, especially when your IP address currently varies so much. Since you have no fixed address (deliberate pun) there's no space that's just yours where you can be easily reached. You've obviously already got a chosen name. There is no risk in registering. In fact, it gives you more privacy. IP addresses here are public and can be easily traced. With only 3 clicks I can see you're a Telstra Internet customer in Perth, Australia. Once you use your own user name, the IP address becomes invisible. I believe you have a lot to contribute here, but also a bit to learn. Make it easier for all of us. Please register. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Telstra IP range you tested actually appears to cover at least 200,000 square kilometers and well over 1 million people, so I'm not too worried. Sometimes I get an IP address nominally for another State. If you have search on "not registering", "why not register" and the like terms, you'll find in the archives of the Admin talk page and the Jimbo Wales usertalk page that the subject of registering versus not registering subject has been done to death, with contributions for and against from me and others. So I don't want to write it all out again and trigger another discussion here - it doesn't belong here anyway. Suffice it to say I see no benefit in registering, and others appear to agree. Many obviously don't. Wikipedia policy does not require registering.

If you want to have a chat with me off the Ref Desk as a result of anything I've posted, you can always invite me to your talk page, perhaps using small text. After I have posted on your talk page, the invite on Ref Desk can be deleted. Another chap did invite me to his talk page after I refuted a post of his, and we had a lengthy and surpisingly usefull discussion, where we both learnt things!

Wickwack 58.170.150.236 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, why not be like almost everybody else who wants to contribute seriously and long term here? Your case, where the IP address changes so often, is quite problematic. Most peoples' IP addresses don't change that often. And you're asking people to follow your own special process to have a decent chat with you. No, not practical. Don't make it harder for others, and yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever this users failings may be (if any, I haven't read the whole situation), not using an account isn't one of them. It does not violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline whatsoever. Editing without an account is in fact one of the founding principles of Wikimedia. If you disagree with that stance, there are places to discuss it on the village pump and meta sites. Berating a user for following the rules is not constructive 77.101.52.130 (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I know the policy. I've told this user quite politely why I think he should get account. No berating has occurred. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And, nor did I feel berated by HiLo48. He has merely expressed a common view, which I am sympathetic to, but not convinced of. Wickwack 124.182.145.54 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Having an account would be to your advantage in various ways. But I have to give you good marks for at least identifying yourself. Typically IP's make no such effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And neither are they required to. Given that the name "Wickwack" is not linked to any Wikipedia account, it could be different people assuming the same name. I don't believe that that is the case, but all we really have is the user's word that Wickwack is the same person each time. In fact, it's not even their word; it's just an inference we make by reading the name supplied at the end of their posts. That represents a somewhat lower level of integrity/security than we get with sockpuppets, for example. So, if that's what you're giving good marks for, maybe think again. There are very good reasons for registering an account here, but many people have what they consider even better reasons for not doing so. That is their choice, Bugs; the system was created to allow registered as well as unregistered users alike; and we can do without your traditional, tiresome anti-IP polemics. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What gets tiresome is IP's with like 3 edits talking in the voice of someone who obviously has a long history, and getting indignant when asked about it - like we're supposed to be mind-readers and just somehow know who they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The content of what is written is supposed to be more important than the identity of the person who wrote it. In any case, we do not have anyone's "identity" here, all we have is a list of their previous contributions + whatever they've chosen to reveal about themselves, if anything. What people do is a different thing from who they are, and we are virtually entirely focussed on the former here. Please encourage IPs to register, but please stop attacking them as if they have some case to answer or they've committed some crime. That is inimical to the welcoming atmosphere we promote here, and is sure to be very off-putting to many. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with IP's who behave in an honest and sincere way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that Wickwack's IP address changes quite frequently. (One of those wonderful features from Australia's Telstra.) Without the "guess" that Wickwack is always the same person, it's difficult to find "a list of their previous contributions", and even then it ain't easy. Talk pages contain conversations. Conversations work because we build an image in our mind of the person with whom we're conversing. We all know that it's already harder on the web than face-to-face because we don't have body language to work with. A changing IP address reduces that image building to almost nothing. The other thing I don't get is why people don't register. I've seen several statements to the effect that "people have all sorts of reasons for not registering". Well, I can't think of any. I'm a seeker of knowledge. Educate me. (Actually, I can think of one reason, a fear that registering will somehow spread personal details to unwansted places, and Wikipedia and other bodies Wikipedia sells my details to will fill my mailbox with spam. We all know it doesn't happen and can only be good ambassadors for that truth. What else?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you just want reasons, or do you insist on good reasons?

• There are people who just don't register with websites, on principle.
• There are people who want to be completely anonymous.
• There are people who actively do not want you to "build an image in your mind of the person with whom you're conversing".
• There are people who want to force you to evaluate everything they write based solely on the words they write, uncolored by anything you might think you know about their identity.

But let's not debate this here; open a new thread if you'd like to discuss the subject further; this is an old and rather tired subject. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And that's an insulting post. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- how so? (It wasn't meant to be.) —Steve Summit (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I read it sa a suggestion that you thought I was flogging some sort of dead horse. To me it's a very alive and violently threshing horse. One recent example is described in my post at 05:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)in the thread below. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I'm sorry, personally I do think it's a dead horse.

But in any case, if you (or anyone) wants to discuss it, I really thought it deserved a thread of its own, not buried in this one. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite the IP-hopping in this case, a registered user is more "anonymous" than a so-called "anonymous" IP address is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, it's the very simple relief of not having to remember yet another password and go through login procedure. Contributing is one-click easy and I'm grateful for that. Maybe password stuff is easy for others but I find it a real chore. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see the history of all my posts, all you have to do is key in the word Wickwack in the Ref Desk search field. I do not edit or create Wikipedia articles - I only contribute on Science Desk. As for building an image of Wickwack, it's clear from the various pro and con posts about me that many of you have done exactly that. Wickwack 120.145.81.185 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Though $31.50 is very high for a single article, most people who have an interest in looking things up have many alternatives. Wickwack has suggested textbooks as references, and I agree that is also a good practice. How much do these texbooks cost? Some are over $300. Nobody would say "we should not cite text books, because they are too expensive." What do people do if they want to get information from such a book? They go to a library! Maybe the situation is different in AU or UK, but in USA, many large public libraries can give electronic access to many, many journals. Smaller suburban libraries often don't give such acess, but then, they also don't usually have many university-level textbooks. Almost every public university in the USA will give library cards to the public, and this will give access to virtually anything in the world, if you include inter-library loan. So, while freely accessible, highly reliable, online references are preferred on these desks, sometimes people will have to move around in the real world: to gain access gain an expensive textbook, or to gain access to electronic databases. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that many countries are similar to how it works in Australia. While local libraries (operated by local government here) don't have much at all, the Universities have virtually every English language textbook either in print or accessible in digital form via computers on campus. University libraries are open to the public, not just staff and students. However, members of the public must physically go to campus to view printed books or use library computers to access online stuff. You cannot borrow direct, but if you go to your local library, you can request an inter-library loan. The Australian National Library (equivalent roughly to the US Library of Congress) pretty much has one copy of any thing - I've even found quite obscure Russian texts. And they will do interlibary loans and scan pages on request and email them. So, effectively, just about anything is available to everyone. But online references, if authoritive, are obviously a lot more convenient. Wickwack 58.169.235.46 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack suggested that "Citing a source that the OP, and the rest of us, cannot access [...] is not just as bad as not citing any source, it is worse. It is worse because it gives sense of authority which the source may or may not support." This is wrong on several levels. As a general rule, I think I can safely say that citing a source (any source, no matter how obscure) is always better than not citing a source. Furthermore, even though the reference in question did eventually link to an expensive copyrighted Elsevier-owned article, the abstract was still available for free. So this wasn't an unavailable, falsely authoritative reference; it was both available and authoritative. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

rant attributed without proof to wickwack closed

Speaking of which, I have no idea whether this bigoted anti-American rant is or is not actually written by the person pretending to be wickwack, or someone pretending to be the person who pretends to be wickwack. But it is unhelpful, insulting, unreferenced, and I have closed it. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I actually laughed when I read it, and I'm a teacher, one of the other targets. Wasn't terribly flattering about journalists and the media either. Medeis, why was it only the anti-American parts that concerned you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is bigoted or anti American or insulting (to be critical of some things American is not necessarily to be bigoted or anti-American or insulting, even if you are wrong) or even much of a rant. It is, however, unhelpful in the context and unreferenced. If these are to be taken as the rationales for hatting on the Ref Desk, most of what currently appears there needs a hat. (Please don't take this as permission to hat, Medeis; I don't agree with you.) As to the source, we have to assume that it is Wickwack as this is his/her manner of taking credit. It he/she wants to change this, Wickwack knows how to do it. Bielle (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you all that the post referring to the USA, journalists, and school teachers was indeed me. Wickwack 58.169.235.46 (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

While this should not necessarily be a reason to force someone to register an account, it should be noted that the above post cannot be positively connected to one person, to the exclusion of someone who may be impersonating said person, any more than any of the other posts attributed to Wickwack. This is not a trivial problem. Any person from the same IP range, which covers some several million people, could be impersonating Wickwack in the above post, or indeed any post, that purports to be Wickwack. If Wickwack is OK with that, and is fine not registerring an account in light of that, I am in no position to enforce any sort of opinion other than theirs, but this is a real, non-trivial problem with editing from a dynamic IP system, and would be instantly solved by registerring an account; a procedure that has, as far as I can tell, zero downside. --Jayron32 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This morning I spent around an hour sorting out an article that had been stuffed up by a novice editor whose IP address changed every time they appeared here. There were repeated problems. Writing on their Talk page was pointless. they didn't have one. It changed every day. I tried to point out the problems in Edit summaries, but seemingly, being a novice, they either weren't read or they were ignored. There was absolutely no way at all of communicating with this person, and they kept repeating the same mistakes. A lot of stuffing around occurred over a quite a number of days. I eventually decided to try to work out for myself what the editor was trying to achieve, made some changes myself, with sources, avoiding copyvio, and all the other problems we had. The editor hasn't been back yet, so I don't know if this will solve the problem. But I know what would. Forcing IPs to register before they can edit articles. I have no sympathy. It's a disaster area for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. But you needn't worry about me - I simply never have, and will not, edit or create articles - I only post on Science Ref Desk. I've had several Wikipedians, including an Admin, request me to clean up certain articles that are in poor shape. And the ones they wanted me to work on are indeed in very poor shape full of common misconceptions. But what I will NOT do is spend the necessary long hours making a good solid article with good references cited, when any unidentified twit can come along after and stuff it all up again, regardles of whether they are an intentional vandal, or acting in good faith but do not undertsand the subject. If Wikipedia had a policy of only allowing registered users to edit articles, that would be a good start. A lot of people don't see any policy difference between Ref Desk and the Wikipedia articles. I do - policy for articles should be steered more towards quality and away from letting just any unkown twit in. However, on Ref Desk they should be let in.

I sometimes ask people I meet through work or socially whether they are aware of Wikipedia. Invariably they say "Yes", because Wiki articles often appear near the top of Google searches. If I ask "do you use it?" or "do you think it is a good resource?" the answer is mostly "No, and it is getting worse". The reason is because anybody can edit an article, whether they know the subject or not.

Wickwack 121.221.228.142 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, IP's can't create articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, anyone, registerd or not, dynamic IP or not, can edit articles. If you search the articles, you'll find that a few years ago a policy change got proposed to require registration, but it has not been implemented. I coudn't believe just anyone could edit, so I did once make an inconsequential change to an article, left it for a month to see if got reverted (it didn't), then I reverted it myself, all under dymamic IP. Wickwack 121.215.70.116 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But Bugs didn't say "IP's can't edit articles", now, did he? —Steve Summit (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, everyone can edit, but not everyone can create an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack, without that policy of "all are welcome", Wikipedia would never have become what it is today. More than that, it would have fallen by the wayside and would probably now be defunct. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we should just accept the sort of thing I described in my 05:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) post above as one of the costs of encouraging new editors? We can perhaps narrow the problem down to editors with frequently changing IP addresses. With a fixed address at least we can communicate with a new editor on their default Talk page. If the IP address changes all the time, they have no fixed Talk page for us to even give advice. It's (usually) not an editor's fault if their IP address changes all the time, but it can be a real pain to us. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid we do have to accept that sort of thing, despite how annoying (I agree!) it can be.

There are plenty of good reasons for desiring editors to have to register before editing, so you're not alone, but me, I don't see that change happening, I hope it doesn't happen, and I'd vote against it if it came up. (But as I mentioned above, if you want to debate this, let's do it in a new thread.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Unsourced attacks on various ethnicities are not helpful." Really? I wasn't aware that "people who use temperature units incorrectly" constitute an ethnicity. Is the concept of maintaining international standards of scientific measure now considered radical and/or inflammatory? (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In arguing out of context about comments here you don't seem to have read the original rant. The Unidentified OP went on about how America is notorious and her sources shouldn't be taken as reliable no matter what they say--not that the source quoted by Bugs or Jayron was inaccurate. It was an unreferenced rant by an unidentified ranter with no relevance to the matter at hand and was hatworthy as off topic, end of story. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And you still don't care about teachers? :-( HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the main source I cited was the General Conference on Weights and Measures which is not an American source. It's an international body based in the suburbs of Paris, France. --Jayron32 03:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that I'm arguing out of context (assuming that comment was in fact directed at me?). The "rant" that you removed, while marginally off topic, addressed the original question pretty directly. I can't imagine what this has to do with bigotry and/or "attacks on various ethnicities" (the given reasons for your removal of the original content). It's late and I'm not really interested in having this degenerate into an argument, so I'll let it drop. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the USA's attitude to international standards is very well known (and detested) outside of the USA. Even the USA's diplomats occaisionally try to push the nonsense that international standards are a trade barrier aimed at reducing the competitiveness of USA business. The attitude of the USA manifests it self in many forms. It ranges from making and specifying everything in what Americans call "customary units" (essentially the Foot-Pound-Second system, with a non-standard pound) instead of SI metric; to having an ANSI or other US Standard that overlaps but just about never is compatible with the appropriate ISO, IEC etc standard; to refusing to comply with international standards with manufactured goods. The later part of my career involved working for dealer who sold marine deisel propulsion engines for ocean going large fishing boats and medium size freighters. These engines are made by a well known large American manufacturer whose corporate colours are yellow and black. They would only deliver engines (worth from $150,000 to $2,000,000) built and rated to US standards. At the dealership we had strip every new engine down and rebuild it to comply with international standards, doing things as silly as throwing away perfectly good fanbelts and replacing them with new belts certified for compliance with relevant safety standards. All up it added another 10% cost to each engine. All because the American management is just too stuck in American parochialism to do it right in the factory, which would cost them almost nothing. And they wonder why Asia is beating them! Buy a US-made engine-generator set rated as (say) 100 kW at 0.8 PF, measure it in accordance with international standards, and you'll typcally only get 83 kW out of it. Buy a 100 kW rated genset made by a German, Japanese, Taiwanese, or Chinese etc manufacturer, and 100 kW is what you'll get. Drives us all nuts. Wickwack 58.169.235.46 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I usually figure that anti-US rants are driven by jealousy and envy. As regards international units, we use them when it makes sense to. Which isn't often. We're like the UK that way, which still uses "miles per hour". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"We use them when it makes sense to. Which isn't often" is a just plain silly attitude, when you consider the process used to produce Internations Standards - expert committees, reviews, and a requirement for consensus. And in many if not most cases, the various Internation Standards are copies or modified versions of a national standard that has seen several years of use and has been shown to meet a need very well. The UK is pretty much an SI country and does follow BS reprints of International Standards very very well. "Mile per hour" is just one example from street use. It is like Australia, which has been fully metric for decades, and that's all you'll see in science and industry, but if you ask an Australian "How tall are you?", more than likely he'll say 5 foot 8 or whatever. And none of this is an anti-US rant. It's just a factual observation that the USA does things it's own way. Wickwack 121.215.70.116 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The USA does not feel the need to conform to what other countries do, except when it's to our benefit also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived benefit". Not that that is much different in other countries, but some seem to have better perception. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As they are entitled to do, but it's their funeral I think. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, Europeans are conformists, so getting them to abandon human-based measurements and using clunky stuff like meters is an easier sell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So conformists accept change more easily. Amazing. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They're told to change, so they change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, your response doesn't really make any sense. The question was asked on the science desk, not the humanities desk. Speaking as an American Scientist (ie. someone who seems to qualify as "Anti-American" by your definition) it's just plain absurd to call standardized units "conformist". For example, if you want to go out and start a weather channel and report temperatures in coffeecups-per-square oz. Go for it, IUPAC isn't going to show up and criticize your business model. Now if you want to submit a paper to an ACS journal (The American Chemical Society apparently being a bastion of Anti-Americanism?) you probably should use units other people actually understand (ie. degrees Celsius, degrees Fahrenheit, or Kelvin). You're certainly entitled to the opinions that units are some form of tyranny that only conformists yield to, but I think on the science desk we can probably agree (fairly un-cotroversially) that you can't just make up your own units if you want people to understand you. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In our science classes, way back when, we used metric units for everything. No problem. As for "making up units", the acre, for example, was around long before the hectare was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be pointless to suggest that these petty displays of nationalism and mudslinging are about as inappropriate here as they were on the Science desk? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointless? Clearly not. Durable? Clearly not. -- Scray (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time they've commented on things like this so I don't see any reason to doubt it's them even before Wickwack gave their assurances above. 12:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• So what do we have now, about 80% of the people above (I am not going to count) of the opinion that posting OR criticism of the US based on a certain POV is perfectly acceptible, given how evul/backwards/effing annoying the US is? This is a joke. Either policy always applies or it doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

the reference desks are not for the serving up of opinions or debate, and neither is this talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
They're jealous of us. Don't pay them no never-mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC) The issue is not the Anti-Americanism as such. That's just the normal un-self-reflective and juvenile anti-daddy resentment one can expect from a certain crowd. The issue is the pretense at standards which apply when someone says something that makes such editors uncomfortable, but which is dropped as soon as they want to push their own POV. (Obviously I am not just talking about the present crop of ressenteurs, as Nietzsche would call them.) No one would tolerate the things that are said about America (as if it were a supernatural entity) or about Americans if such things were said about any other nationality or so-called minority group, especially not unreferenced bullshit such as this. Yet characterize anti-Americanism as racism, when it is aimed at native born US citizens, and you will hear squealing like a stuck pig. One can't necessarily defeat such lilliputian bigotry in a collective exercise like this one, but pointing it out rather than remaining silent is the least one can do. That people have a POV is one thing. That they cannot step away from and above it is another. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC) When you're the leader, you get targeted by those who wish they were the leader. That's how things go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Oh ferchrissakes, get a room, you two. Are you really so insecure in your national pride that you have to throw a hissy fit every time someone says something that maybe, somehow, when viewed under a certain light, might contain a statement that might contain some form of criticism of something related to the US? I mean, seriously, what happens when you see the latest propaganda movie from North Korea on the news? Do you just spontaneously combust? -- Ferkelparade π 02:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Do all Americans think all their fellow countrymen (and women, and children, so as not to appear too narrow here), and all their country's practices, are perfect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC) As usual, you have missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter what country you are saying fucked up bigoted bullshit about without references. It doesn't have to do with America being the subject of the comments. It has to do with the comments being fucked up, bigoted, unreferenced bullshit. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Righto. It's all clear now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC) It is not bigotry to suggest that the US fails to follow international standards with regards to weights and measures. More importantly, Wickwack's comment is relevant to the discussion at hand, which was why I removed the hat. I think Baseball Bugs sums up his objections perfectly: "I usually figure that anti-US rants are driven by jealousy and envy". In other words, the truth doesn't matter and criticism isn't even worth considering; it's axiomatic for him that criticism of the US must always be wrong, and that praise of the US must always be right. As for "fucked up bigoted bullshit without references", why did you not complain about Market St's comment on the Humanities desk, where he said "As Margaret Thatcher said 'The problem with socialism [or for that matter communism] is that you eventually run out of other peoples money' The example that is most telling to me is that of Cuba..."? (Don't get me wrong, I agree with him; I just think this type of editorializing doesn't belong on the Reference Desk.) How about StuRat's comments claiming North Korea wants to destroy South Korea? Under your criteria, they'd be the epitome of bigoted, unreferenced bullshit. Under my criteria, they're incorrect but not bigoted against North Koreans. Why did you not complain about Baseball Bugs' racist and unhelpful comments on this thread, and again earlier on this talk page? In fact, can you point out a single example where you objected to criticism of a non-Western country's foreign or domestic policies? Is it possible that you're engaging in the very same type of favoritism you accuse other editors of doing? --Bowlhover (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC) "The USA is notorious for either ignoring international standards, or claiming that international standards are a wicked European plot to reduce American competitiveness" is not "criticism", it's an anti-American rant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC) The USA ignoring international standards is a fact of life. It has not metricated its' industry. It has a myriad of its own tecnical standards that are different to and often incompatible with applicable international standards. The USA objecting to international standards by claiming that they are a barrier to trade is fact. I saying so, I did not make an anti-American rant, I stated a fact, well known in indutry outside of the USA. The claim that it is about being jealous of the USA is laughable, simply because in going their own way with standards, the USA is not just a nuisance in international trade and industry, the USA severely penalises itself. As in the example I gave above - by forcing importers to modify USA-made products in order to obtain internationally applicable standards compliance, the USA imposes an unnecessary cost penalty compared to the rest of the World that builds products right in the first place. Here's another example: The USA manufactures large packaged diesel generators. There's no question that they are well built and built to give a long trouble free service. But they are built to US electrical wiring standards, which violate international standards for colours and earthing. So importers are forced, for safety reasons, to re-wire them. Again, an unnecessary cost burden that reduces US competiveness. It would cost US factories NOTHING to wire their products correctly. The USA policy on participation in international standards is set out in the ANSI document of that name, as says in clause B6.2-3 (2008 version - I believe this is current) If no national standard to a proposed international standard exists, if the international document ... creates a trade barrier ... vote negative (ie vote against it). The determination of the view of whether there is a trade barrier is the sole discretion of the USA. No other country has a policy like that, and it is a little bizare in view of the fact that the prime purpose of international standards is to facilitate trade - international and local. The objections made by USA at both indutry and diplomatic level to the important quality management standard ISO900x is well known. The USA was outraged when Japan started applying ISO900x to to computer software and electronics - and their objection was that it was a barrier to free trade. The USA exerts at lot of leverage over Japan, as Japan lost the war and is in consequence reliant on the USA for defence, and as a market for its products, so the USA managed to get Japan to officially withdraw from implementing ISO900x in the electronics industry and software industry. However other countries have done it anyway. The USA's attitude in this is hard to understand, as not only does ISO900x facilitate trade, like any ISO standrd is designed to do, it is the experience World-wide (and even of US firms that have implemented ISO900x quality management systems, and similar systems such as Ford Motor Co's QMS) that while expensive, it does reduce manufacturing costs vis-a-vis other methods. Why American industry is not using the SI metric system is also very hard to understand. I have experienced working in industry before Australia adopted SI, and after. SI metric sure makes things a hell of a lot easier and far far less error prone. In SI, pretty much all math formulas you may need to derive have constants of 1, 2, pi, or a handful of well known fundmental constants. This means that you can easily spot an error, and you can guess a formula with the aid of dimensional analysis. None of this works wth the US Customary Units system, because formulae are riddled with all sorts of odd constants. Perhaps it is because in school science classes, I was taught according to the MKS system, for which SI is a small adjustment - I wasn't stuck in my ways in the Foot-Pound-Second system (not forgetting that the USA has an unstandrd pound to boot!). Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 120.145.81.185 (talk · contribs) = 60.228.233.13 (talk · contribs)? Wow. Well, since the voluntary approach in the 1970s went over like a lead balloon, I guess we could force conversion to metric. Which government programs should we sacrifice in tradeoff, in order to accomplish that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC) No government program needs to be, or should be, sacrificed. Metric conversion is an investement with a positive net return. Australia converted from British units to SI several decades ago. The cost to the government was negligible. They passed a law that required, primarily, that:- The SI system shall be the system used in commerce, trade, and industry Goods sold at retail shall be marked and measured in metric dimensions, and where sold by weight or other dimension, shall be priced in metric dimensions. A Metric Conversion Board was establised as a limited life government agency - their task was to initiate and manage advertising campaigns explaining the metric/SI system to the public at large, and advise the govt as to the success of conversion, and of any issues requiring govt intervention. The cost of conversion was thus borne by indivuals, business, and industry. The engineering company I worked for estimated the cost as being paid for in a matter of weeks or less through increases in efficiency. In commerce and industry, the change proved easy. However, some folk of pensioner age took a while to get used to buying their food in kg instead of Lbs. People still quote their height in feet and inches. If the USA was to make up its' mind to change, doing what Australia did is recommended - that is begin teaching with the metric system from Year 1 primary school, then legislate make the metric system the legal system for trade 12 years later when those kids graduate from high school. However, as far as remaining competitive in international trade is concerned, the USA's attitude to international technical standards is the bigger problem. It matters less whether, for example, the diameter of an engine's bearings is 4.2100 inches or 106.934 mm. What matters is whether I get 400 kW (536 HP) out of an engine rated at 536 HP. As it stands, for a US engine I will not. Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Metrics have been taught in US schools for decades now, and metrics have crept into all kinds of places, at least where it seems appropriate. As an example, there's no reason on god's green earth for American farmers to switch from acreage to "hectarage". But you often hear of a car engine being defined as so many CC's. And many products now contain both traditional and metric units. It would be interesting to see whether the Congressmen and Senators fear losing their jobs if they were to promote such a bill. "The cost of conversion was thus borne by individuals, business, and industry" is liable to be a red flag. In any case, there's been no noise about it since the 1970s. So at this point it's a non-issue here. If it comes, it will be at a time when no one will care because they're already using metrics anyway, at least in combination with traditionals as I mentioned above. But forced conversion is unlikely anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC) So at this point it's a non-issue here - I think that's Wickwack's point. The rest of the world is seriously hampered in its dealings with the USA, but the USA considers it not to be an issue. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Do primary schools in America teach using the metric system - that is use it in teaching any subject, right from the start with children age 5 or 6 (whatever the starting age is in the USA)? Or is the use of the metric system just confined to science subjects, and US customary units used in other subjects? In Western Australia, prior to 1966, schools used British units in all subjects except what was known as "Science B" (chemistry and physics). This meant that students didn't get exposed to the metric system (CGS units) until age 13, and came to regard it as just a funny odd sytem used only for science. In 1966 they changed to using the MKS system for everything, resulting in a better attitude by students. I doubt if you'll find many Australians who remember CGS metric or can use it, but virtually everyone who got exposed to MKS or SI became comfortable with it throughout life. I can work with CGS, but only because I have a standard 1950's textbook on electromagnetics that is written with CGS. Is America making the same mistake Australian made in the 1960's? Wickwack 60.228.233.13 (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC) This is NOT the place to discuss the metric system. It just has to stop right now. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC) It can stop when wickwack recants his anti-American comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC) For the love of Mike, Bugs, saying that the USA tends to ignore international standards is not ant-American. Can't you see that Wickwack just enjoys tweaking people, and while you continue to over-react he will continue to tweak you. It's kind of fun to watch, but as Itsmejudith said, this really isn't the right venue. Why not take this thread to your talk page ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) "The USA is notorious for either ignoring international standards, or claiming that international standards are a wicked European plot to reduce American competitiveness" is not the same characterization as what you're saying. If you find this discussion annoying, you're free to stop reading it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Not at all annoyed - I think this thread is hilarious ! But it really is in the wrong place. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC) The USA IS notorious for ignoring international standards. The USA DOES try to claim that international standards are a wicked European plot to reduce American competiveness. Let's be clear about this: these are facts, as I have demonstrated. I cannot recant what is true. Nor is my statement anti-American. Much about the USA is to be admired (eg their ability to innovate in technology), but not their attitude to standards. Appologies to ItsMeJudith, but this did start off as a discussion as to whether my statement was or was not a "bigoted anti-American rant". Wickwack 124.182.139.233 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Not even the place to discuss whether your comment was anti-American or a rant. Try a user talk page (have to be yours, Bugs) or consider mediation or some such. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Or Scray's talk page, as he made the initial complaint about wikwack paddywack give a dog a bone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing...

In this exchange? Is this IP known for asking questions on how to make bombs or something? The section reads like someone asking a question on how to grow tomatoes and being told how to extract the poison from the leaves to kill his wife with. Matt Deres (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was a tad over the top too, Matt. Maybe it's to compensate for no longer being able to make terrorist jokes at airports. Wikipedia Reference Desk, your flight is ready for boarding. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably somebody saw the word "toluene" and made an automatic association with trinitrotoluene, aka TNT. Looie496 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a strange exchange. It'd be like someone asking for a place to buy a baseball bat, and getting responses telling him the proper way to club someone with it to inflict maximum damage. Sure, toluene and TNT have a chemical relationship, but there's nothing particularly different from, say the relationship between glycerin (a soapmaking byproduct and common additive in many cosmetics) and nitroglycerin (an explosive). We could have, you know, answered the OP's question instead of gone off on a tangent on how to make explosives. --Jayron32 04:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dahmer relative

I have closed this question and removed the party's name from the heading. Wikipedia doesn't normally comment on people whose notablility exists only in relation to the crimes of others. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I'm with you there, Medeis. Nobody was suggesting grandma became notable just because her grandson who lived in her house turned out to be a murderer. Under the circs, the police would have been derelict if they hadn't questioned her, and I think it's a reasonable ref desk question to seek details of that questioning and its outcome. We can just ignore the OP's comment on her assumed inside knowledge. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that we don't assume or speculate about things, and per WP:CRIME we don't comment on third parties just because they are related to criminals. The exact point is this person is not notable. The OP is free to make what assumptions and speculations he wants elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I already said we should ignore the speculation/assumption part of the question, and focus on the details of her questioning by the police. There's no rule that says OPs may only ever ask questions about people who are notable. There was a great deal of coverage of the whole Dahmer thing, and it's not unreasonable or inappropriate for an OP to seek some detail that they missed at the time, or maybe they weren't even old enough to know about at the time, or maybe they weren't even alive at the time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The person in question is not named in the relevant article. The Ref Desk is to be treated like article space in regard to subject matter, not as a free-for all--medical and legal advice is the default least restriction, not the limit of restriction. The user obviously knows we have an article on the criminal, and can read that. It is not our place to go speculating on third parties. We ourselves do not know this person's name or relation to the criminal to be referring to it as fact or relevant. If anyone wants to advise the OP that X is the best reference on the criminal himself, go read it, they should feel free to do so without reference to the name of any relative. But anything else is outside our purview. We are not a private investigative service or a tabloid magazine. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We say, inter alia, "In summer 1988, Dahmer's grandmother asked him to move out because of his late nights, his strange behavior, and the foul smells from the basement". Later he moved back in with her, before moving out to his own apartment. Given what the police eventually discovered in his apartment, wouldn't it cross your mind if you were the police to maybe see what had gone on in his grandmother's place while he was there. That's obviously what the OP is thinking. Nobody is asking anybody to speculate here. The OP simply wants to know whether the grandmother was questioned, presumably whether her house was searched, and what the results of those lines of enquiry were. He's asking for information, assuming it's on the public record. That's what we do here: find publicly available information and make it known to the OPs, with links to where we found it. That's why were called a Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

But we are the reference desk, and only the reference desk, not the information desk. Could I ask about who some random person's ex might be, mentioning their name, given the clues I have, because it's information? We do provide references, but we certainly don't provide comments on non-notable people because it is asserted they are related to criminals. Yes, we mention the criminal's in his article grandmother as his grandmother. We don't mention her by name, as the OP did, or do criminal background checks on a name someone gives us, or speculate what the police should have done and why. By all means, point the OP to our article without mentioning her. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be just ignoring whatever I write, and talking about whatever's in your own head. I have now twice explicitly denied that this has anything to do with speculation, but you keep on bringing that red herring up. It also has absolutely nothing to do with commenting on anyone, or with doing criminal background checks on anyone. It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether the grandmother's name appears in our article or not. She must have had a name, and I have no doubt it was revealed as part of the public exposition of this grotesque affair.

It's like this: (a) Was the grandmother questioned, Yes or No? (b) If Yes: What was the result of that questioning? That's it. This information is either on the public historical record, or it isn't. If it is, we can track it down and give references to the OP. We would be providing verbatim and comment-free reports of what reliable sources had to say about this when it all happened in 1988. If it isn't available, tough titties for the OP. Why make it any more complicated than this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the hatting. Jack of Oz is correct - this is a question that could be answered by references (if they exist) - speculation is not required here. Someone versed in searching online newspaper databases like NYTimes or something could bring something up if they wished. Medeis' comment "Wikipedia doesn't normally comment on people whose notablility exists only in relation to the crimes of others." is frankly baffling within the context of the RefDesk; notability has little or nothing to do with questions raised here. I would also like to join the chorus imploring Medeis to knock it off with the hasty hatting. Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt, and you can add my name to the chorus (much and all as I generally avoid joining groups). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hasty hatting will be the name of my next band, FWIW. --Jayron32 04:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am about to close this again. We've got a questioner saying he's not accusing a non-notable third arty of a crime, just asking if she was questioned regarding it, then speculation and irrelevant commentary on an unrelated case. We need to stick to providing actual references on real people and sticking to policy regarding non-notable bystanders. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, Medeis, knock it off! You appoint yourself the resident policy Nazi, yet when it comes to your own actions you're a law unto yourself. You've been asked time and time again to quit it with the constant hattings and closings and removals, but the opinions and requests of others don't seem to mean a damn to you. Reminder: One of our most cherished policies is consensus. The consensus is unanimously against your modus operandi. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't override WP policy. Per BLP removals of violations are justified, and they can be reverted. Closures are not removals. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP does not extend to dead people. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The question wasn't removed or removed in relation to BLP--Jack brought up removals and I have removed a few past questions (usually had them removed) on BLP basis. Here the violation is WP:CRIME, and as far as I am concerned the relevant issues have been addressed, except for the fact that we continued to have unreferenced speculation about what we must assume is an innocent third party. The Ref Desk is not the place for opinion and unsupported speculation on the crimes of non-notable persons. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced question

Can't find a travel question that I asked here. Was it deleted because I did something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.56.197 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you click on your IP address, you'll see all the edits it has ever made to Wikipedia, and the grand total of 2 does not include any question about travel. If you can identify it for us in a more helpful way, we'll tell you what happened to it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Go to thge top of one of the reference desks, the miscellaneous one will do, and put in any relevant key words from your question. Then look under dates in the responses that are close to when you asked it. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The most obvious question, are you sure you asked it here? For about 2 months, the main RD page but not the side bars have linked to the sister project desk Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office. Did you look there for your question? Note that contribs there will not show up in your history although I looked and there doesn't seem to be any at all to your current IP there so I guess you probably used a different IP presuming you did post them either here or there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Hatnote, please?

Can someone please do me a favor and add this code to the top of the 'Reference Desk' page?

{{Redirect|Help:Reference|how to add references to articles|Help:Wiki markup#References and citing sources}}

It'll produce this:

"Help:Reference" redirects here. For how to add references to articles, see Help:Wiki markup § References and citing sources.

    — 12.218.76.10 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

¡Muchos gracias y muchos mas gracias! [Many thanks and many more thanks!] — 12.218.76.10 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

De nada. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

hat discussion on Humanities desk

I've hatted all the exchange about the value of Jayron32 and Medeis's answers as off topic. I included Medis's first comment under the hat, because The Rambling Man pointed out it was a link to google search result not an answer to the question. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You should be aware that Rambling Man's advice may be tainted by his recent active hostility towards me, and that Jayron linked to two villages founded in the Middle Ages (11th and 13th centuries) and compared theirs to the "culture" (I assume nightlife) of modern-day Ronaldsway, whereas I linked to multiple results that pointed the OP to what he actually asked about, the neolithic Ronaldsway Culture. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Another rant by "Wickwack"

This: "So who is being an idiot then? First you posted "I dissagree entirely with Wickwack." Now, after more than one person said you are wrong, you have again asserted what is clearly ridiculous. You have made several silly posts recently, resulting in several people attacking you. Are you on drugs or something?" [7] is Wickwack's newest post. I suspect the skullduggery with the name/IP addresses suggests an underlying historical problem. Can any Admins here look into this? μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Checkusers won't own up to anything about IP's, unless they discover it's from a proxy server. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair on this one, you did call him an idiot first. Not to say he's not been particularly acerbic of late, but that's not the best example if you wan't to start a discussion on his behavior, as you brought that particular word into the discourse. --Jayron32 02:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He said I was silly, and then I asked him rhetorically in response if I should call him an idiot, to which I responded no, that personal comments were inappropriate. So he started it, and he escalated it, and is now up to accusing me of drug use. This is simply disruptive, as has been his other behavior, regardless of my potential hurt feelings. It seemed appropriate to bring this up in the context the above discussion, his current incivility, and the fact that we have no way of knowing he isn't multiple trolls. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

1) "But he started it" doesn't work for my seven year old. I'm not sure why it works here. 2) People aren't going to diagram the sentence to figure out exactly the context you use a word like that. If you use words like that, it should not be unexpected when people respond emotionally and return fire, just as you did when he called you silly. The best thing is for everyone to return to a neutral corner, and forget the whole thing. There is no satisfactory way, other than everyone just walking away and forgetting about it and leaving each other alone for a good long while, that will end this. --Jayron32 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)