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.

Possible to prioritise Wikipedia-helping questions?

Is it possible to prioritise questions at the Reference desk (RD) that improve Wikipedia, as opposed to questions that don't benefit Wikipedia?

• Example of what to prioritise: a while ago I asked for some CorelDRAW help so I could finish a diagram for a Wikipedia article
• Example of what not to prioritise: a question on naming a song from a Youtube video.

I don't have the energy to trawl the entire RD for what I consider "high priority" questions, but maybe on this talk page a list could be kept. Regards --Commander Keane (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What would the list's purpose be? And how would you distinguish what benefits WP and what doesn't? (Unless you mean what directly benefits WP)---Sluzzelin talk 02:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is to single out "high priority" questions, so that people (like me) can use a watchlist or daily check just on those questions. The answers would still go in the usual spot. "High priority" questions would be added to the list in a wiki way, anyone could add or remove an entry. I think I do mean directly benefiting Wikipedia, but I could use some help defining "high priority". For example asking for coordinates of a scuba diving site to add to a Wikipedia article seems "high priority" to me. Asking a question on the wording of an Harry Book between different languages doesn't seem to benefit Wikipedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I wouldn't oppose such a list per se, as long as it carries no weight outside what you specified. I guess I find it more difficult to gauge a question's priority or potential benefit to WP just from reading it. Sometimes people ask a question because they couldn't find the information in mainspace. This can (and frequently does) result in the expansion or even creation of articles, even when this wasn't the original poster's intention. While doing research for the question on British v American wording of Harry Potter books, someone might happen upon an interesting aspect that might be included in an article (could be a HP article, could also be a linguistic article or an article on publishing). In my opinion, serependity is among the qualities the reference desks thrive on, and I would probably be ignoring such a list. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

10-15 questions a day, per desk, doesn't seem like that much to "trawl through" to me. 82.44.54.4 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in theory the ref desks are supposed to benefit the readers, which indirectly benefits wikipedia if the reader comes away feeling good about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is probably 6-8 questions per desk per day (7 desks ~40 questions per day). Yes looking through 40 questions is too much for me, since I am looking for a needle in a haystack. Also I probably visit once per week, so that is ~280 questions to through. I don't see how this proposal harms the benefit to readers. It has just occurred to me that the Help desk could serve these Wikipedia related questions, but I suppose the Help desk doesn't focus on facts etc like the RD does.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

¶ There might conceivably be some benefit to having a "Wikipedia" category of the Ref. Desk to match Humanities, Language, etc., although that might overlap the Help Desk. Someone asked today about the notability of an unelected state senate (legislative) candidate, and although we often can think of a guideline, WikiProject or help page where we can direct this sort of question (in this case, WP:POLITICIAN), it might not hurt to have a one-stop page rather than directing readers all over the back lots and side roads of Wikimedia/Wikipedia in the hopes that some text or some editor might someday answer their question. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but is this to benefit you or to benefit the users? To do this would be to ask the querent to decide where to put the question, and if we decided for them, how would they know where to look when we moved it? Library ref desks don't filter questions like this (if we did, we'd put the short or easy ones first and save the toughies for later, and they'd end up ignored.) Aaronite (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to think of it from the enquirer's point of view. It's easy enough for us to tell him or her to go to another desk. But (assuming he or she is moved to do so) to how many other places in succession might he or she be sent? Please hold on while we connect you. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any need to prioritize questions by any metric. It's not like we get 10,000 questions per day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And scanning the tables of contents shouldn't take that long. There will be some false positives and false negatives, but they should still yield 70% or 80% of what you're seeking. And you can see nearly a week's worth of questions on one table of contents. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An editor who visits only once a week will probably discover that most of the questions have been addressed in that week. In that case, forget the table of contents, go to the bottom of the page and work backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that there's a helpful "skip to bottom" link in the upper right corner of every RefDesk page, which makes starting at the bottom and working backwards that much easier. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there's also the helpful "End" key on the keyboard which does the same thing on any web page.—Emil J. 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The last time I looked at the statistics, most questions on the Science desk got their first response within about half an hour, and three quarters received their first response in less than two hours. While I cannot warrant that all of those responses are likely to be complete or accurate, it gives some idea of the speed at which the Desks generally operate. It's very rare for a question to sit around for as long as a day without a response, if it is going to be answered at all. While there's no reason to discourage occasional or once-a-week drop-in volunteers here, expecting any significant fraction of questions to sit around waiting for them is going to lead to disappointment. As well, since the vast majority of questions receive rapid responses, it doesn't seem necessary or constructive to try to sort them by some sort of priority scheme. (As Bugs suggests, just look at the bottom of the page if you want to know which questions are likely to need an answer.) There's no requirement to monitor all of the Desks, either — I'm a 'regular' here, but I generally make most of my contributions to Science and Misc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So ... High priority questions are ones asked by you, or asked on similar topics to the ones you would ask, while low priority questions are ones not asked by you on topics that don't interest you personally?

As an added point of interest, of your two example questions, isn't the second question more of a 'reference' question anyway? APL (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have thought of questions being given tags from a very large set of options, but I do not have any reason to believe that people will do better at tagging questions than they have done at providing concise but informative headings.—Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my comment.—Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)]

Sure would make this page longer though. hydnjo (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We can't even agree on whether certain questions are ethically acceptable or not. Can you imagine the debates over the "priority" a given question should have? The mind boggles! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should generalize the discussion: "What would the reference desk of the future look like"? And how could it help us sort, organize, and prioritize all questions? I think it would have an "auto-categorization" system. Questions would still be posted to the desks, as they are now; but each question would be manually/automatically tagged and categorized. You could then use an ATOM/RSS feed to trawl for your favorite categories and keywords. This provides out of band signal or "metadata" for every question - so those who prefer to ignore such categories may continue browsing without being distracted by the additional complexity. This mechanism also solves the problem of "cross-posting", because questions can be posted to the one desk that is most appropriate; but interested readers can set up their RSS feed to scan all desks for certain keyword/category questions. At present, MediaWiki does not support categorization on this fine-granularity (entire pages, yes; sub-headings - no). And there would have to be some user-interface addons to assist in dynamic-tagging - a checkbox of common topics/categories, and a text-input for new keywords. OPs could tag their questions as they see fit; and respondents could further add and remove categories, in order to help organize. One such checkbox could include a "Relevant to the Encyclopedia" category; and Commander Keane could "subscribe" to only those questions, in the same way that he might also subscribe to questions about science (or specific keywords/topics like seagulls). Nimur (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With LiquidThreads on the way perhaps the RD of the future is close. Does anyone know if LiquidThreads can do tagging like Nimur suggests? If not I will ask the programmer about it (it could also be used on the Help desk to mark things resolved). The way this discussion has gone I do wonder if I am the only one that would subscribe to the "Relevant to the Encyclopedia" category, this seems like the wrong place to find out. The word "priority" isn't well liked here, "tagging" is perhaps better. And I am not trying to customise the RD for me, I am just trying to make it better serve the encyclopedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask another question: why must the RD serve the encyclopedia? It's a Reference Desk, not an improve-the-article session. This is where you go when the article isn't enough. If, when an editor sees an obvious shortcoming in an article, they feel the need to fix the relevant article, they may do so. Otherwise, let it be. Tagging may well be useful, and I have no objection if it isn't disruptive, but otherwise, let the questions come as they may. Aaronite (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk must somehow serve the encyclopedia (and that can be pretty broadly interpreted) because it is being hosted as part of the Wikipedia project – an encyclopedia project – by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation accepts donations on our behalf which keep the lights on and the servers running; we owe it to everyone who has written us a cheque to actually use their money the way that we said we would. If the Ref Desk cannot fit itself within the scope of the Wikipedia project, it has three options. We can move to another Wikimedia project within whose mandate we do fit; we can try to modify Wikipedia's official goals to include the provision of independent reference services as well as an encyclopedia; or we can shut down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The ref desks DO serve the encyclopedia, but from the other direction from most users. Lots of people are asking why the ref desks aren't as directly involved in article writing, but from my perspective, insofar as the ref desks help readers find information in articles, they serve a very important purpose. After all, what good is an encyclopedia no one uses? If the ref desks do nothing except helping lost readers find article which serve their needs, they have done their job. --Jayron32 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please Commander, let it be. hydnjo (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Nimur, you should cross-post to Bugzilla, they'll get right on that. :) Right after "finish MediaWiki" I hear they're considering "enhance and extend"... Dream as we will, software will not solve the problem, whatever the problem is. We've sufficient brainpower here to categroize and rate every question. Two questions of my own: who wants to take the time to rate and categorize each OP rather than research and answer them? And how many more servers should we buy for the discussions here about how to properly rate the questions? I agree it would be great if we could get to auto-rating, but ya know, reality and all that. Franamax (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it would be outright impossible to properly design an automated computer-system to organize information by keyword : ) I'm still convinced that human-based categorization is far more efficient... for now. Nimur (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of tagging questions after a week to aid searches of the archives. I'm worried vandals will destroy the system, though, as vandal patrol of tags sounds one-tenth as fun as the already-thankless job of vandal patrol of articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

not AGF

From Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities#Is_it_harder_to_get_laid_if_you_have_few_friends.3F:

Hsardoft username and the post look like a troll joke so I reported your name here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention and then moved it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism on their instructions. I hope you did not mean it that way. : 70.31.58.221 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is silly enough that the admins at both places thoroughly vetoed the complaint immediately — it clearly does not AGF, and there is nothing wrong with the name or the post in question. I've moved this here because I think it is just going to derail the thread for no reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was a troll (and I do see how the name could be read as such; it's an anagram of Hardsoft, if anyone hasn't noticed), the question is reasonable and I'm willing to bet there has been research about it. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks the typical kind of username and question LC would create and post. We should have a special barnstar (probably one with a cow in it, or maybe a cowpie) for those who continue to feed her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether to award such an udderly admonitory bovine barnstar would constitute further nourishment is a moot question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP

The abusive IP on the math desk has gone from annoyance to simple troll. In the past, trolls have been effectively dealt with by completely removing their comments without any notice or warning. The trolls recognize that no matter how much effort they put into trying cause trouble, their work vanishes and nearly nobody sees it. They give up and go elsewhere. I suggest doing the same here. Instead of giving this troll a huge ego boost by pasting [vulgar attack removed] all over the math desk, I suggest quietly reverting any and all posts from this IP. It isn't a single IP address, but obviously a single user. His posts are very easy to recognize as they always contain a vulgar personal attack on the questioner. -- kainaw™ 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The only debatable word I've ever used is "Bulltwang". In Aussie culture, "Bulltwang" is a friendly word and it isn't insulting. I don't know about other cultures but if you don't like it I can stop. Just tell me. Now you've told me, I'll stop. Sorry. If I continue, you have every right to belive that I'm a troll so I'm putting my word I won't used "bulltwang" anymore (if they're posts of mine that already have "bulltwang", ignore or delete them, you can't use them as afact that I'm not putting my word since from NOW ON I won't use bulltwang). Are there any other rules I've to follows? You should tell me so I can improve. But if you see any other misbehaviour of mine, ignore me. Just please give me one last chance? Obviously, I still don't believe I've insulted anyone, but I won't repeat my past behaviour since you find it isnulting. Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.244.210 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That apology doesn't seem genuinesincere to me considering you're claiming 'the only debatable word' but even for me, someone who doen't check out the RD/M a quick look easily finds posts with plenty more words then bulltwang [1]. People have also pointed out WP:NPA to you many times [2] [3] and other violations [4]. Unless you have anything meaningful to add, don't be surprised if any furthers posts of yours to this talk page are ignored or removed as well. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, when told to stop insulting people by calling them stupid and uneducated, this IP's response was: "Saying someone is uneducated isn't a personal attack. It's a warning that the guy needs to get his act together. I can understand why some people think that stupid is a personal attack. But uneducated? No, kanaw, I have every right to call someone uneducated. I'll stop using stupid, but uneducated I won't stop using." This IP either cannot understand the concept of "no personal attack" or is purposely refusing to refrain from personal attacks. I do not know of any condition that will allow a person to be able to provide partially constructive answers on the math desk and, at the same time, be completely incapable of comprehending what a personal attack is. Therefore, I believe that this IP knows full well what a personal attack is and is simply acting as a troll. So, as is done with trolls, just delete his posts on sight. -- kainaw™ 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should've been clear. The only debatable word I've used since I was LAST BLOCKED was bulltwang. I've learnt my lesson since my last block. And if you don't wanna belive me, see [5]. I asked this question. My IP changes cause not because I change it myself but cause my IP is dynamic. It's not my fault. I can't help it. I'm sorry for any inconvineinces but there's simply nothing I can do about it.

And Kanaw, yes you're right dude, I said that. But I've learnt. As I said, I've learnt my lesson since I've last been blocked. What a personal attack is? I thought Wiki was an informal place like other webforums. In other places on the interent people attack each other. If you donna wanna belive me that's fine dude but just remember I've promised not to attack anyone here from NOW ON. Yes I've attacked in the past but if I do it again delete my posts. Just take my last word for it and I'll be very gratefull.

Also, you can't delete my posts if they're not rude. I've promised to not attack, but just because I've attacked people earlier according to you guys, doesn't mean you can delete perfectly legal posts of mine NOW. And don't call me a troll. I've an honors degree in math and trolls are people who are uneducated. Sorry and please take my word. My apology's sincere and bumble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.197.241 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, including the Reference Desk, is an encyclopedia. We have standards for the content we include on these pages.

• Do the contributions cite references from reliable sources?
• Are the contributions phrased in encyclopedic tone?

If not, delete them. Nimur (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You qualifications impress no one. There are plenty of trolls who have qualifications, some even better then yours. (And plenty of people on RD/M who agree you're unwelcome, including probably some you have called uneducated/stupid/whatever have better qualifications then yours.)

Also the wikipedia community is perfectly entitled to delete whatever we want. In particular if we come to a consensus that a certain contributor is unwelcome to wikipedia and we have made it clear to that contributor, we will delete any contributions in defiance of that community ban.

And your apology again comes of as insincere given that you said "I've attacked people earlier according to you guys" in the very same post suggesting you are still refusing to accept that calling someone uneducated and whatever else you have said is a personal attack.

BTW, I have been a part of many webforums. While many are more lenient then wikipedia, most do have rules and quite a lot of forums do not allow personal attacks, particularly continual personal attacks from one person on experienced contributors in seemingly every post. This is particularly true of forums dedicated to more serious subjects and serious discussions. And if you really thought us like a webforum, you would think we have moderators (we don't) or admins performing that function (we do but they don't perform a moderation role), any in nearly every forum if the moderators tell you to stop, you stop and don't debate it any further or continue your poor behaviour, particularly reposting anything that was deleted. And if plenty of experienced contributors tell you to stop, it's usually a good idea to stop and at least check out the rules they're telling you about. In fact I would say anyone showing your behaviour on a webforum would have long since been banned and any attempts to post further, even with lame fake apologies would result in those posted being deleted on sight. If you have really had any experience with the 'interent' and webforums in other words, all your excuses sound hollow.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK dude. But have I done anything wrong since Kanaw posted here? No! I immediately removed bulltwang from my post (see history) I posted a question and apologised and now I apologise here. Not meaning to sound rude but your lecturing to me is hollow because I've agreed to stop and have stopped! If ya wanna discuss with me more go ahead dued but the point of a ban is to prevent dudes from trolling. And I've stopped trolling. So no ban is necessary. If I'm not making sense to you guys then you need to ask what your motivation is. Your motivation is to stop me trolling. I've stopped. So??? There shouldn't be need for my to give excuse anymore. I've stopped vandalising. Now you understand? Maybe in diagram. I vandalise => You ban me and lecture me. I don't vandalise => You stop talking about the past and don't ban me. If this isn't word enough I don't know what is: if I make one more mistake just one more it doesn't matter whether it's small or big => ban me forever. that's how sincere I am to not troll anymore. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.216.125 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude: no one is swayed by your bumbling, arrogant, not-very-sincere apology.

The only thing that counts here (especially when you're an anonymous IP, incapable of sustaining any real reputation) is behavior. So you should concentrate on that, not on these strained arguments here. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's sad to see a contributor resisting the point that those above try to make clear. Let us not exaggerate: a short ban is not a punishment. It is just a good move for Wikipedia when we hope that the problem contributor will come back later, with past history laid to rest. You would have to be very naughty to earn a permanent ban. (Saying Bullshit or bulltwang won't earn that but personal attacks can get you there.) If you are sincere you will accept the consensus here without protest. If instead you push things so far that you get WP:BLOCKED, that is bad for everyone: Wikipedia, yourself and the innocents affected by the IP range block applied to your dynamic IP addresses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Penn Jillette global warming guy

I suppose it doesn't matter from a what-to-do-about-it point of view, but what do you folks think about this guy? He seems less like a troll and more like someone who is mentally ill. Just curious if anyone else got that vibe. --Sean 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno — WP:NOTTHERAPY and all that. I hatted the most recent re-asking. If it comes back again, we might try removing it completely. A block is unlikely to provide long-term relief, as I suspect he is on a floating Australian IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was dehatted by an IP under the (rather shaky, IMO) reasoning that the question would eventually be archived anyway. I think we should just warn the OP that if they keep posting the same question over and over, their stuff will be deleted. And then start deleting. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen already deleted one of their questions. I think the only reason the last one survived is because they at least stopped asking what Lomborg et al think. Since we've already told them, it doesn't matter who you ask about and they seem to have returned to Lomborg et al anyway, I seem no harm in completely removing this latest question Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume coincidence, but our "WT:RD#Abusive IP" (above section) also hails from New South Wales (population 7 million). -- 1.47.203.216 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. But the global warming IP seems to have been constant for a few days and was different from the other IP in the same timeframe Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Feed of new sections

I've made a feed of new sections across all the Reference Desks. (validate) It works by reading the feed for each desk every ten minutes and removing everything that isn't a new section. (There are ways of fooling it, e.g. if you don't keep the default "new section" in your edit summary, and if you rename a section.) I made it to scratch an itch of my own, because I've been thinking recently that watchlists, while they're ideal for Wikipedia articles in general, don't really work well for the Reference Desks. Feel free to subscribe to it. Feedback and suggestions are very welcome. Marnanel (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very useful, but note that your section links don't always work due to overly long section titles or special characters. -- ToE^T 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just special characters, the software also needs to mangle id's when two or more sections happen to have the same title, and there may be other cases. It's fundamentally flawed to try to use a section title as a link anchor, the proper way is to extract the id attribute of the section from the HTML source.—Emil J. 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I should screen-scrape the HTML of each page, rather than processing the feeds? Marnanel (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "screen-scrape". I'm suggesting that you process the feeds as you do now, except that you do not second-guess id's to link to from approximate section names extracted from edit summaries, but process the HTML page to look up the actual id. No screen is involved.—Emil J. 11:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bother, I thought I'd got all the special characters. I forgot about question marks. Thanks. Marnanel (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT: Is the maximum heading length determined by the number of characters (counting a space as a character), or by considering characters of variable width? Either way, when an editor starts a new section, there can be a marker and a message that says "The feed will truncate the heading here."—Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When the feed is ready, a link to it can be added to each reference desk, including the main reference desk. Also, editors might wish to add that link to their user space.—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I think it would be intrusive of me to ask for the RD to work in a certain way to accomodate me, rather than me having to code around any oddities in the way the RD works. I'll look into scraping the HTML (probably at the weekend). Marnanel (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ugh.

I've deleted this thread - malicious virus needed - from the computer forums. This is a tad debatable, but doesn't really strike me as what the computer reference desk was designed to do. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest letting one of my coworkers use it. Give him a couple days and it will have every adware/spyware piece of crap imaginable installed. The harddrive will be overflowing with porn. Toss in the computer owner's email account and it will be signed up on every spam list. Toss in the owner's bank account or credit card info and it will all be in the hands of multiple phishers. Best of all, pure stupidity is not illegal. So, having the computer's owner let him borrow the computer, knowing his idiocy will destroy anything useful on it, isn't illegal. -- kainaw™ 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the computer reference desk was designed to provide references for computer related topics, and viruses are as legitimate as any topic. OP doesn't say what they want the virus for, perhaps they wish to run it in a virtual machine or old computer and see what happens, for fun or whatever. I don't really see a problem with the question, although I can certainly see how linking to viruses is problematic and possible even illegal in some cases. The best thing to do would probably be to explain that there is no "super virus" like they described, and then point them in the direction of the computer virus article for further reading. Removal seems a bit extreme 82.44.54.25 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

well, anyone can feel free to revert if they like - I'm not attached to this outcome. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And I just removed the section again after the original poster restored it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? The OP explained it was for a educational purposes only, with no malicious intent. While I don't support linking to viruses, removing the question is unnecessary. 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys I'm really geting tired of this, could you guys just allow me to restore it. Please, I want to know WHY it was pulled down. This is just not fair. Wikiholicforever (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The ref desk does not aid and abet potentially illegal or unethical activity. You want a virus? Just remove your virus checker and your firewall from your PC. That should fix it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've gone ahead and put it back. The person seemed to be legitimately asking a question and not intentionally trolling us. It's a stupid question that suggests a train of thought likely to get the poster, or the people around him in trouble, but we're not the coppers. (And besides, deleting a thread does not call down cosmic justice from the heavens, he's going to continue to try to do whatever he's decided to do.)

I seriously doubt that he's really asking "For research purposes only", but who knows, anything's possible. Viruses are an interesting topic. I don't know why he needs a "Malicious" one, but maybe he's got an old washing machine of a computer he wants to throw a brick into.

I've answered it with a link to an existing Wikipedia article. If an answer is in the encyclopedia we shouldn't be picky-choosy about who we direct to it.

(I won't revert-war over this, of course. If it gets taken off again I'll leave it be.) APL (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe by "educational purposes" he means "to teach someone a lesson". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've collapsed it. I won't revert that, but I will change the hat note to something less dismissive. Please try to be polite, even to people who you've ascertained are inferior to you. APL (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sarcasm is polite, right? I said 'Please'! APL (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your change was fine. I hid the heading in part because there's no such word as "malicous". (Where's Cuddly when we need him?) :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Instruction on character limits

A comment in the section "#Feed of new sections" (up from this section by two sections) indicates that the section links do not always work, because of excessively long section titles and because of special characters. I propose that the instructions at the top of each desk have an instruction specifying a meximum number of characters for a section title and also specifying (perhaps displaying) which characters can be used in a section title.—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Section links work fine, you just have to write them properly (try the links from TOC to the offending sections). The problem above is caused by the implementation of the feed, not by anything done by Wikipedia.—Emil J. 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure that we should further expand or complicate the top-of-page instructions in order to ensure compatibility with a third party's tool. (Is this a problem which also breaks internal wikilinks to section anchors? If it is, then it might be something that the Mediawiki developers could be persuaded to look at.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to sections can always be made, but you might have to escape special characters and add a number at the end if several sections of the same name exist. Templates in section titles also complicated things. There is a problem that the code that makes section links in edit summaries doesn't make all these changes, and so sometimes fails to work, but the developers know that already. Algebraist 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to internal wikilinks, please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63#Dysfunctional links in archived section headings.

It's clear from the discussion that these are obsolete problems that have already been fixed.—Emil J. 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

According to User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page one and User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page two, the following five characters are problematic for links to section headings: [ ] { | } .—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are syntax errors on your part.—Emil J. 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Personal disagreement 1 —— Shakescene (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Question removed

I think this question should not have been removed, since it was not in any way asking for medical advice, per User:Kainaw/Kainaw's_criterion. Orgasms are not a medical issue. 93.125.165.43 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have reinstated the paragraph. This is perhaps one of those "borderline cases" mentioned in User:Kainaw/Kainaw's_criterion, but if it's borderline, we need to discuss it before deletion. Marnanel (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The question reinstated by Marnanel was not the first instance of that question from IP address 95.78.69.25. The first time it was asked I deleted it with the edit summary DNFT. The same question was immediately posted a second time by 95.78.69.25. I deleted it a second time and then posted a message on the Talk page for this IP address. See diff 1. Note that my primary argument was NOT that it was a medical question. My argument was, and still is, that this is not an appropriate question for Wikipedia, and certainly not for the Science Reference Desk.

Note that the text posted by 95.78.69.25 is not a question about the science of orgasm, or anything else of a scientific nature. Initially, the text asks for references or articles which might be relevant. (Wikipedia is full of references and articles!) Finally, there is the question … would I have had an orgasm? In between, there is a lengthy but irrelevant explanation of the User’s recent attempts at masturbation. This is not a question that science can answer in any satisfactory way because, among other reasons, it requires speculation and science is not based on speculation.

IP address 95.78.69.25 did not respond by accepting the situation and looking elsewhere, or refining his question. He continually restored the same question, despite it being deleted by me then Exploding Boy then TenOfAllTrades, and despite a number of good-faith edits on the IP Talk page. This IP address eventually posted essentially the same question six times until he was finally blocked for 31 hours by TenOfAllTrades. I suggest this is not the behaviour of a person genuinely seeking information. This is more likely the behaviour of someone intent on trolling. It is easy to take advantage of Wikipedia’s generosity and reluctance to censor, and in my view this IP address was intent on taking advantage.

Marnanel might be surprised at some of the other questions on the Science Reference Desk that have been deleted promptly in the interests of not feeding trolls. For example, see this deletion: diff 2. The consensus around Wikipedia seems to be that trolling should be deleted promptly. I am not in favour of Marnanel’s suggestion of discussing trolling before deletion. If a User has his post deleted because it looks like trolling it is not difficult for that User to re-post his request in such a way that it no longer looks like trolling.

If we are to debate this deletion, let’s debate whether the question was a genuine attempt to obtain information of an objective, scientific nature, or something else. Dolphin (t) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Kainaw's criterion, I use Jayron32's criterion. It has one part, rather than three, so for the sake of efficiency, it must be better: "Would responses to this question lead a reasonable person to take any course of action regarding their own bodies or health?" If the answer is yes, the question is for medical advice, and should not be answered. A question that asks "is my experience normal..." with regard to biological processes should not be answered. What should be said is "If you are concerned that your <insert biological process here> is not normal, see a qualified professional." End of story. If someone is asking if their orgasm experience is normal, responses are clearly in the realm of medical advice because they indicate a course of action regarding ones own body. Its that simple. If we give an answer one way or another, and he acts on that answer, and we are wrong, that is morally reprehensible. The best way to answer is to vaguely refer to a reference on the topic, and then tell them to take any individual concerns to a doctor. --Jayron32 04:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think I've mentioned before that your criterion is ridiculous, because it would prevent us from saying that smoking causes cancer, emphysema, or any other disease. It's ridiculous to claim that stating this about smoking constitutes medical advice. Your ridiculous criterion is not why the medical advice policy exists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think telling people not to smoke is a good idea. Answering questions about whether or not their orgasm experience is "normal" is not... --Jayron32 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Was it "a genuine attempt to obtain information of an objective, scientific nature"? I don't know, and there was certainly something trollish about the original wording of the question, but presumably to get past Kainaw it was re-worded for the Misc desk like this:

"Pre-orgasm feeling

"I'm looking for references regarding the feeling just before a person experiences an orgasm, how intense this feeling normally is, and how long it normally lasts. Please note, this is purely a question asking for references; it is in no way medical advice, since the question is not asking for diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice. Thank you for your time. 137.30.164.176 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)"

This was met there with the response:

"The book Human Sexual Response by Masters and Johnson is a classic reference that describes the phases of the Human sexual response cycle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)"

That's plenty "scientific" enough for me for this purpose. Truth is, I think the deleting/blocking editors were a maybe just a bit quick drawn here. Wikiscient (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That was posted by the user on a different reference desk in a different form from the original question and, it should be noted, after the user was blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is in response to Dolphin's comment above that if a [non-trolling] "User has his post deleted because it looks like trolling it is not difficult for that User to re-post his request in such a way that it no longer looks like trolling."

Well, that's what this user did (albeit from a different IP from somewhere else in the world entirely). Was this user not, therefore, trolling? Tough call, especially with all the IPs and all, but in the end the user did get his/her question answered and seemed content enough with that! If that is not "not trolling" then what exactly would "not trolling" be...? Wikiscient (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My larger concern at this point is the poster's use of multiple IPs to evade his block. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thataway, though I should note that, reviewing the IPs in question, there may not be much that can be done, except WP:RBI, without the "B". --Jayron32 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiscient has made three very good points:

1. The question as originally worded was trollish.

2. The person asking the question substantially re-worded his question and posted it on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk.

3. The re-worded question has been satisfactorily answered at the Miscellaneous Reference Desk.

Therefore the person asking the question has received the information he was looking for, and there will be no objection if the question, as originally worded, is deleted from the Science Reference Desk. Dolphin (t) 07:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection here! Wikiscient (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Bugs seems to have summarily deleted (as a top-level "minor" edit with no edit summary) the agreed-upon, consensus-as-per-the-talk-page-above approved version of the question-and-response at the Misc. desk. Could someone do something about that? I did not not object to that! Wikiscient (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did an "undo" on the edit. Out of curiosity, why didn't you just do an undo yourself? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant more "could someone talk to bugs, please?" Rather than spread the contention needlessly on this one myself. I've just been around this desk for a couple of days recently, but I get the impression that bugs can be problematic but handle-ably so. Thanks, anyway! Cheers, Wikiscient (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That might have been the one where the OP is under suspension for block evasion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We probably can't delete the question on the grounds of medical advice - but we certainly can delete it on the grounds that we don't accept posts of any kind from blocked users who are circumventing their block. We have deleted questions from blocked users many times in the past - and that's what should happen here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Do I have to re-post it myself (as a non-blocked user) at the Sci desk in its form at the Misc desk...? This was in the end a good faith question that got some good responses of use to just about everyone, I should think. Why is there still this inclination to de-facto censorship in this case? Wikiscient (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The question as asked at the Miscellaneous Desk might have been in the form of a good-faith question, but the question as asked at the Science Desk most definitely was not. It was trolling, pure and simple. The question was deleted and re-posted six times until the IP address was blocked. The person purported to be a young man beginning to experiment with masturbation but the repetitive posting of his message, and the assertive post on my User talk page showed this was anything but a young man genuinely seeking information. This is/was a person who took a delight in posting a lengthy and irrelevant account about his recent attempts at masturbation. This is trolling, and the consensus at Wikipedia is that trolling should be deleted promptly. The troll is currently blocked and we should do as much as possible to emphasise that his trolling won't be tolerated. Dolphin (t) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, are we still beating this... dead horse? Exploding Boy (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

lol :)

I agree with your case as you argue it, Dolphin, and that the initial responses to the post were justifiable. It could have been -- and, in the event, it was -- handled differently, though. And I certainly saw some good faith from the start with this question, as full of unnecessary detail as it was.

BTW: why do you think the OP was a "young man"? There was nothing in the original post to suggest this, and in fact I would rather more expect this to be a question a young woman might ask, don't you think? Wikiscient (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I concede we have no knowledge of the OP's gender. I was influenced to assume I was dealing with a male, primarily because of the assertive way in which the OP kept re-posting the question in spite of good-faith requests to stop by myself and Exploding Boy; the assertive messages to myself and Exploding Boy on our User talk pages; and the fact that this person purported to be young and a first-time contributor despite the tell-tale way in which he or she confidently quoted WP:NOTCENSORED and Kainaw's criteria regarding medical advice. Dolphin (t) 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all very trollish. And I would not be arguing this issue at all if it weren't for the acceptable re-wording and response to it at the Misc desk, and then that that had been removed by Bugs after everything had died down. Everything seems fine now, so let's just proceed from here, ok? Wikiscient (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On orgasms and malicious computer code

I was thinking about these kinds of questions - which are obviously from people trolling for reactions, though I expect they will deny that profusely - and it occurred to me that the appropriate way to respond to such questions is simply to police wikipedia policy. The ref desks are traditionally a bit more loose than the encyclopedia proper, granted: people are less prone to using sourced material and more likely to give informed opinions, and I think that's fine for the ref desk. but when you have a suspicion that someone is only asking a question to get a rise, then the ref desk regulars should carefully police the responses the question gets to make sure that they are only the statements of reliable sources. For example, I don't know of any reliable sources that provide malicious computer code, so pretty much all answers to that question can be removed. Reliable sources on orgasms exist - Masters and Johnson, the Kama Sutra, a few others - so policing the responses to purely factual sources should destroy whatever visceral satisfaction the OP gets from asking leading questions.

I might make up a small template that says something like "This questions may be a hoax, a request for criminal assistance, an attempt generating dispute, or otherwise against Reference Desk guidelines. Please restrict responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements." We could attach the template at the top of any suspicious thread as a notice. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I like that idea. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I whipped up the template at {{RD-alert}}. looks like this:

feel free to tweak it. would it be useful to create a category for problematic questions, to make it easier to find repeat offenders? --Ludwigs2 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

... this is what we should be doing anyway (and I'm just as guilty for not doing so...) Aaronite (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(but I do think it's a decent idea) Aaronite (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Should read "an attempt to create disputes". And the last phrase doesn't quite match the rest of the sentence. But it's looking good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the idea, though we should be very careful with the wording. We don't want to use a template which will generate silly edit wars over whether or not it should be placed on a particular question, so we need to be cautious about implying that the post is in bad faith (however obvious it may be). After all, creating such meta-disputes would be quite satisfying to many a troll. Reminders to avoid getting sucked into back-and-forth bickering, and to resist the temptation to take the opportunity to crack jokes (at the expense of the OP or anyone else) would not be out of place, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Hence the weasel-word "may". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...are you sure that big honkin' template won't just draw more attention to the question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How about we try it and find out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"May" is not a weasel word, Bugs. Unless, of course, you have incontrovertible proof they do definitely fall into this category. Which you'd be prepared to share with us, no doubt. "I suspect" does not even equal "charged", let alone "guilty as charged". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A concern would be that we're going to get some editors crying "AGF!" even when it's obvious that it's from a troll or a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As they should. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. You know a lot about a lot of things here, but socks ain't one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, actually; I missed your phrase "even when it's obvious". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

10-Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a template available that is less big and honkin', as A Quest For Knowledge put it? It does look like a big klaxon. I don't think we need an icon, for instance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can redesign the template to be smaller - this is just the standard {{ombox}} alert. I guess the main stylistic question would be whether we want to (1) a banner like this, (2) a right-floating quote box, or (3) a flush-left notice like {{resolved}}. what do you all think? --Ludwigs2 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

P.s. edited the template to reflect some of the comments here. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think that if you open up a ref desk page, your eyes are going to be naturally drawn to the question with 'alert' template. Not to mention people's natural curiosity towards something controversial. But hey, we can always try it and if it doesn't work, no harm, no foul. There's nothing wrong with experimenting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't show at the top, you'd have to scroll down the page. But you might be right that it calls too much attention to itself. The "SPA" template is in small print. Maybe try this one with small print and see how it looks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"a request for criminal assistance" is not strictly against the reference desk guidelines. For good reason. Not only do many jurisdictions have amoral laws, it's also widely open to interpretation. And by interpretation I mean "guessing".

It would be a large mistake to officially sanction the sort of witch-hunt that results from trying to guess what people intend to do with the information referenced at this desk. We're not cops, it's not our job to investigate or interrogate people we think are 'suspicious'. We're not here to question people's motives. In fact AGF policies are there specifically to stop us from going down that unproductive road.

This question [6] should be informative. Would you want this person deleting threads here? APL (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Re-reading I see that Ludwigs' proposal would still allow us to provide references for such questions, which is good. ... But it might stop people from providing well-meaning warnings and advice, which could be bad. APL (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Copying from Help Desk) Restricting responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements is exactly what the reference desk should be doing anyway. Is there really any need to tag specific questions with this message, since it's pretty much ref desks ethos? And it kinda gives the impression that any questions not tagged with the message are open for speculation, debates and non-factual guess work. I'd also like to say, neither of the example questions you've given were trolling imo. Someone asking for computer viruses and someone asking if they've had an orgasm, while not really questions for the Reference Desk, I don't see how they are trolling 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All well and good, but if it's against RefDesk guidelines, then why would we answer it at all? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, did you copy that trolling comment over here??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing trolling about that post. You just happen to disagree with it. I agree with everything it said 100%.

Your hateful bias against IP editors is showing. You should probably apologies for your last remark. APL (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And when someone does provide well-meaning warnings and advice, other editors will yell at them for being nannies. I wish you all could agree on the rules, but I suspect it's not possible, because many regular editors here have a very fixed idea of exactly what the RD's should be and should not be - and those ideas are often contradictory across users. Hence the endless discussions here about the same topics, with no resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"I wish you all could agree on the rules" - Are you somehow outside the community here, Bugs? You're quite vocal for a mere observer. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) because it's the ref desk. There are obvious topic-areas that leave themselves open to abuse; questions on sexuality and sexual preference, religious beliefs, destructive/anti-social activities, medical conditions, and etc can actually be perfectly valid, but they can also be questions designed solely to aggravate/irritate/gross out people with impunity. for instance, if someone were to ask the question: "Is it normal to puke up green slime with little things in it that look like they are alive", it's not exactly medical advice, and while it's possible that someone actually did throw up something like that, I'd myself bet real money that it's just some adolescent trying to get people to answer a stupid question about green slime with wiggly bits. and unfortnately, there's usually someone good-hearted enough on the ref desk to answer it. or maybe if someone asked the question "Are [insert your favorite race] people really [insert your favorite insult] the way that [insert your favorite hate-group] say they are?". Again, good money that that's just some adolescent trying to stir up a stupid debate between respondents, and good money that the effort will work. The alert here is to remind answerers that there grave suspicions about the question, and keep them from feeding the OP with the kind of response the OP may or may not be looking to get. it's just pure wp:DENY, without actually bothering to determine whether or not the OP is trying to cause trouble.

If the RD regulars were all perfect, we wouldn't need reminders like this. since we're not (or at least, the rest of you aren't - <smirk>) the reminder sure can't hurt. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone's pointed this out explicitly: if giving "requests for criminal assistance" was against the rules of the Reference Desk, it would require editors to make some sort of call on the legality of certain actions, which is something we're not allowed to do. Marnanel (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. We are not allowed to give legal advice, i.e. advising someone on what they should do. Observing that something is obviously going to cause legal trouble does not constitute giving legal advice. Telling someone not to break the law is not "giving legal advice" Telling some to go ahead, that's giving legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Telling someone not to break the law in that kind of generic way you mention is one thing, but as soon as you comment on any specific activity, it starts becoming legal advice because you are providing them with your opinion that said activity is illegal. Matt Deres (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think our past consensus, or near-consensus, has been that we don't give answers to requests for criminal assistance; but neither do we create a list of approved and disapproved topics; we remain ambiguous on what "criminal assistance" means and take it here to the talk page for individual cases. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. It's case by case (pardon the legalese). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It primarily depends on how imaginative people feel. The harder people work to think up ways you might be a criminal, the more likely your thread might be deleted. Note that bad grammar, teenage slang, or an IP address will greatly increase the chance that we'll try to think up ways you might be a criminal. If you misspell a homonym forget having your question answered, you'll be lucky if we don't call the police!APL (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Support. Wikiscient (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Porn films

I hid the soapboxing and subsequent replies to the WP:RD/E#Porn films question. They don't actually answer the question, make wide sweeping generalizations, and are preachy. Dismas|^(talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this person really worth our time?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Personal disagreement 1 —— Shakescene (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is unmentionable?

I noticed in a post[7] (on a private page but I raise it here) this statement it is generally discouraged per consensus here at English Wikipedia to mention, let alone provide a link to, the...Simple English Wikipedia. Surely this should not apply to the Ref. Desks where it can be appropriate to give a reference to SEW where one sees that the OP needs a basic introduction to a subject and/or is not fluent in English. Please comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely this should not apply to anywhere on Wikipedia. Since when was linking or even mentioning other Wikipedias "discouraged per consensus"? 82.44.54.25 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not what I really meant. Of course, since the mission of the Simple English Wikipedia is to break down the really complex stuff here at the English Wikipedia, we could point out that Wikipedia as an alternative way to learn more about some of the subjects here at the English Wikipedia in a different manner if they were to complex. The post above was in response to the unending cries I've heard over at the Simple English Wikipedia about ways to make it more popular and noticeable here at the English Wikipedia when consensus, or so I've heard, was that it was not necessary (e.g. someone mentioned putting a box showing the Wikipedia on every article, much like this). In regards to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and in general Wikipedia's internal workings, there's no need to mention the Simple English Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, your second sentence is incorrect. The purpose of Simple English Wikipedia is not to "break down the really complex stuff here at the English Wikipedia". It is not to make a more understandable version of the quantum mechanics article, for example. We are supposed to create understandable articles here at the English Wikipedia. (If one of our articles is too complex, it needs to be fixed — encyclopedias are mainly for the layman.) The purpose of Simple English Wikipedia is to be more understandable for people who struggle with the English language, usually because English is their second (or third) language. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What started this comment was that I noticed this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the initial rationale would be for never mentioning Simple English, but it is occasionally given as a "here, read this, it is more simple," sort of answer when people are having trouble understanding complicated topics, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or what have you. In that case it is usually a bad source. Simple English is barely an encyclopedia, in my opinion, because frankly when you limit yourself to a 3rd grade vocabulary (or whatever it is), you simply do hobble your ability to express things clearly and accurately. You can talk about people's lives and what is a dog and other "simple" topics, but you can't do much with the really tough scientific stuff. In any case, it is not edited as heavily as En, and one should not confuse it with En in terms of quality, whatsoever. The quality is simply quite poor, above and beyond the question of whether you can dumb down some of these complicated things into explanations that are both simple and correct. We should endeavor to provide good references, not just simply references. Simple is generally speaking not a good reference. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I created a few articles on simple wikipedia, so drop me a note if I start writing in simple vocabulary on this wiki. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see where this "consensus" to not mention Simple English Wiki was agreed upon. Knowing the Wikipedia community, I find that really unlikely. I think Chemicalinterest should put up or shut up...where is the consensus discussion that came to that conclusion? Give us an actual link to it. If there isn't one - then strike your comment and apologize for 'stretching the truth' here. If there is one then give us all the benefit of being able to read and understand the reasoning behind such a seemingly odd conclusion.

Simple English Wiki isn't for everyone. If you are capable of understanding enough of the language with the world's largest vocabulary - then reading Simple English comes across as childlike and annoying. But if you are just learning English - then only having to understand that restricted vocabulary is enough to allow you to read a bunch of articles that would otherwise have been incomprehensible. It is true that in some cases the material has been dumbed-down, as if speaking to a child - when the intent is merely to simplify the description - not the facts themselves. However, there are only a tiny number of people working on the Simplified English Wiki - and they simply don't have the effort to flesh it out to the degree we'd all like to see. The solution to that is to try to get more people to help - but it's actually remarkably difficult to write in the Simplified English style. SteveBaker (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout problem at Computing desk

I just edited the Computing desk, and noticed that the page stretches way past the browser window, and there's a scroll bar. The content seems to still lay out properly within the browser's viewport. Other desks and pages seem fine. I'm using the latest version of Firefox. I don't have the proper tools installed to look into what's causing this (hopefully not my edits). Someone take a look? Zigorney (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, noticed it's caused by too long lines in code blocks. At least it wasn't me :) Zigorney (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I put the code into a box to fix the page formatting [8] 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

IT'S is the contraction of IT IS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Holy fuck. No. Just, No. --Jayron32 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I object to this deletion[9] of my post which in accordance with Talk page guidelines asked: Did you mean to post "in its neck" instead of "in it is neck" ?. The relevant guideline says Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say. (my underlining)

Despite knowing that in English IT'S is the contraction of IT IS, one editor continually abuses the language by posting such nonsense as:

...the blood has to be pumped up to it is head
...when it is head low to the ground
...the veins and arteries of it is neck
...If a giraffe kept it is head down [10]

...blood vessels in it is neck [11]

The above are not typos, they are deliberate and consistent. The writer is capable of writing correctly but chooses not to. This is the place to tell SteveBaker that it is not ok to use Wikipedia as a platform for launching one's crazy idea for "improving" English. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How do you know it's (yes "it's") deliberate? It's a mistake I often make, when I see it I correct my post, when I don't, I don't. Usually (if not virtually always), a sentence's context will unambiguously resist its mistyped "its". I probably wouldn't have removed your lesson in orthography, but I would have tried my best to ignore it (and I probably would have had to suppress some irritation while doing so). Nevertheless, you've been asked by a number of editors to kick your habit of asking whether user:X actually meant "owlnjskleää" instead of "owlnsjkleaä" when there was no reasonable way of misinterpreting the text. Okay so this (talkpage) is the place to tell him. The desks certainly aren't. Your complaint surprises me. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he's deliberately doing it to annoy you, because you make such an issue out of it. And its apparently worked (hence this thread). I personally don't care as the meaning of all his posts comes across clearly regardless of the typo. It's not disruptive, unless you cause disruption over it. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a POINT. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve Baker is not on a crazy crusade; you are.

Steve Baker is not "abusing" the English language. You, on the other hand, are abusing both this talk page and our patience. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Given that I explicitly asked Cuddlyable to stop his grammar crusade just a few hours ago [12] (in accordance with the extensive guidance he has been given on this page in recent weeks), this decision to further ratchet up his indignation is troubling. Cuddlyable has a history of conflict with SteveBaker; his decision to post a needling criticism of a tiny typo exemplifies poor judgement at best, and evinces deliberate disruption at worst.

Cuddlyable's comment didn't improve on the posted responses or answer any questions (least of all the original poster's), so it didn't serve to advance the purpose of the Reference Desks. It was a snide and childish attack on another volunteer at the Desk, making this a less pleasant and less welcome place — we're supposed to be helpful. At this point, Cuddlyable seems far more interested in making a point than in being helpful and constructive. Discussion has not visibly improved Cuddlyable's conduct, and he prefers to cloak his unpleasant nitpicking in a close reading of a behaviour guideline (which ought to be interpreted with care and common sense). If Cuddlyable requires explicit rules codifying acceptable behaviour, I believe that this can be straightforwardly addressed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I find funny that you overreact like this when Cuddlyable3 is simply right. Reference Desk replies aren't Youtube comments and therefore correct grammar and spelling should be a must. I doubt that it is just a "tiny typo" since SteveBaker does that constantly. I have also corrected many of his it's and who's and it does get annoying after a while - the same mistakes over and over again. I find it hard to believe that someone who types such extensive replies can't understand the difference between its and it's = it is when very young foreign students of English have no problem with that, so maybe 82.44.55.25 was right when he suggested that SteveBaker does that deliberately. --Belchman (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Being 'right' and being 'obsessed' are not mutually exclusive. Cuddlyable3 is obsessed with the grammar issue, well above and beyond the realm of common sense. Grammar is secondary to comprehension - when bad grammar interferes with comprehension it needs to be fixed, but when a sentence is perfectly understandable in spite of grammatical errors, then grammar corrections would be nice, but are not a matter of great concern. the problem here is that Cuddlyable3 is pushing on the grammar point to an extent where it is beginning to annoy other people, without recognizing that the 'value added' of these grammatical corrections (from the perspective of the Ref Desk) is negligible, and now other editors are pushing back.

I think everyone involved in this needs to get a bit of perspective and back off. Everyone can use occasional grammar corrections; nobody likes continuous grammar corrections. find the balance. --Ludwigs2 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 editing restriction

I propose the following restriction.

Cuddlyable3 is hereby restricted from posting questions or comments to the Wikipedia Reference Desk questioning, addressing, or otherwise discussing the spelling or grammar of other editors. (The sole exception is in response to questions directly seeking advice on these topics.) Violations of this editing restriction may be reverted without discussion, and Cuddlyable3 may be blocked for up to forty-eight hours for each violation. After the third violation, the maximum block length will escalate to two weeks. This restriction will lapse six months after the last violation.

• Support, as proposer. It's silly that matters have come to this, but mere stubbornness shouldn't earn a free pass to engage in unpleasant conduct toward one's fellows. This is at least the third time we've had this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find that starting a poll to vote whether we should gag him or not (1.- Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and 2.- He's right.) is simply beyond ridiculous. --Belchman (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1 - That would be a very valid concern, which I would endorse entirely — except that we've had this discussion regarding this editor on this talk page at least twice before. 2 - That is both true and not terribly important. I don't think anyone – including SteveBaker – would dispute that his statement was grammatically incorrect. Nevertheless, Cuddlyable's comment was snide (implying that there was some sort of confusion about what Steve could possibly have meant), part of ongoing antagonism and grudge-holding (Cuddlyable and Steve have had previous...interactions, and Cuddlyable has engaged in disproportionately hostile behaviour), apparently crafted to be disruptive while wikilawyerly acceptable (per his comments on my talk page), and irrelevant to the function of the Reference Desk (Cuddlyable's comment did nothing to help to answer anyone's question). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  Your reply basically sums up the whole discussion. You people are biased because you feel that your e-friend/legendary question-answerer SteveBaker is being attacked once again by a disruptive, evil quasi-troll called Cuddlyable3. Needless to say, that is a form of argumentum ad hominem. If someone who knew neither of them read this discussion, the verdict is obvious: The only person that is being disruptive in this particular case is SteveBaker with his deliberate and constant language mistakes, no matter how friends you are. --Belchman (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not friends with anyone here. I have never had a private conversation, on or off WP, with either SteveBaker or Cuddlyable3. Though I don't support the proposed restriction, I can understand where it's coming from, and it has nothing to do with your psychological evaluation of other people's motives. The verdict isn't obvious to me at all. Please don't speak for other people. Speak for yourself. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  You have replied just 6 minutes later; I advise you to take a little bit longer than that next time, basically because you have missed my point completely and have focused in a tiny detail. Also, it's very amusing that you're actually confirming my thoughts when you said "I can understand where it's coming from", basically admitting that you're not sticking to the events of this particular discussion. --Belchman (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice. I took some more time, but my reading of your post hasn't changed. If you wish to explain so even I can understand it, feel free to do so, but it's not that important. My understanding where it's coming from has to do with my personal experiences outside of Wikipedia. But I guess you're right that there is no place for that here. As I said I don't support the restriction, but that doesn't automatically make everyone with whom I disagree "wrong". Your mileage may vary. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Belchman, may I say this. As one who has also tried, and failed, to get Steve Baker to change his its/it's ways, my very strong sense is that he's never been deliberately provocative about it. I just don't get that about him. He can be a colossal prig sometimes, with his insistence on the absolute RIGHTness of some of his opinions, and the absolute WRONGness of anyone who happens to disagree, and the absolute denial of the existence of certain phenomena he happens not to believe really exist (he goes way beyond "I am not convinced about X", preferring "Take my word for it, there is no such thing as X"), and so on. But we all have our unique ways. As for its/it's, my very strong sense is that that's been his way for a long time; he no longer even stops to make those conscious choices, it's all automatic now. But originally it was a conscious choice on his part. Not a choice to be different for the sake of being different, or to ruffle pedants' feathers, or for any other reason than that it feels logically "right" to him to spell the word that way, and correspondingly "wrong" to do it the way the textbooks and the grammarians would prefer. Not that logic has much to do with English spelling, but that obviously works for him, as it does for millions of other people who also refuse to ever use the word "its". Not that I'm even remotely on their side, but we all have to accept that language changes whether we like it or not, and when enough people do things a certain way, that way becomes the standard, become the accepted grammar. It's not there yet, and if I had my druthers it would never get there, but I foresee a time when "its" will be considered archaic, and the apostrophe will be mandatory regardless of the meaning - while at the same time the standard possessive apostrophe for nouns will have become optional or even wrong (yes, I know, it's wildly inconsistent, but that's what's happening out there for those with eyes to see). So, I believe it's quite a leap to charge Steve Baker with deliberate provocation. That is a rather more serious charge than any question of merely misspelling certain words, and I believe you need to either substantiate your charge or withdraw it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who first suggested he might be doing it deliberately. I take that back. I've only been a casual observer on all this, and I made that comment at the start of this thread without really looking into the situation too deeply. But even if he was, I still don't see a problem with it. It's not offensive or disruptive or confusing, and everything he types comes across clearly. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I committed the deletion that triggered this discussion, and feel as though we may already have the tools needed to limit the disruption in a situation like this; if there is a consensus that deletion can be an appropriate response (with appropriate care and edit summary), then pedantry that doesn't clarify can simply be deleted. I realize that definitions are challenging, but we deal with such judgment calls all the time. I do think that Cuddlyable3's edits are disruptive, so if pressed I'd endorse further restrictions (but I like using available tools when feasible). -- Scray (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that correct spelling and grammar is 'pedantic' and 'disruptive' (especially when the same mistake is repeatedly made and, even worse, it is probably made deliberately) then you, sir, have a problem. --Belchman (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO correct spelling and grammar are not intrinsically pedantic; I think you'll find that I'm pretty careful with both in my WP edits (though none of us is perfect). In contrast, Cuddlyable3 seems focused on corrections of minute errors in spelling and grammar (where intended meaning is not in question), the content is not article space (where such corrections would be welcome by all), and (as others have pointed out) the user being corrected is known not to appreciate the correction on the RD. That is pedantry (feel free to look up the word; I think the shoe fits). The disruption part is manifest here and in past exchanges, and I am becoming convinced that the disruption is deliberate. -- Scray (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely endorse your removal in this case, as this is a user with a history of problems in this area who has refused to take any guidance on board. There are two reasons why I proposed a specific, clearly-worded restriction applied to Cuddlyable. The first is that previous advice and guidance from the community has fallen on deaf ears here, and he has indicated that he is responsive to clear, written direction; the clearly codified potential for enforcement by block means that he cannot claim surprise if ongoing disruptive behaviour eventually leads to exhaustion of community patience. The second is that I don't really want to get into a situation where disingenuous or overzealous anti-pedants start making things unpleasant by jumping into aggressive deletions of posts by editors who are just having an 'off day' (I would suggest that you have a gift for understatement when you say, "definitions are challenging"), nor do I want the possibility of restricting Cuddlyable's irresponsible conduct torpedoed by fears that over-broad general restrictions might catch good-faith contributions by other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Though I think deletions like mine provide another avenue for mitigating disruption. -- Scray (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've remarked before I don't personally see anything wrong with CA offering grammar and spelling advice, particularly if it's done politely and there's reason to presume the person may not be aware they made a mistake (e.g. English isn't their first language) and may welcome such advice. Even more so if CA adds something to the discussion other then the advice. However I've remarked before I don't see CA's pointing out SB it's/its usage is helpful since SB has made it clear he doesn't care, so while it may benefit others who aren't aware, I don't think that's sufficient to warrant continual comments. Therefore if CA really continues to point out things where the person clearly doesn't care I would support a restriction. I would say if SB is purposely doing this to annoy CA or get a response, I don't consider this any better behaviour then CA's however we have no evidence he's doing that. Nil Einne (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I Support the idea of restriction, of course, but are such specific gag-orders kosher on Wikipedia? I'm not sure I've ever heard of them applied to anyone else. If this kind of thing is "done" then I absolutely support it. C3 has proved that he's incapable of listening to reason. He (Or she? Whatever.) has been warned about this behavior on multiple occasions and the weight of consensus is always firmly against him. Yet still he persists. He's worse than the guy who asked about planet colors. At least that guy's stubborn refusal to listen seemed to be based on an honest desire to use the refdesk to learn something. C3 knows full well that we understand homonyms, he just persists on correcting us with the hope of irritating us until we comply with his petty grammar-related demands. APL (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I naturally assume this was intended as a joke, on the off chance it's not... GROW UP!!! If CB3 corrects your spelling, and it bothers you that he corrects your spelling, learn to spell better. To date, the times when he's corrected me it hasn't bothered me a bit. if at some point it does bother me, I'll spell better or I'll tell him to f%ck off. it's not a big issue either way. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The point though Ludwigs2 is that C3 is not contributing to answering questions when they go off on a grammo-tangent. If they were consistently providing sourced answers to the OP and as an aside mentioning that such-and-such spelling was wrong, that would be one thing. Posting just to needle in some minor error is a whole different other. C3 is not showing collegial instinct to help out, (s)he is showing a tendency to nitpick in hopes of a fight. That behaviour does nothing to advance the aims of the RDs and actively obstructs the process of answering the original question. Franamax (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(After e/c with Franamax)

It's no joke. C3's smug "corrections" are intentional trolling. If I say "The Giraffe raises it's neck" and you say "Did you mean to post 'in its neck' instead of 'in it is neck'?" You are not honestly asking a question and you are not helpfully clarifying the situation for confused onlookers, You're doing it only to get a rise out of people. It's no better than repeatedly asking questions about launching probes into Uranus to search for gaseous emissions, and a good deal less funny. APL (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support and I will help out with the enforcement. This has gone on long enough. I'm mystified at what C3 is hoping to gain and rather suspect that they enjoy the cut-and-thrust of arguing it out. Falling back to specific wording of policy/guideline as a defence rather than using common sense, to me is a worrying sign. C3 is still free to post on individual user or IP talk pages to point out grammar/spelling errors (including SB's, SB can delete the posts) made elsewhere, but it seems clear that this constant pedantry is disruptive. APL, yes this is the "done thing" when we get to our wit's end Is that apostrophe wrong? Probably. - the community can form a consensus to enact sanctions to prevent disruption. Usually this is done at the incident noticeboard, in this case we are better served to form a consensus here and post to ANI as a confirmatory step. If C3 is not willing to alter their behaviour, then something needs to be done. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Cuddlyable's comment did nothing to help to answer anyone's question" nor did it serve any other useful purpose as far as I can see. (And see also this, which not only served no useful purpose but confused and offended the question-asker, too). It would be nice if we all had perfect punctuation, spelling, grammar, rhetorical style, etc., all the time -- but none of us do, which can at times be annoying. If an instance or set of instances becomes really annoying, then that meta-issue ought best be addressed directly with the user involved, and not in disruption of the actual topic being discussed. If it is not a mere annoyance but actual disruption that is the problem, that should be dealt with as it is being dealt with here. Therefore, I support. Wikiscient (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal - I come from a family that would freely point out grammar mistakes to each other and it would be appreciated. However, correcting the errors of strangers is extremely rude, in general, unless there's a real chance of a miscommunication. In light of that, I would like to go on record as saying that Cuddly is free to point out mistakes in my English usage at any time (though I reserve the right to dispute it if necessary, or to ignore it); and I propose this alternative restriction: Before he corrects a frequent ref desk editor's English usage, he should ask that user's permission. And he shouldn't comment at all on a casual reader's original post or followup unless there's a real chance that no one will understand the question (which is unlikely given that we speak English natively). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That will only work if the permission is to silently make edits to correct typogrammos, perhaps with notice on the user talk page. For another editor to invite comment on their grammar on a RD page itself is to invite personal commentary onto a putative encyclopedia page. We walk a fine line with deletion as it is when we put in our little jokes and small commentary. If Cuddlyable3 feels the need to comment on grammar, they can well do so one-to-one on the editor talk page so as not to disrupt the flow of the deaks. If that starts getting silly, then we or others can act on that too. The intent here is to curb disruption of the reference desks. Franamax (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he should definitely ask permission on the user's talk page, not the ref desk; and under NO circumstances except policy violation (such as BLP breach) should he be messing with others' edits on the ref desk itself, nor should he bring it up there UNLESS there is a serious risk of miscommunication (and "its" vs. "it's" ain't it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I may misunderstand, so bear with me) this proposal seems unworkable. Would the permission be always-prominent on the "permitting" editor's Talk page? If not, how would other editors, attempting to enforce this ban, determine whether permission has been granted? I think your alternative proposal does reflect Cuddlyable3's current freedom to post suggestions for grammatical improvements on others' talk pages while respecting WP guidance (and good sense). At this point, I think Cuddlyable3 has lost the privilege of reposting with grammar and spelling corrections on the RD, for a time to be determined by consensus. -- Scray (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply tell him to make his copy-edit corrections on the user's talk page? Then, it doesn't clutter up the RD with posts that clearly annoy many users. It seems absurd to put a message on the user's talk page asking to make a spelling correction and then posting that spelling correction on the RD. -- kainaw™ 13:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The reference desk's purpose is answering questions, not copy-editing. People who post a question are doing so because they want an answer... if they want copyediting suggestions, they will say so clearly. There's no need to respond to a question with anything that isn't a useful answer to that question. To do so is just simple rudeness, like correcting the table manners of your dinner guests. I have several degrees in English, and definitely know how to use an apostrophe, but I've never commented on a questioner's spelling or grammar unless it was bad enough that I needed help in understanding the question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  If you really have "several degrees in English" and still cannot understand why we should not use "Youtube-comments English" (I seriously doubt that atrocities such as *definately or *u instead of you cause any real misunderstanding) here, I'm afraid I'll have to avoid making public my opinion about you. --Belchman (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If he has several degrees in English, it means he likely has a good command of what correct English is. But that's a completely different question from whether "correct English" is or ought to be mandatory in a particular situation. Up above you said, "Reference Desk replies aren't Youtube comments and therefore correct grammar and spelling should be a must", and I have to say, your conclusion does not follow. It has the same logical form as "Two plus three does not equal forty-seven, and therefore the earth is flat." —Steve Summit (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Replace that "aren't Youtube comments" with "shouldn't be informal uneducated opinions" if you don't understand my metaphor. --Belchman (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand it, all right; I just don't agree with it. But my analogy was flawed, too. Here's a better one, if you don't understand it. Your earlier statement has the same logical form as "The library is not the privacy of one's home. Therefore wearing the burqa is a must." —Steve Summit (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, whatever. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, aren't you? This is my last reply to this. --Belchman (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not. Belchman, see my comment up above, where I ask you to substantiate your accusation that Steve Baker has been deliberately provocative, or withdraw it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Belchman, that is a personal attack. My opinion of your character is now about as fixed as is yours of FisherQueen, and I think I won't have anything further to say to you, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this whole thread a personal attack on Cuddlyable3? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this then? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this massive over-reaction and candidate for WP:LAME. Agree with Ludwigs2. All parties on both sides of this absurd dispute should put down the flaming torches and pitchforks and go do something useful instead. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal #2 - If alternative #1 seems too complicated, take this more straighforward and uniform approach: If Cuddly or anyone else makes rude comments about the English usage of your edits, like the ones he did which triggered this discussion, you may delete them without comment. And if he does likewise with an OP, any editor may delete them unless his comments actually contain an answer to the OP's question. Do that a few times, and maybe he'll get the point and stop doing it. I know I often cringe when I see some of the horrible wording of questions and comments, but I almost always understand what they're trying to say, and that's all that matters at the ref desk. English usage pedantry is perfectly fine in article writing. In the ref desk it's generally not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I see that Cuddlyable3's editing can be disruptive and are a bad habit, neither should User:SteveBaker try to encourage C3's behavior by deliberately writing his its and it's wrong. And preventing one person in a debate from speaking is not a decent way to win. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has prevented Cuddlyable3 from speaking. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, per the "deliberate provocation" sub-thread below, you should substantiate your assertion of things being done deliberately or drop it completely. We are not discussing motivations, we are discussing outcomes, namely what behaviour is most disruptive and how to rein in the disruption. Note I typed "rein in" NOT "reign in" - has noone on this wiki ever ridden a horse? We all have our issues. ;) Franamax (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support for many of the reasons already posted - please C3, go and *wank* your apostrophe elsewhere. BTW, polls are evil. hydnjo (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that polls are evil, but desperate times call for desperate measures and this is a good discussion. The respondents so far are presenting cogent reasoning, and we can ask for an independent closer. Franamax (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...max for bringing me back to reality ;-) hydnjo (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, because unsolicited grammar and spelling correction makes the RD less friendly to querents and to answerers alike, and provides no benefit. That said, I want to make it clear that I like almost all of Cuddlyable3's answers on the Reference Desk, and that he or she caused me to laugh probably harder than anyone else ever has on the Reference Desk, in this thread (with the post ending "Peace out", in the context of the previous few days of quarreling over this matter). Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish that C3 would say that. hydnjo (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain because I'm uncomfortable with the premise of voting people off of the island (at least in this way), but I do agree that spelling/grammar correction is really not necessary, useful, or conducive to a good environment on the Ref Desk and should only be done in cases where it is actually topically relevant to answering the question (e.g., if the OP is not finding the answer they want because they don't know how the term they are looking for is actually spelled). The urge to correct grammar for its own sake should be applied to the encyclopedia, not to the Reference Desk. It's annoying and I do with that C3 would do us all a favor and stop. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain for almost exactly the same reasons expressed by Mr.98 above. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I too agree with those reasons, and it leads me to oppose this proposal. In particular, we've had (and probably will have) behaviour here that I see as quite a bit more problematic, from the point of view of a reference desk, and I really don't want us to set a precedent of singling out editors and pronouncing restrictions that apply only to them and not to all . I guess I'm willing to put up with with your incredibly bullheaded pedantry, Cuddlyable3, because I otherwise find you to be a valuable contributor. Still, it would be nice if you stopped, when you get such angry reactions. I don't think there is consensus to enforce this proposal, but who knows what's going to happen if you continue on your orthographic crusade against such strong opposition? Please reflect on whether whatever goals you are seeking to achieve are worth aggravating a number of good-faith contributors. And don't be surprised if stuff gets removed.---Sluzzelin talk 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving this quarrel

I moved this proposal to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Personal disagreement 2 not to archive and forget it, but to clear this Ref. desk talk page for resoluble technical and policy issues. Also to give this discussion an uncluttered page of its own. This proposed sanction really belongs on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if it's that important. But it should have been handled first on the respective editors' talk pages, rather than ganging up here to decide "what shall we [not] do to X?". The Ref. desk talk page, while hardly ideal, seems to be the best place available to discuss immediate issues with trolls, sock-puppets and other problematic newcomers. But long-standing disagreements with veteran editors who have also all contributed usefully to the Reference Desk will inevitably take over the whole RD Talk Page with long and very ill-tempered quarrels that belong on a sub-page. A horrid example, for those with short memories, is the interminable fight at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) over date auto-formatting, which became intensely personal, with a subsequent protracted case at the Wikipedia:Arbitration committee that resulted in severe sanctions against veteran editors on both sides. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I undid the move, because while your intentions were good, the effect of moving a discussion to a subpage is usually to completely kill it (at best), or make it a site of festering bickering among the most emotionally-invested participants (at worst). This talk page is for discussions about the operation of the Ref Desk, including, if necessary, discussions about Ref Desk editor conduct. If a matter cannot be resolved here, it can be further escalated to a higher level, but we prefer to manage ourselves as much as possible. Repeated attempts have been made to discuss Cuddlyable's conduct with him on his talk page, however he refuses to engage in discussion there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"It's" as deliberate provocation?

Scattered above are several suggestions that one editor (SteveBaker) might be misusing "it's" as a deliberate provocation to another (Cuddlyable3). Let's just note that:

1. While the editors allegedly being provoked love to stick to the letter of Wikipedia policy, there is no Wikipedia policy against misspelling "its" (or any other word). And in any case
2. It would be impossible to ever prove whether Steve Baker's (mis)use of "it's" is an honest mistake or a deliberate provocation (or some combination). But what is easy to prove -- because the evidence is right before us -- is what reaction this usage seems to provoke in Cuddlyable3 and now several other editors, and that reaction speaks volumes.

So to those objecting, I'd suggest you drop it, because you'll never prove it, and your reaction isn't helping your case. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Now instead of just shutting up Cuddlyable, you want to shut up anyone who opposes? If people have concerns, let them voice them! --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I started this, and I'm deeply sorry. It was an ill-informed assumption by me without knowing all the facts. There is no evidence whatsoever that he's doing it deliberately to annoy Cuddlyable3. But regardless, Cuddlyable3s reaction to it is still vastly disproportionate. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread has run it's course. Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Its, you sneak... ;) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's has a wonderful history of deliberate provocation! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

... 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping out of proposed sanctions against C3 because I am clearly not a neutral party. But I will say this - I do not deliberately mess up the use of the apostrophe in my responses to OP questions just to annoy C3 - that would be a terrible thing to do. If you need proof of that, feel free to analyse the statistical distribution of my errors both before and after C3 started this incessant whining. I bet there is no difference whatever in the error frequency - which is concrete proof that (a) I'm not deliberately messing with his head and (b) he's not improving my punctuation.

What is happening here is that I firmly believe that it's more important to produce great answers to questions than it is to turn out perfectly spelled/punctuated English.

The format of the Ref Desks is more like email or text messaging than it is like formal Article space. Perfect English is most certainly NOT a prerequisite for providing answers here - and I'm 100% sure our OP's would prefer an interesting, well-researched answer (albeit with a few 'oopsies') to a poor but correctly punctuated one. As such, I'd rather spend 10 minutes searching for a better answer than 10 minutes proof-reading my posts...and that is all the explanation there is to this.

In truth, I really don't give a damn about the correct use of the apostrophe when the meaning is clear...(EXCEPT in Article space where of course good English is absolutely required and more care must be taken). In the EXTREMELY unlikely case where screwing up the apostrophe (or misspelling, mispunctuating, whatever) actually makes the answer ambiguous - I'd welcome a comment like Steve, your post is ambiguous punctuation - did you really mean <meaning A> or <meaning B>? However, if my message is unambiguous, I'd prefer that C3 spend time producing better researched answers of his own than trying to "educate" me or whatever the heck he thinks this is doing.

Let me once more make it crystal clear to C3 - I understand the rules of punctuation - I own a very well-thumbed copy of "Eats shoots and leaves" - when I choose to spend time on it, my English is good enough to get me two featured articles and a bunch of 'good' articles here on WP (You think THIS is a harsh audience?! Ha! Just check out WP:FAR!). I just can't be bothered with it when I'm trying to make best use of my time to help out our OP's. (That, believe it or not, is the actual purpose of WP:RD).

Correcting my punctuation has ZERO benefit. I won't do any better next time, I don't even try to do better, I have absolutely no interest in doing better. I have much better things to do with my life than to keep C3 happy when nobody else gives a damn. C3 doesn't improve the Ref Desk, he worsens it by causing off-topic tirades that only serve to confuse our readers - and soaking up valuable time that could better be spend answering some of those really interesting questions that are out there. C3's rants are without any benefit whatever...zip, zero, nada...I do my very best to ignore them whenever possible and fully intend to continue to do so. If that upsets him - that's his problem, not mine because I'm sure the community here isn't going to stand for it.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.