Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Yeah no
Line 76: Line 76:
:::It was 24 who ''answered'' the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy. But the puzzlement is why he would think that the allies were non-white. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. all looked pretty much white. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
:::It was 24 who ''answered'' the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy. But the puzzlement is why he would think that the allies were non-white. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. all looked pretty much white. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 02:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
::::It would appear to me that [[WP:REVDEL]] may not have been appropriate in this case, under the third clause of [[WP:CRD]]. <small>(By which I mean, "Oh, f@ck, I blocked the wrong guy. I'd better cover my sorry ass by quoting policy.")</small> Is there a [[WP:LTA]] case page for the Nazi ref desk troll? Pete "lack of attention to detail" AU aka --[[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
::::It would appear to me that [[WP:REVDEL]] may not have been appropriate in this case, under the third clause of [[WP:CRD]]. <small>(By which I mean, "Oh, f@ck, I blocked the wrong guy. I'd better cover my sorry ass by quoting policy.")</small> Is there a [[WP:LTA]] case page for the Nazi ref desk troll? Pete "lack of attention to detail" AU aka --[[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

== Jayron32 in hospital ==

I just received some bad news. Jayron32 was just rushed to a hospital about an hour ago after getting injured in a car accident. Please offer your condolences.

: (1) Thanks for the information.
: (2) Please sign your posts.
: (3) Condolences are normally for the relatives of people who have died. What is Jayron's condition? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%"><font face="Verdana" ><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></font></span>]] 09:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

He suffered a head injury.[[Special:Contributions/47.147.244.59|47.147.244.59]] ([[User talk:47.147.244.59|talk]]) 09:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
:This is [[Special:Contributions/173.230.108.156|the guy from California]] who has done this before. [[Special:Contributions/80.5.88.48|80.5.88.48]] ([[User talk:80.5.88.48|talk]]) 09:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:41, 30 December 2016

[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.


Starting debates at the wikiversity help desk

Where do I go if I want to start a debate there? All of the past debates are from years ago. What if I want to start a new one? The Rd guidelines directed me to there if I want to have debates97.94.201.18 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt our guidelines have ever directed people to any specific site to have a debate. There are zillions of places one could go to. I know next to nothing about wikiversity, but I'd suggest its help desk is for seeking help about using wikiversity, not for having any kind of debate. But what do I know? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RD guidelines state that the Wikiversity help desk allows debates. I checked the history, and that line has been there forever it seems. That said, since this is not the Wikiversity help desk, no one here can help you with that. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to start a debate, here are some options that I think will be better than wikiversity. Debate.org and OnlineDebate.net are two of the more famous online debate clubs, there are many others that can be found with a google search for online debate club. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Optical Interferometry

I just "fixed" one of the issues on the page Astronomical Optical Interferometry, and removed the issue saying the lead was too long. Is it okay now to remove it? If so, how do I change the "Multiple issues" to just one issue?

Checks Facts (Talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about the Multiple issues problem, I found that out.

Checks Facts (Talk) 22:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Checks Facts: This sort of question should be asked at the Help Desk, for your future reference. Tevildo (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tevildo: Okay, Thank you.Checks Facts (Talk) 14:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question deleted

My question was deleted.

I know it might seem like it, but I'm not trolling.

Perhaps, could I have worded it better?

Please, help me ask my question, don't keep deleting me...

Benjamin (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Revdel is an option

Just a reminder that it's a lot harder to revert to a revision after it's been revdelled (and before you argue, remember WP:BEANS). It also seems to discourage a certain someone who has said that he wants page protection and whose edits are valid under WP:RD3. We should probably be going "Block, revert, revdel, ignore" instead of revert, block, ignore. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly more convenient to get them blocked first, before attempting a revert. And the increasing use of the revdel seems to be beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy against opinions predictions and debates not being applied consistently

One thing I've noticed about the Refdesk is that the policy against predictions,opinions,and debate doesn't seem to be applied consistently. Sometimes I see question s which clearly fall into any of those three,yet they never get hatred. Now I admit, some of my questions fall into those three,but at one time I saw someone asking a question at the computing desk about which was the best something to buy. I forget what it was exactly,but the OP said that he had done a Google search,and wanted to know where to find out about buying something. The question was hatted even though he made it clear he was trying to research about buying something, probably because he phrased it as which is the best something to buy. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talkcontribs) 21:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way around the problem is to ask for references rather than for editors' opinions. For example, at the computer desk they could have asked, "What are some good source for evaluating PC's?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to ask a question

Could someone help me out? I'm trying to ask for a list of states where gambling is illegal, but it says that my edit is unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.79.72 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what type of gambling you mean—see the chart in Gambling in the United States#Legal issues. Deor (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deor (or other admins, who can view what's been revdelledl) might you take a look at it and decide whether the question and your (Deor's) answer might be moved back to the Humanities desk. It could have been a casualty of dealing with an undesired question immediately before the OP's edit. I can't see it (and/or any admin who has already reviewed and decided it's not worth restoring, please raise an eyebrow or something, thanks!) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"How does the glorification of Allies and the demonization of Germany during World War 2 help to serve an antiwhite agenda?" was the question asked. I can't see any mention of gambling there, 24.107.79.72. Have a nice block.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy. But the puzzlement is why he would think that the allies were non-white. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. all looked pretty much white. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to me that WP:REVDEL may not have been appropriate in this case, under the third clause of WP:CRD. (By which I mean, "Oh, f@ck, I blocked the wrong guy. I'd better cover my sorry ass by quoting policy.") Is there a WP:LTA case page for the Nazi ref desk troll? Pete "lack of attention to detail" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]