Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Shortcut:

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant Reference Desk
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.
This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.


rm trolling estrogen question[edit]

It was hatted as apparently someone took offense and it wasn't a real question. Editors ignored the hat and continued to feed "the joke." I removed it as a troll magnet since hatting was ignored. Per guidelines, don't restore questions without consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Section in question: WP:RDS#Estrogen talking [last extant version]
Mini-edit-war between DHeyward & StuRat: S D S D S S D
Only after reading the context of Stu's quote do I understand that he was indirectly warning against the use of such misogynous comments (it resulted in a sexual harassment charge in-episode), so DHeyward misunderstanding of his intent is understandable. -- ToE 12:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't misunderstand that this was a joke and it was hardly an indirect warning since it was just another joke. Stu described it as a joke, not as an "indirect warning."[1]. It was also a hatted discussion that someone found offensive for whatever reason. I understand both. Continuing with a joke 2 days after it was hatted is not necessary, adds nothing to the reference desk and is non-encyclopedic. It only extends the offense that the hatting editor noted and the last bit added by Stu was a lesson in what not to do. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd linked but not noted that edit summary. For completeness, here is the original hatting by Bus stop. -- ToE 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, where in the guidelines does it say anyone can delete a Q without consensus, but restoring it requires consensus ? StuRat (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Bottom of the section about removing questions. [2]. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That refers to "a question that was removed by another editor acting in good faith using a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines". I don't believe there is any policy or guideline saying "any editor can censor Wikipedia of anything they consider to be offensive". In fact the opposite is the case: Wikipedia is not censored. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Strawman argument as I didn't censor anything I determined offensive. It does fall into the category of harassment, though. Weighing the encyclopedic value of the question/jokes against other editors expressions of misogyny, it is pretty clear where the line is. I've investigated workplace claims of harassment and there need not be any objective finding of offensiveness to force a party to stop making jokes, unrelated to work, that offend others. It's not the initial joke you made, which was hatted, it was the follow-up, post hatted, post complaint joke made 2 days later - after it was apparent some editors were offended. Like the episode you quoted, it's obvious harassment when, after being asked to stop, it continues. You've made no argument as to how the jokes benefit the project except as an extension of your own sense of humor. "Wikipedia is not censored" applies to material that is otherwise encyclopedic. This isn't your blog or forum or stage. --DHeyward (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The OP's question was a joke, and the responses were jokes also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Except two responses. One editor noted misogyny. A different editor hatted it. Neither of those editors appeared to appreciate the joke and it ceased benefiting the project. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hence it was ripe for removal. And the "misogyny" part was essentially a personal attack on the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I gave a serious response (with a joke added at the end). StuRat (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am just disappointed the Kim Jong Un wedding vow question was removed:

    Did Kim Jong Un's marriage proposal to Ri Sol Ju end in the words "or else" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6E44:D3E0:C1A5:F903:6D41:4364 (talk) 9:56 pm, 11 May 2015, last Monday (1 day ago) (UTC−4)

    It was the best trolling we've had in years, worthy of an archive page, and I think it shows some people here have a real problem distinguishing between what's funny and what's a policy issue. Why didn't this go to arbcom? μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean this trolling question about Kim Jong Un and Ri Sol Ju the two living people? Archive you say? Does my memory fail me, or this suggestion coming from the same person who has complained to WP:BLP/N more than once about serious questions or answers which are often supported by sources or the linked articles and so usually to be rejected, and when it was pointed out at BLP/N they're far from faultless on BLP matters, denied it? What happened to the cries of "defamation per se" that are so common? Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Chinese commercial real estate question[edit]

"Is it easier to sell a commercial property in China with or without a restaurant lessee?"

Hey Medeis, could you please explain the rationale for hatting this question? It strikes me not as a request for financial or legal advice but instead a straight forward question of business statistics. How a preexisting lease for a particular class of business affects the time on the market and eventual selling price as compared to otherwise comparable commercial properties is precisely the sort of comparative market analysis which would be discussed in real estate trade journals. Given Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias, it is unlikely that the question will receive an answer, but it should be given a fair chance.

This question was hatted only hours after it was asked, so barring objection I plan to repost it tonight when the original question archives. I've notified Imagine Reason (the OP) of this discussion and will do similarly when I repost the question. -- ToE 12:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The first obvious question to the OP would be, "Define 'easier'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a disturbing trend on the reference desks of nitpicking questions in a way that is creating a hostile environment. Sometimes the questioners are asked to justify every premise of their question even when these premises are either easily verified (in which case the question can be answered normally) or clearly false (in which case a referenced explanation of their error suffices). At other times the questioner is asked to explain every term used even when the meaning is reasonably obvious. If you were to ask a realtor how a particular feature would affect the ease of selling a property, they would respond in terms of expected time on the market or the discount or increase in price in comparison with a comparable property lacking that feature in order to achieve the same expected time on the market. If a question is unclear and you truly intent to help answer it, then certainly do go ahead and request more information in a friendly manner, but if you aren't planning on helping in the first place, then just don't edit. Come one everybody, be charitable and don't bite. -- ToE 13:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you're unaware that there's a rule against giving professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe that providing a link to a reliable source which discusses one aspect of the commercial real estate market in China (as unlikely as we are to find it) is equivalent to giving professional advice. -- ToE 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And I say your argument is not correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Really? By the same logic, were someone to ask whether women had easier deliveries if they gave birth to their first child in their 20s or in their 30s, and we responded by linking to medical statistics giving the average length of labor and the C-section rates for primigravida women in the two age groups, would you consider that equivalent to giving medical advice and thus in violation of our mandate? -- ToE 19:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It would depend on the actual question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"Do women have easier deliveries if they give birth to their first child in their 20s or in their 30s?" -- ToE 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Every woman is different, so a question so stated is unanswerable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fer real? Man, I wish I could see your face to tell if you are just pulling my leg. So you really don't have it in you to lend a questioner an implied "on average"? -- ToE 20:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Did they ask for an average? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
ToE, you are correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome IP answer[edit]

Recently people have been disparaging the quality of IP answers... we should collect some counter-examples before people start believing them. For example, this one. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That particular IP seems to be engaging in a normal way, as do most of them, really. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The normal way is both ways. All depends on focuses, and they're mutually exclusive. You'll never see the crooked old hag if your eyes are on the sweet pure maiden.
And likewise, if you concentrate on hags and maidens, you forget the only safe bet on The Invisible Man or The Faceless Men is that he/they is/are male.
The thing to remember about men? "When someone wrestles with a temptation, two miniature versions of himself, an Angel and a Devil, sit on each shoulder and try to pull him in different directions." InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
When I said "normal" I meant "adult / civil / proper" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. Nevermind that, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, then nevermind the man behind the bakery counter. Not the clerk, but further back. The modern baker, I guess we'd call him. The basic gist of it is that if you didn't mean what I thought you meant, nothing I said made sense. Except for the bit about rarely having to use gender neutral language for IPs. That's still going to apply tomorrow, particularly amongst the troll persons. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

"Should I be worried?"[edit]

Notified this user his question about an insect infestation has been removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=662816791&oldid=662816387 μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup - 'should I be worried' makes it a request for medical advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Op has now rephrased as "what's the bug?", hopefully more acceptable. ―Mandruss  22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not with the "should I be worried" part it's not; he can repost as an ID question if he wants. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for Pete's sake, he retracted the offending part. Relax. But I have re-posted the q in the form you require, with my own sig, since I'm actually curious about that bug now. ―Mandruss  22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more concerned that the link he provided could be a malware site. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Edit[edit]

A one-time editor placed a question at the top of the Science Desk. I removed it because it was incorrectly placed. I don't know if it was meant to be a test edit or a real question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit. This is the removal. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Good action. The 3 word question "What is matter?" without a section header isn't worth moving to the bottom just so we can link matter. -- ToE 02:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would have done just that. There could be complications, such as if they meant "matter" as in white matter/grey matter. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't pretty much the same question asked recently? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome, especially from editors who have experience dealing with style questions or editors seeking help in general.

For the purposes of this discussion, "style" refers to things like spelling, organization, punctuation, capitalization and other types of writing mechanics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)