Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

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



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.

Is Bullets and Bracelets CensoredScribe?[edit]

Those curious whether Bullets and Bracelets (the psychological effect of religion) is here to build the project might want to see this bizarre thread where [Bullets and Bracelets] attacks MarnetteD after a total of 260 edits, most of which spent in talk, ref, Jimbo and AN space. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

From the top of the page "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. I will not remove this material, but it is not helpful, and does not improve the ref desk in any way. You are not even linking to ref desk pages. If you like this kind of thing, maybe you can participate at SPI or ANI, or start your own club somewhere. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Without links, it may be unclear what this has to do with the RD. User:Bullets and Bracelets (who has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppet violations) started the following RD sections:
As the questions are not overtly disruptive and all have received responses, they should not be removed (assuming anyone is tempted to do so). -- ToE 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The sockmaster CensoredScribe is banned from Wikipedia, and his edits cannot be allowed to stand, regardless of their alleged quality. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, banned users are not allowed to edit, which is why their socks are banned. But are you telling me that policy states that, following banning of a sock puppet, all their edits are required to be expunged?
Particularly in cases where a sock puppet racks up 10 edits purely for the purpose of becoming auto-confirmed in order defeat semi-protection, I will assume bad faith and step through their edit history undoing both negative and neutral edits, but will leave in place those edits which clearly do improve an article. On talk pages I will leave in place neutral, non-disruptive edits which been responded to, as doing otherwise can be disruptive to the editors who responded.
The reference desk is closer to a talk page than a main-space article. -- ToE 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the person behind the accounts who's banned, and the prohibition from edits encompasses the entirety of Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As TOE points out, there isn't any real problem with questions that B&B have asked at the ref desk. If you don't like them, you are free to ignore them. This is not helping the ref desk. What is your goal here with these comments? Do you really think retroactively removing questions will somehow hurt the sockpuppeteer, or make the ref desk a better place? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you've got it wrong. Banned users are not allowed to edit. That is a bright line that cannot be crossed. Banned means banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Bugs, you've got it wrong. No one is disputing that banned users are not allowed to edit. The question is, if they are naughty and edit anyway, are we obliged to revert their edits, every one? And the answer is unequivocally "no", as clearly stated at Wikipedia:Banning policy: "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor".
Now, I'll grant that a possibly-trollish question posted to a Reference Desk by a banned user is certainly an ambiguous case, but that changes the presumption to delete to a "should", not a "must". And I encourage you to think about SemanticMantis's question: Do you think removing questions will somehow hurt the sockpuppeteer? --Steve Summit (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." That seems as plain as the nose on W.C. Fields' face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So what did SemanticMantis get wrong? --Steve Summit (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Everything. (1) "There isn't any real problem with questions that B&B have asked at the ref desk." Irrelevant. Banned users are not allowed to edit. (2) "If you don't like them, you are free to ignore them." Or free to delete them, as per the guideline regarding banned users. (3) "This is not helping the ref desk." Wrong. Allowing banned users to edit harms Wikipedia. (4) "What is your goal here with these comments? Do you really think retroactively removing questions will somehow hurt the sockpuppeteer, or make the ref desk a better place?" Banned users are not allowed to edit. Whether they feel "harmed" or not is irrelevant. They're banned because they choose to be. Keeping them away from Wikipedia makes Wikipedia a better place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You just keep repeating yourself; you aren't even acknowledging the difference between must and may - or if you prefer, logical necessity and logical possibility, respectively. Put another way, we (myself, ToE, Steve) are discussing the distinction of ought and could, or in the terms of Deontic_logic, what is obligated, compared to what is permitted - does that make it more clear what we are trying to discuss? If you continue to respond "banned users are not allowed to edit" then I will be forced to conclude that you are not acting in good faith. After considering ToE's examples above, I personally think that reverting a good edit by a banned user would be doing a disservice to the project. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure Bugs is interested in these fine distinctions we're trying to make. His logic appears to be:
  1. Deleting all edits by banned users will improve the Reference Desks.
  2. We are allowed to delete the edits of banned users.
  3. Therefore we must delete all edits by banned users.
But if you disagree with (1), or even worse, if you believe that deleting the edits of banned users is a fine idea, but for a different reason than (3), and if you think the logic behind (3) is faulty, and if you try to make that point, Bugs thinks you're arguing against deleting the edits of banned users (meaning that you're a supporter of banned users), and he'll repeat himself at you some more. --Steve Summit (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(He also appears to believe that "banned users may not edit Wikipedia" implies that "banned users' edits may not be allowed to stand on Wikipedia" which in turn implies that, again, we must delete all edits by banned users, and he's impervious to the words at Wikipedia:Banning policy explicitly denying this reasoning. --Steve Summit (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC))
Here's the basic flaw in y'all's reasoning. Let's suppose that I'm topic-banned from the subject of wombats. That means I'm not supposed to do any editing on the subject of wombats, and if I defy that ban, I can be blocked for it. But according to what you're saying, I should be OK to edit wombats as long as my edits are "constructive". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you don't like this policy, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The policy is that banned users are not allowed to edit, and that's fine. Note the statement in Wikipedia:Banning policy: "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances." (Except for appealing the ban from his talk page.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Bugs. Yes. I acknowlege reading those words there. Now will you please acknowledge reading the words "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor"? —Steve Summit (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC) [P.S. Will someone else please tell me to stop arguing with Bugs? It's inevitably futile.]
Splitting hairs/hares. Edits by banned users are subject to removal. Does that mean they will always get removed? Not necessarily. Someone might not catch it. Someone might catch it but not bother to remove it. But they may be removed on sight, by someone else. Why? Simple: (1) Banned users are not allowed to edit. (2) If in doubt, see (1). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The question of whether troll X is sockpuppet Y is a side one which I probably should not have brought up. The bottom line is that Bullets and Bracelets has indeed been indeffed for disruptive behavior, and shows all the hallmarks of a sock, immediately sophisticated and controversial editting with a focus on personality such as the attack on Marnette with the self-sabotaging ANI complaint. I brought it up here because someone mentioned CensoredScribe, and I figured that might ring a bell, and help identify other problems. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Because Lord knows we don't have enough problems to discuss on this talk page, so it's certainly good to be vigilant in seeking out possible new ones to address. --Steve Summit (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There is actually ONLY ONE problem here - perpetual disagreement on how to handle certain types of edits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, most people probably agree that we should ignore disruptive edits. Therefore, as most of our editors are ignoring such things, these discussions are exclusively conducted by a tiny number of editors who choose not to ignore disruptive edits. This vocal community is still a minority group of editors. Occasionally, a different editor (like Steve) gets roped into this, and needs to be reminded to take a break, because these discussions are unproductive.
Steve, perhaps you'd like to hop over to WP:RDS to read about planetary orbital resonance; or WP:RDC to read the entire boot sequence checklist for an Intel CPU (which is, amazingly, more interesting than meta-discussions about internet trolls). Or if you really like, read about quokkas. There are so many interesting things to do that are more fun than worrying about how others choose to waste their time on the internet.
Nimur (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, if you want to put it that way, the one problem here is perpetual disagreement about what constitutes disruption. And when someone trashes established editors while arguing for giving a pass to banned editors, they are furthering that problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

archiving delay[edit]

Due to a series of circumstances both too complicated and too banal to explain, archiving and date header addition by scsbot is down for a day or two. I can probably get it working again by tomorrow night, but if the hiatus lasts much longer than that I'll let y'all know. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Manually adding date headers in the mean time shouldn't interfere with restarting your bot, should it? -- ToE 03:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Its algorithms are all nicely idempotent, designed to discover what needs doing on any given day without regard to whether someone else (or some other invocation of the bot) has already done part or all of it. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanx for linking that fancy word! ―Mandruss  09:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk protected[edit]

Why is the reference desk protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2015 UTC

Someone has been attacking the reference desk lately [1], so it was necessary to temporarily protect it. We apologize for any inconvenience. Dragons flight (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you've got a question, you could ask it here and it could be posted for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
At least, they can now that this talk page isn't also protected, as it was for a while. -- (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Alas, it's another example of someone ruining something for the rest of us. You can avoid being inconvenienced by such protection is you register a username and log in (there is no requirement to reveal an email address or any other information). plus you will no longer have to enter in a CAPTCHA on some posts. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
What's with the persistent idiotic vandalism of the various Reference Desk pages? Is this a recent development? Is it just one moron creating separate accounts, or is there some particular incident that has sparked a group effort?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a regular troll we've had around here for some time. Some time ago (probably a few years back. Maybe less, maybe more, have a bad memory for details like that) he started posting provocative questions which really weren't requests for information, but rather breaching experiments to see how much he could get away with. When his obvious trolling would inevitably get removed, he would immediately and repeatedly try to get it back on the desk. The hallmark is that people would explain, patiently, how he could find the information, or ask the question and get the same answer in less provocative and more appropriate ways. His refusal to change even a word of the question, and his repeated attempts to return these trolling posts to the desks, is how we recognize him. He's usually blocked pretty quickly. This last time, a week or so ago, he lost his shit and decided to create like a million sockpuppet accounts and start disrupting the ref desks with them. We're working on a few methods of shutting this down; some more advanced admins with tools normal admins don't have been contacted, and we're looking at some options to return the ref desks to normalcy. It just takes time for them to investigate, respond, and set up the fixes. It sucks, but the problem is being worked on. --Jayron32 01:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Banned topics[edit]

Isnt it strange that only serious questions on topics of medecine or law are banned? Why not ban questions about financial advice(risk of losing money), home electrics(risk to life), chemistry performed at home( risk to health/life) etc, etc, etc. Could this be anything to do with medicine and law being two of the most restrictive and reguated professions? If so, what is next for banning? DIY animal surgery questions? Nuclear scince questions? DIY laser experiments? Any other potentially harmful activity? PS BB need not reply-Im fed up reading his diatribes-- (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Serious questions on medicine or law are not banned. You are mistaken. --Jayron32 16:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, read the disclaimer, we don't give professional advice of any sort, none that requires being a licensed professional: "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area."
Wasn't there a recent, similar question? From a different IP, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Put this on the computer desk[edit]

Is there any algorithmic composition software for Windows which I can use to create classical music melodies automatically without knowing anything about music? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2015

Yes check.svg DoneMandruss  20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015[edit]

Where can I find Jami’ es-Sittin on the map?

To the South of Walli Yetaim, there was a structure called “Jami’ es-Sittin” or “The Mosque of the Sixty” in English. It was located on a hill with escarped walls and a carved beam positioned over the door. It is thought to have been a synagogue11. It contains many ancient remains such as column shafts and classic resources. After the consultations made in 1967, a beautiful room to the west was exposed. The room has been plastered two times with white lime, and it has an area that faces south to Jerusalem. The Lintel was removed from the north door, and a pillar a synagogue or a church are encased over the west door. [2] Dr Lol (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneMandruss  11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request[edit]

How come women who are raped orgasm if they don't like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeavyHittingNewsShowi3 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - Question is based on an unproven premise and therefore unanswerable. Sorry. ―Mandruss  11:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This question and its assumptions could be addressed with references such as this Popular Science article. -- ToE 14:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Women in Love[edit]

Mandruss  15:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected page?[edit]

For times when one or more ref desk pages is protected (including this one), might it be a good idea (as per talk page guidelines) to create a catchall, unprotected page where users could post questions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Post for discussion, or as edit requests? If the latter, I thought the talk page was the place for edit requests. If the former, I wouldn't see the point. ―Mandruss  14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, except if the talk page itself is protected, which it sometimes is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to grasp your concept, but check me on this. It would be a single refdesk with different rules, where you can post anything you want and it may be responded to or ignored, depending on the whims of the responders. But nothing will be hatted or removed, and no blocks will be imposed. Good-faith unconfirmed users there will endure whatever disruption the vandals care to cause, including offensive language, removing their questions or otherwise vandalizing their threads, or blanking the entire page. If these good-faith users have the necessary skills, they can fight the vandals themselves. Do I have it right so far? ―Mandruss  16:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. They could go nuts with that page and it could be ignored as appropriate. If Jayron or another admin decided to issue a block, obviously they could do so. But there would likely be no clamoring for it on the regular talk page. As for the unprotected page itself, you could call it "unprotected ref desk talk page", as per the recommendations for when a talk page is protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Being as it would be more like a refdesk than a talk page (talk pages are for discussing the article/project page(s)), wouldn't something like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Open be more suitable? Shortcut: WP:RDO. ―Mandruss  17:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Whatever name makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with that. I'm strongly opposed to names that don't make sense. ―Mandruss  18:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I ask what action is proposed to be taken if this 'open' page is used to post say copyright violations or libellous statements? I ask because it seems to me that there might be legal implications if the answer is 'none'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The thot plickens. ―Mandruss  18:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Postings that are directly against the rules could be deleted and rev-del'd - just as they would be anywhere else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
And per the above description, the bad guys can remove stuff but the good guys can't. Interesting. Let's make it Wikipedia:Reference desk/Wild West, shortcut WP:RDWW. ―Mandruss  18:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly. BLP violations and Outing, for example, are forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, and hence are subject to removal by anyone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I meant generally speaking. ―Mandruss  18:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Barring those kinds of gross violations, we should leave it alone. The theory is that the vandal will get bored if he's not being fed in some way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
But after the vandal blanks the page, it goes one of two ways. Either a good-faith user reverts, in which case he's being fed and continues, or no one reverts and the page might as well not exist. ―Mandruss  19:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No big deal. Just look in the pre-reverted version and see if there are any pending questions for the regular ref desk pages. If so, post them as needed. If not, leave it be. That makes it almost like a "sandbox" page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That's feeding, and the vandal is waiting for you to do that so he can blank the page again. Rinse, repeat. ―Mandruss  23:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. Here's the sequence of events:
1. IP or not-confirmed editor(s) post reasonable question(s).
2. Vandal blanks the page.
3. One of us checks recent history for valid questions.
4. One of us posts those valid questions on the appropriate desk.
5. We leave the blanked page blank.
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't understand, in part because you never answered my opening question: Post for discussion, or as edit requests?. I flipped a coin and chose one. ―Mandruss  02:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I had it more in mind for edit requests. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Marking question as resolved[edit]

How do I mark my question as resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger adams49 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A common way is to insert {{resolved}} just below the section heading, and you could follow it with your ~~~~. ―Mandruss  00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

There is a discussion to blacklist at MediaWiki Please read and join if you can help resolve it. Since it involves a website about languages I hope experts here can help. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015[edit]

Language: Could someone translate this message for me? It's a question from an eBay user I got who just bought some Magic: the Gathering cards from me.

buenas nose si has recibido bien mi direccion a la que me tienen que enviar las cartas es españa 03004 alicante calle belando nº 29 2º derecha. y tambien queria preguntar cuanto me tardara en llegar??

Also could someone write a reply to it for me? Whatever you think would be the most likely reply assuming all is well. Thanks, 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you try Google Translate? Also, "nose" is not a Spanish word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did. And Bing translate. It's hard to make out what's being said. I'm guessing "nose" is a misspelling of something. 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am copying this question to the Language desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an annoying system.
It's staring to make more sense now. It was from a user with zero feedback. So what address do I send the item to? The PayPal email lists the address as:
María Miota
03004 alicante, Comunidad Valenciana
Which looks different to what was put in the message.
Thanks, 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is an annoying way to operate.
I'm not seeing the city name in the original Spanish message. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ALICANTE. And one imagines "nose" to be "no se".... I suspect it's best to let actual experts to answer this question, and I'm sure at least one of the millions of Wikpiedia editors that pass by here is fluent in Spanish. Unlike, it would appear, the rest of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Buenas nose" is a slang greeting. I translate the message as, "Did you get that the address to send the cards to is Calle Belando, 29, #2, 03004 Alicante Spain? And I also wanted to ask how long it will take me to get them?" ("Calle" means "Street". ""Calle Belando, 29" is the way you write a numbered street address in Spain.) Google Maps shows this as a valid address. Unfortunately my Spanish is not up to writing a reply. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The reply doesn't matter too much. I can just reply in English and let him/her try to muddle through it like I've had to do. Just need to make sure I get the address written down properly. How does this look?

María Miota
España 03004,
Alicante Calle Belando nº 29,
2º Derecha,

Looks like Spanish address go in the opposite way I'm used to. Is that right? I'll be sending this from Ireland if that makes a difference.

Also, I usually write "Cards Inside, DO NOT BEND" on the cardboard I use to protect the cards. It's not too important but if anyone happens to know the Spanish version I could use that instead.

Thanks for all the help everyone. 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, User:Medeis seems to be suggesting this as the address:

María Miota
Calle Belando nº 29
2º derecha,
03004 Alicante,

Is this the address I should use? 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

España is the country, and should go last, on its own line. Calle Belando nº 29 is the street number. 2º derecha is the box or apt number at that street address, and should probably go on the same line as and after Calle Belando nº 29. The postal code 03004 Alicante is the proper designation for the postal district; only very large cities have an additional number code that comes after the city name. Don't put the number second as is done in most English speaking countries. So the above is fine, although I would put Calle Belando nº 29, 2º derecha on the same line. Keep in mind postal officials have no trouble figuring out what you mean as long as you write in their alphabet and you don't exclude vital information. 03:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PS, if you are sending cards, you can put NO DOBLAR on the envelope, and you can email the client Las cartas llegarán en aproximadamente XX días. With XX obviously being the approximate number of days. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hatting a Q with claim that it was a request for opinion[edit]

Medeis hatted this:


She hatted the Q as a request for opinion, while it is quite clearly a request to clarify a definition. I unhatted it, then she rehatted it and deleted my contribution, with the comment "Take it to the talk page". She seems to think that she should be able to unilaterally hat any Q, on rather flimsy grounds, but to reverse the hatting should require a massive consensus on the talk page. I unhatted it, restored my answer, and added this section. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've removed it back. Consensus is not required to remove blatant rule violations. Answering unanswerable questions and restoring said answers when they have been correctly removed is controversial and therefore DOES require consensus. That's the way Wikipedia has always worked. (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stuart, first, we don't name threads about people or accuse them of insanity. Second the OP has showed up here with a reference already in hand, and wants to know our opinion of whether he fits the diagnosis he gives:
My economic activity is currently zero. I don't even receive income support. My bank balance says zero. Does this mean i'm below the underclass?
At best that is a request for opinion, if not something he should take up with a licensed social worker, an accountant, a solicitor, or a psychoanalyst, not us. We know nothing about this person. And your response is to answer him with your opinion entirely lacking in references:
*As your link states, the underclass is the "lowest possible position in a class hierarchy". Therefore, there is nothing below it. However, also note that your class doesn't immediately change as your income changes. Indeed, many wealthy people may lose millions of dollars in a given year, or even lose all their wealth and go deep into debt. That doesn't automatically move them into the underclass, as friends, relatives, business associates, etc., may well "keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed". One example of this is Kwame Kilpatrick, former criminal mayor of Detroit who pleaded poverty when he claimed he couldn't pay back the citizens of Detroit all the money he stole from them. The court agreed, but then he was found to be living in a mansion, supposedly on money he had borrowed from friends. Well, that was a violation of the settlement, as he was supposed to disclose all income, including that. (He is now in jail, for that and/or other crimes.) StuRat
This time I am simply going to delete this, we cannot answer it. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you blind ? I did include references. The first one had already been linked to by the OP, but I added a quotation of the relevant bit. The second reference was a link and was my example of how losing your assets doesn't automatically make you part of the underclass. And even if I hadn't included any refs, that certainly wouldn't give you the right to delete my answer. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of removing the question and Stu's response, but leaving the section as well as links to the questioner's and Stu's talk pages? -- ToE 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That was either a glitch or due to an edit conflict, since the IP said he was restoring the hat at the same time I was deleting the request for a personal comment, and the referenceless non-answer. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD. I see no "blatant violation", at least no more "blatant" than some things we regularly choose to engage, apparently depending on our current mood. 100% consistency isn't practical, but we can't be that selective in enforcement. ―Mandruss  00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
IMO, even if it was a request for opinion, it could have been (and was by Stu) answered by educating the OP about the term. I don't see why this is so hard for some to understand. Just explain what things mean or point questioners to the relevant articles and let them reach their own conclusions. Much like you would in assisting someone with their homework.
If you want me to answer some question of yours in this thread, please ping me. Dismas|(talk) 01:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, this illustrates exactly why I expressed the view that there should not be a ban on discussions of Reference Desk behavior on this Reference Desk talk page. Do we really want either to allow unrestricted hatting of questions or to have all questionable hattings of questions taken directly to WP:ANI (do not pass Go)? I disagree with the hatting, that has been reversed, because I think that it was a request for a definition, not an opinion, but I don't think that it calls for reporting Medeis to ANI, only for clarifying the rules on hatting, and I still think that RFCs, and not a subcommittee, are the way to address Reference Desk issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Re the subcommittee, that was a proposed way to formulate RfC propositions, so it was never a matter of choosing one over the other. ―Mandruss  01:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

StuRat, if you use the section title to attack me again, I'll gladly take this to ANI. Section heads are to be neutral per WP:MOS. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Listing the name of the person who removed the Q does NOT constitute an attack. You changed the title to one that's not the least bit neutral. I changed it to one that's completely neutral and doesn't list your name. And everyone at AN/I knows how you love to waste their time with all these perceived "offences" against you. The more often you waste their time, the less attention they will pay to you. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Info: Here is the initial edit creating this section. -- ToE 05:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, this talk page had been pretty quiet for a few days, good thing we've got some unnecessary drama to spice it up.
The question in question is completely unobjectionable. It's not causing any harm; there's no need to sanction it.
But, Stu, no matter how wrong those attempted sanctions were, using an unnecessarily provocative section title here just takes the stick in the hornet's nest and shakes it. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)