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.

Banned user showing up again on Language desk?

Is it just me, or does User:Mr.Bitpart (see his RD/L post here) seem similar to User:Mihkaw napéw, who was more or less banned back in January? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Probably and likely. Shouldn't you be ignoring the question anyway rather than answering it if the questioneer annoys.. 'Don't cast your pearls before swine and all that.87.102.43.94 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is him, then he's violated his [admittedly de facto] ban by responding to someone else's question. If he keeps editing I might request a checkuser. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI started: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mihkaw napéw. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll or dwarf at work

Beautifully ironic trolling going on, in case anyone's interested. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 14:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have let that question stand, actually. And I also think a lifetime ban is a way over-the-top reaction. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:RBI—there's absolutely no need to let "nonsense" questions stand, particularly if they were posed with the intention of pissing people off. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't a sockpuppet of a user who is already permanently blocked, I wouldn't mind discussing it. However, this idiot is just here to see if he can be annoying. By removing all of his posts on sight and immediately blocking his accounts, most people don't even notice his failed attempts to be a troll. -- kainaw™ 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, I didn't realize the guy had form. Which banned user are we talking about? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure who it is, but I've already blocked about a dozen other accounts on the same IP with the same attitude. I think it's Swamilive. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Buddy431 appears to have joined in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt that the question was very interesting, and piqued my curiosity such that I now want to know the answer to it. As an editor in good standing, such a question is entirely appropriate coming from me, and should not have been removed. Buddy431 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Typical sock question from Elsie or one of her unreasonable facsimiles. Zap on sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Err... just out of curiosity, is there some particular internet meaning to for the term 'dwarf' (as opposed to 'troll'), or is the thread title simply an unexpressed wish to ship this editor off to someplace where he might acceptably be 86ed? --Ludwigs2 22:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how about this? If it's a well-defined question, then somebody who checks the Ref Desk regularly and knows something about it can post an answer. However, if nobody really knows about it, then they don't answer it, and within seven days the question is archived. It's like reverting, banning, and ignoring all without actually drawing attention to it! SamuelRiv (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you assuming people want to answer something that wasn't a genuine question and so there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer? Bearing in mind even if someone knows the answer, they may spend a fair amount of time researching etc the answer. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I like reading interesting threads that I didn't personally start, so I don't think it's fair to say that only the OP of a question is interested in the answers it gets. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Postings by banned users are removable on sight, regardless of their alleged quality or how interesting they might be. Banned is banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) + ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said the OP is always the only one interested in the answers? I just said there's a fair chance no one is actually interested in the answer which there is particularly for many of the stupid questions we get from trolls (yes there may be some odd balls like this one where apparently Buddy is interested in the answer, but that's somewhat beside the point). With a genuine question we can presume someone is interested in the answer, even if there's no guarantee they will read it or be interested in any particular answer. Of course anyone contributing much recognise that there's no guarantee anyone will be interested in their particular answer, or even read it and most of us hope that far more people then the OP will be interested but I for one have far less interested in answering a question when I have no reason to think anyone may be interested. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing by banned users is forbidden. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess disagreement has (occasionally) surfaced regarding the deletion of answers made in good faith by volunteers who didn't recognize the question as being posted by a banned user and who have expended brain power and research time to give good answers. I agree with 82... that it can be a shame to delete these threads entirely. My own conclusion is, if possible, to nip questions by banned users in the bud before anyone has had the chance to answer. When someone has already answered in good faith and with good sense, I tend not to bother with removing it anymore, or, at the very least, I weigh the pros and cons before deleting and inform the people who have responded in good faith. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a reasonable question and has already been answered, then the greater good is probably served by letting it stand; and then The Cow gets away with it, that time, but it also serves as a reminder that if she hadn't messed up then she wouldn't have been banned. Nonsense questions can still be zapped, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Elsie is a master at starting off with relatively plausible questions which begin to devolve more or less quickly. IMO their objective is to maximize disruption to this talk page, as the ongoing debates spring up about whether that one was a good question, sure the next one was about Uranus, but still... Much simpler is "banned is banned" and remove it - though I'd suggest maybe notification to the good-faith responders who took the time to do the research. Franamax (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good approach. Zap it, and post a short courtesy note to anyone who answered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vranak redux

Here, I've asked Vranak to please stop posting unreferenced answers to the Reference Desk. Here and here are two threads with very poor Vranak answers. My hope is that Vranak will just start to look up and cite references in his replies instead of just posting his offhand opinion on topics. Unfortunately, his history here leads me to believe he'll ignore this request, and that the recent 3-day block for incivility won't change his behavior. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand behind my comments. Vranak (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. Easy Solution: Let him post, and just correct everything he says that is wrong. The OP will see the references we add and if the OP chooses to ignore those references, the loss is theirs, not ours. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that 1 out of every 3 Vranak threads devolve into someone (often not the same person, or someone who has not even encountered this sort of nonsense before) saying, "that's the most wrong thing I've ever seen on here" and Vranak saying "I stand behind my comments" and some other unproductive back and forth. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with 70.... Let's not forget, however, that in one of the threads linked to by CT, Vranak gave his opinion on Russell's significance in 20th century philosophy, while the querent sought an answer to the (relatively) measurable question on prolificacy. These kind of opinions are only welcome when they are relevant to the question and referenced. No one is interested in Vranak's opinion per se (or mine, or anybody elses's). I don't advocate that anything be done about this except that Vranak either refrain from opining when his opinion has little to do with the question, or that he at least reference his replies when they contradict what Western academia has to say on the topic. Whether you stand behind your comments is lastly irrelevant, Vranak. The referencability of your comments is relevant though, and we ask you to give us some clue as to their provenance---Sluzzelin talk 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he stands behind them mostly mostly because he needs protection from rotten tomatoes... --Ludwigs2 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Russell topic, I don't see what the big deal is. Vranak posted an opinion, yes -- but he was clear that it was just his opinion. It's not referenced -- but many answers aren't referenced (only one wikilink exists in that whole discussion thread). He perhaps doesn't address the question directly point-by-point as it was phrased, but I do the same thing on a regular basis -- upon reading a question, I attempt to answer it not merely as written but as I think I am most capable and as I think will be most useful, and this often means redirecting the question a bit. So I have no idea why you're crucifying Vranak over this one. Maybe the opinion is utter hogwash (I find Russell tiresome, so I don't bother to stay familiar with the depth or breadth of his work), but a hogwash answer isn't exactly uncommon here, either, unfortunately.

Specifically breaking down the answer, what I see is, paraphrased, "Russell as 'one of the most prolific' is reasonable. Don't know if he's the most prolific. As a reminder, don't confuse 'prolific' with 'important' or 'leading', as quantity is not always quality. Oh, and stuff about media." Not the best answer I've ever seen, but not a useless one, either.

For the other topic, I don't see it on the RD. Can you provide a permalink? Note that I've added one for the Russell discussion, as it will undoubtedly drop off the RD soon as well. — Lomn 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the size of the deal stems from our perceptions on Vranak's specific ratio of helpful answers v casually phrased opinions that will probably provoke someone into responding. That perception is perhaps unfortunate, biased, and unfair, and the fact that we can't ignore it, as suggested by 70..., is unfortunate too, but it is the way our minds work. No surprise here. I don't believe Vranak is surprised at our reactions at this point anymore either. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Vranak has an unfavorable history, and that it'll color our perceptions, but as noted, I'd be far more impressed with 70's comment if, in the Russell thread, anyone else had bothered to reference a counterstatement. — Lomn 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A reference counter-statement to what? I replied twice in that thread, and provided a reference both times (though once was not wikilinked). 63.17 didn't provide a direct reference, but pointed out a specific counterexample (Sartre) for the OP to consider in one post and challenged Vranak's ignorance-steeped opinion in another. Saddhiyama pointed out the irrelevancy of Vranak's post, albeit more subtly than 63.17 and I. The three of us tried to provide help to the OP by providing facts, additional points to consider, and challenging a frankly unsupportable personal opinion. Vranak started trying to be helpful - and this is the real nub of the problem, he tries to be helpful - and then simply couldn't resist inserting his own opinion, despite the fact that i really had nothing whatever to do with the question. Saying all the replies are equally bad because none (well, two) of them are referenced is wronger than wrong. Matt Deres (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A counterstatement that Vranak's comment (the "Russell was a pedant" part is what particularly seems contentious) was inaccurate. You're correct that (elsewhere in the thread) you mentioned a concrete verifiable number of pieces of correspondence -- I missed that the first time. Contrast, though, with 63.x's direct response to Vranak: "Wow. WOW. I've seen a lot of ignorant statements on these desks but this has to be the winner.... Do you know ANYTHING...?" That's not an impressive counterstatement; it's a rant. And it has no more credibility than the original statement, because both are fluff. You list off several more fields where Russell is prolific -- but as Vranak fairly notes, "prolific" is not a synonym of "important".

On the other hand, references are provided for volume of correspondence, by both you and 63.x. But how is that relevant here? Vranak made a weak "that seems reasonable" statement with regard to that part, but surely that's not the part of Vranak's response that prompts people to say "that's the most wrong thing I've ever seen on here", is it? I see (and post, I'm sure) half-hearted "well, that seems reasonable" answers on here all the time, and they don't incite the reaction of this thread.

So, summarizing: the cited rebuttals to Vranak are to the part that isn't relevant. The rebuttals to the relevant part aren't cited (or aren't cited convincingly; I really don't know how Russell and Einstein co-signing a paper on nuclear weapons is relevant to Russell's standing as a philosopher, nor how Einstein's opinion of a man who considered him a "dearest friend" (p9) would be sufficiently unbiased to use it as a single point even if it were relevant). — Lomn 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be a bit at cross purposes. I was under the impression that the person making wild claims was the one who was supposed to bring forth the references and supporting documents. I (and the IP, if I may speak for them a moment) posted a few replies to Vranak to illustrate to the OP (remember them? hint: it wasn't Vranak!) that Vranak's opinion was just that and not a very widely held one. Russell has a goddamn Nobel prize and there are plenty of references in the article speaking to the quality of his contributions; if this was a debate, I'd say that the onus is on Vranak to support his claims. But the RefDesk isn't a debating room nor a soapbox, so instead I'd just like Vranak to either go away or post things that are on-topic. Why you're defending Vranak's attempts to hijack the thread and spout his opinions is beyond me. Matt Deres (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your bad faith is simply astounding Matt. I will be relieved when you are through whatever personal crisis you are going through and have less inclination to try to make a scapegoat out of me. It's just sad. Man up already. Vranak (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, linking in the other one: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_19#Moral_relativism.2C_nihilism.2C_and_utilitariansm. I see even less problem with this one. The OP asks "is it possible to be X, Y, and Z belief?" I'll assume the intent is "is it possible to believe in X, Y, and Z", as the statement as-is is utterly meaningless. Vranak appears to take the same approach. One could argue that the response has little to do with the question as asked, but that's because the question as asked is badly phrased. I'd have done the same. So: Vranak answers conditionally with something that amounts to "you can believe whatever you like, and no objective answer to the question exists". I agree entirely. I give this answer here all the time. Again, please explain what exactly is wrong with the post? What reference is possibly required here?

I get that Vranak had serious issues here in the past, but right now, I don't see it at all. — Lomn 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, no one else provides a reference, either. Just opinion! If you're going to nail somebody for posting unreferenced garbage, nail them where they're the exception, not the rule. — Lomn 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Answering a badly phrased question with a useless, smug answer like "Yes, it's possible to believe X, Y, and Z simultaneously - why not?" is useless to the querent and serves only to reduce the quality of the RD. Rallette answered the question after Vranak, with an answer that, although lacking any references, was at least a little analytical and useful. 2. "Nail them where they're the exception, not the rule" — this is also garbage; this is a Reference Desk and we're supposed to provide references when possible. Claiming it's OK because somebody else didn't is a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I dislike the lack of references, but as I mentioned above, I thought Rallette's answer was at least useful — an unreferenced "yes" or "no" or "sure" also reduces the quality of the RD and should just be removed from the desk, in my opinion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I understand your concerns Tuttle. Really my rejoinder is on the Humanities desk though. Basically, if Russell wasn't a pedant, if he really is a major figure -- well, what were his major contributions? It's an open question and if there's some good answer, so much the better, it helps elucidate the topic for the question asker and anyone else who may be interested. Vranak (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—in the past, someone was banned from editing the RefDesks after this sort of behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather bad faith of you to raise the spectre of banning, Treasury. What do we call that, a chilling effect right. Let's not talk anymore about this, let's just shut up and leave well enough alone. That is the idea isn't it? Please tell me it isn't. Vranak (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal advice

I believe that Wikipedia:Reference_Desk/Miscellaneous#Will I get a criminal record?? constitutes legal advice. Due to the numerous responses, I have refrained from deleting it at this point. Anybody think that I should/shouldn't? Falconus^{p t c} 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's legal advice because the querent describes his situation and what he did, and how he will be affected; and who knows what important details he's omitting, so I think it's a legal advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's far closer to the line than the one below, IMO not just because it relates to the OP's personal circumstances but because an accurate factual cited answer can't be given. Crucially, he might potentially suffer harm if he acts on uninformed guesstimates as to what the police will do next. The answer linking to NSW law was useful and objective, but only suggests what might happen, not what will happen in this specific case, the details of which we don't know. I support a response of "Sorry, you need professional advice, not the speculations of a bunch of random strangers" on this one. Karenjc 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal advice II

I removed the following question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Number_of_executors_for_an_English_will where the asker was requesting advice on how to proceed with will writing. I removed it. If anybody disagrees, feel free to put it back. Falconus^{p t c} 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that question was ok. I thought it was a request for legal advice at first, but actually if you remove the first bit where he gives the background to the question, it becomes a simple question of legal fact: "Do wills under English law need to have more than one executor?" That's a question we can answer. I won't revert you until someone else agrees with me, though. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, thought this one was a question of legal fact and not a request for legal advice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango, I agree with you too, although I didn't feel strongly enough about it to revert Falconus when I posted my response to the question only to find that the question itself had disappeared in an edit conflict - I reverted myself instead. I do feel it would be helpful if we could achieve a better consensus on what constitues legal/medical advice on the refdesks and what constitutes fact, preferably reliably referenced fact. The underlying aim of the policy seems to be primum non nocere, which is good, but there's a kneejerk "don't-let's-risk-it" reaction that sometimes zaps any question that touches on health or the law, irrespective of whether advice has been sought or not. Of course we must on no account give subjective advice that the OP might act on and damage him/herself in the process, but I cannot see the harm in offering facts, links to places where facts can be found, or other useful information with an appropriate caveat. I hate to see good-faith questions, even misguided ones, squished and replaced with a few stern words; it can't be encouraging for the contributor. In the case of this particular question, the OP is asking how many executors the law says you must have because his online will company is asking for two but he wants to name just one. Why can't we say "the law definitely says X" (with appropriate citation) if it does? Or (as I intended to say) "my own solicitor recently explained to me why people can create problems when they name only one executor, and this is what he said. It's possible your company is erring on the side of caution to protect your interests by asking for two, so if you definitely want only one executor you need to take professional legal advice, which we cannot give". I cannot see how such an answer would expose the OP to any risk or Wikipedia to any potential comeback. But maybe I'm wrong. Karenjc 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the jump from "I found a link that says X" to "the law definitely says X [and there aren't any laws elsewhere that modify X]" is legal advice. If we just stuck to the former, that would probably be fine -- but experience has shown that, left visible, people won't respect the distinction. Thus, many such borderline questions are simply removed (or hidden, which seems to work pretty well, too). — Lomn 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I do know what you're saying, and I agree - experience confirms that leaving dubious questions up does result in some unsuitable answers. It could be that the risk of providing misinformation truly does outweigh any benefit from allowing carefully worded answers, hedged about with caveats, which address at least part of the question. But I feel that at present there is confusion over the distinction between information and advice, that we sometimes remove questions unnecessarily in consequence of this, and that even justifiable removals must often seem curt and snappish to the questioner if the standard templates are used. I wonder whether collapsing them as you suggest, with a standard caption explaining that this was done because it appeared to be a request for advice, would be a better default position than removing them? Karenjc 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I too think the question was clearly a request for guidance on what the law says, not a request for legal advice. Such information is relatively easy to find - for example with just a couple of minutes on Google, I found this 2009 leaflet from Age Concern (a UK charity), which says "The will should name one or more executors". There is also this page from a UK solicitor's website which states "The minimum number is one Executor...".

IMHO, Falconus was very hasty in removing the question and if the OP had not replied to the removal, I would have been bold and reinstated the question right away. My reply would have probably included the references I linked above and suggested they sought the advice of a solicitor if the online tools were insufficient for their needs. Astronaut (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can clear up the discussion right here. I was already taking whatever action I needed to progress my online stuff - but I had got curious about the legal situation and my question was purely a request for a legal fact. HOWEVER . . . I fully accept that the form in which it was framed made it easy to read as a request for legal advice.

I thank all of you for helping a relative beginner in Wiki to better understand how you run these reference desks (and for the answer to my question). Gurumaister (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How well would this work to keep Israel honest? appears to be nothing but vile anti-Semitism (not to mention a WP:CRYSTAL violation). Would anybody object if it were closed? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would term it Israel-bashing (and not only by the OP, some contentions being made in a response too) - and as it calls for speculation, does not belong on the Ref Desk at all. I'd like to see it entirely removed or occluded with a banner (? template?) stating that this is not Ref Desk material, period. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We could just as easily ask the same question about Israel's enemies. Or, we could take the prudent road, and box it up. Go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or I could do it myself. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't have as much of a problem with the question as you three. As far as I know we don't have a ban here on stupid questions or Israel-bashing questions, as long as they're not just trolling or soapboxing. I think the crystal ball criticism is weak — this wasn't an unanswerable "Who will win the World Cup" question; it was a question that wouldn't be a crystal ball question if it were rephrased, like "Have other countries or entities changed their behavior in situations like X when their enemies did Y in response?" I don't think we should be dropping CRYSTALBALL on querents as much as we have been. All that said, I don't mind it having been collapsed, because it's such a weak question that it's right on the edge of plain soapboxing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've slept on it = and I think:

• (a) User:Comet Tuttle didn't get it -- this query was not good faith albeit ignorant or even deluded crystal-balling but outright soapboxing, using the RD to propose (reiterated with examples "fresh" out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about so-called characteristic Jew behaviors) an antisemitic (not just anti-Israel) program. And
• (b) I'm not satisfied with occluding the text, accessible under a [show] button. I want it removed as trolling. I object to the RD being used by a racist troll. Don't think it's racist? Would "we" allow a similar what-if proposition thinly disguised as a query if the topic were Negroes or homosexuals or women, rather than Jews whom somewhere at any time it's always bon ton to target and demonize?

People, this is my community for four years now, asking and answering questions honestly and respectfully (usually, and sometimes even with humor I hope isn't inappropriate). Where are this community's standards? I hope the fact that I'm a Jew by birth and an Israeli by choice doesn't relegate my genuine concern here to the margins.-- Deborahjay (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was a stupid question that was not asked in good faith. It happens all the time as humans tend to act upon stupidity far more than intelligence. People are offensive just as they are stupid. Deleting all stupidity simply makes it a game. Add something stupid, vulgar, and offensive just to get a kick out of watching everyone race to delete it. As for your question about others, we've had plenty of questions about every race, every sexual persuasion, and gender (including cross-gendered people). I understand that you take it personal and want it deleted. Having a personal interest introduces conflict of interest and, from your previous posts, I am certain that you currently have conflict over your reaction to the question and your desire to avoid conflict of interest - which is likely why you asked about deleting the question here instead of simply deleting it. Personally, I'd chalk it up to being far more intelligent than the questioner. Yes, he's an idiot, but do you really think that anyone read his question and sided with his pathetic soapboxing? If anything, his idiocy pushes people away from his argument and, therefore, should be showcased as a sign of pure amazement that people can possess even the lowest levels of intelligence yet still be capable of asking questions on the RD. Well, how would you expect an extreme anti-social lunatic to react to a question like that? -- kainaw™ 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really mind the RD straight-facedly answering racist, idiotic "questions" like "Why are black people stupider than white people", because I was taught that the way to counter "bad speech" is with "more speech". I'd point to a study showing that the querent's premise was incorrect, and maybe that educates him or her, or, more likely, other hypothetical readers, and so in the end it possibly, possibly does some good. And I think it's less rewarding for the troll. On the other hand, yeah, I know, "yeah right, that person's going to be educated by this, fat chance", and this is sort of a political stance and I'm not at all sure it's better for the RD itself. I'm fine with both paths (removal and straight-faced answering). One final point: I'm personally more easily trolled than an average RD answerer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Comet your example "question" indeed makes a racial distinction, if you subscribe to the proposition that multiple human races exist, but it is only a complex, not an idiotic, question. Answering it properly demands consideration of how relative intelligence can be measured, whether the question's Presupposition is tenable and potentially of the perennial Nature versus nurture debate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Date Messup

Why is the date for June 30 questions still June 29? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the bot that adds the date headers apparently missed the science desk. (It happens.) I'll go add the header now. Deor (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. The date-header-adding portion of the bot isn't perfect, and I don't generally babysit it. If you see a date header missing or wrongly placed, just use that Edit button and fix it! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Longest serving RD contributors?

Who are the longest serving Reference Desk contributors? You see some names come and go, while others stay the same. I've been asking and answering questions here since April 2006 or thereabouts. I'm sure there must be many who have been here for longer, but who are they? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 13:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I win. I was here before there was a reference desk. Or any remaining records - so you can't disprove me. :} These questions used to be dealt with on a page that came to be called the Help desk. See [1] for perhaps the earliest surviving version of that page - which history I see got incorporated into RD/M. My earliest remaining edit seems to be to the Help Desk on Oct 2003 but I can remember Larry Sanger chiding me for seriously answering a question on ghosts from a probable troll (so that would have been before March 2002). Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(awesome, Rmhermen :) I am abusing this opportunity to point out Wikipedia:RD regulars which hasn't been updated for a while. Please feel free to add your name or the names of other regulars to that list. (I just added Viennese Waltz). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rmhermen being awesome. I came across their name in an RD question about early talk pages (there weren't any) and took a look at their page. I was stunned that we still have someone here who comes from back when they edited Wikipedia using Telex machines! :) Franamax (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Telex machines? Luxury. Why back in my day we had to write our articles on sheepskin ... --LarryMac | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Scrolling quickly through the first 5000 versions of RD/M (Sep02-Aug04), I would nominate the following editors for second place: Tagishsimon, JackofOz, Finlay McWalter, Kainaw and Adam Bishop (in the order I wrote them down). Other variously active names I noted were Theresa knott/(the otter sank), DJ Clayworth, Nichalp, Jdforrester, Jmabel, Raul654. An impressive collection that! Franamax (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I was just going to mention myself :) I'm pretty sure I was here before there were specific Reference Desks, but Rmhermen certainly predates me in any case. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the ip editors 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, me too, (since 2006) - there's still some active editors that were here when I started - is StuRat still here? 94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 69#Anyone ever studied the average coverage of authors vs desks? from March 2010.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between a long-time contributor and a regular? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A regular is someone who replies to questions at a reasonably high frequency (I think you and I would both qualify), while a long-time contributor has been here for, well, a long time. I've been here for a few years now, but I probably don't qualify as "long-time" yet - I only arrived after the desks were in their current places, for example. Matt Deres (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

About 20 additional hours per week of free time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Shirley, banned editors must be counted in this list. I know they cant contribute now, but thats no reason to rewrite the history books. Or is the Rd under control of the Ministry of truth now?

Taser

On one of the ref desks, some guy has been asking how to defend himself against a taser, and some editors are actually trying to help him out. Since when is the ref desk a tool for evading police capture upon commission of a crime? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think there's any WP guidance that would forbid answering such a question. We have plenty of objectionable material on WP. If you don't like the question (or answers), if it doesn't violate policy then just move along. -- Scray (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Then in the spirit of "not censored", we should feel free to give out medical and legal advice also. In fact, asking about how to resist a taser is essentially asking for both medical and legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this question at WP:ANI now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the OP has or is intending to commit a crime? As it stands, it's a purely hypothetical question. The OP even said "Believe it or not, I was just curious.". Discussing methods to evade tasers isn't illegal. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Medical and legal advice are special cases, as explained in our guidelines and as frequently discussed here. Thus, they are outside the WP:NOTCENSORED guidance. There is no general prohibition against the discussion of illegal activity on WP, so it doesn't really matter whether the OP intended to do anything illegal or not. I don't think your statement (on AN/I) that "the ref desk regulars tend to operate in their own little world" is supported by the evidence: we follow policies and guidelines (established by consensus), we welcome anyone to join in (providing that they abide by the policy and guidance), and discuss openly when the application of those policies and guidelines is unclear. Happy editing! -- Scray (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting, Bugs. This is not too different from asking about how to avoid being injured when being attacked by a police nightstick. It's purely defensive. As for whether one should be able to defend oneself in such situations, I see no judgment that could possibly apply in every situation. In some situations police use of force is justified. In many cases it has clearly not been, even if one keeps ones attention on nations whose police forces we generally think of as being "just" (much less if one contemplates less "just" nations). Wanting to avoid personal physical harm at the hands of police forces is not unreasonable and it is not illegal or immoral. Resisting violence is not the same thing as resisting arrest.

The OP was not asking a legal question at all. I doubt whether self-defense information counts as "medical advice" under our guidelines. If you don't want to answer a question, then abstain from it. But I see nothing that violates any rules here, only your sensibilities. Your objection to me fits in the same category of a Catholic objecting to questions about contraceptives, because they believe that all sex should be reproductive. You're entitled to your opinions of course, but the Ref Desk should not be censored in such a way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to write YOU'RE ENTITLED to Bugs? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, why do you frequently ask people whether they meant to spell a word correctly after they've typoed it? Do you really think Mr.98 could have not meant YOU'RE ENTITLED (though without caps)? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As editors we are expected to put things right, and as article contributors we are warned that our contributions will receive corrections. The guidelines for signed posts are different: thou shall't not alter another's post. Specifically in the case of a confused homophone one may only ask what they really meant. Yes, it looks likely that what was posted was not what was intended, a case of indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spending three paragraphs arguing over an obvious typo... after spending some time trying to write out a well-reasoned and persuasive response on a talk page, that's exactly what I'd hoped the reaction to it would be. "Gosh, I hope they nitpick any typos in it, especially when there is only one sensible interpretation of what I could have meant. That would be a great use of their time and mine. There is nothing more beneficial to a community than pointless pedantry—it really makes one feel that one's efforts are appreciated!" --Mr.98 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.98 for self-correcting[2] the delinquent homophone when it became belatedly obvious to you. That was a salutory example of the high standard of your usually exemplary work. Sadly I lack the intellectual attainment that would equip me to appreciate your subtle redoubled[3][4] sarcasms but I doubt not that you excel in that valuable skill. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tasers are sold to the general public and are legal in many places. (Here, for example) If people other than law enforcement are allowed to have such weapons, it's not "evading the law" or "legal advice" to explain how to evade one. How do we know whether (for example) our OP has observed a belligerent neighbor or co-worker with a taser? While I'd personally feel uncomfortable with answering this question (and I didn't, specifically for that reason), I don't think it crosses any boundaries. How would we feel about answering: "A belligerent co-worker has just bought a taser to work. How could I defend myself against it if he decided to 'go postal' with it?" - any criminal wishing to get advice on how to evade police tasers could just as easily phrase the question that way but I think many of us would be more inclined to answer it when it's phrased that way. SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What crime? Perhaps this editor is an American or Englishman traveling to Saudi Arabia or Iran and doesn't want to be beheaded for being a homosexual? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

well, I put this question in the "adolescent machismo fantasy" category, and I think it's probably a bad idea to encourage that kind of thing. no good can come of it. Wikipedia editors are not (as a rule) sufficiently well versed in the martial arts to give informed advice about highly skilled physical acts (such as catching taser prongs, evading chokeholds, breaking boards with various body parts, dodging flying arrows, and etc.), and trying to answer such questions might lead some poor besotted fool to try such things, leading to arrest, injury, and even death. There are enough people who earn Darwin awards in the world; the Wikipedia Ref Desk does not need to be in the business of assisting them. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - and the simple answer is to simply not answer the question if you don't like it. However, we have no rule or guideline to say that we don't or can't answer such questions. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to point out that I found Bugs's comments in that thread inappropriate. Once again Bugs has taken a question asking for hypothetical scientific information and turned it into a soap-box for himself to moralize on.

First he twice suggests that there is no valid reason to want to avoid a taser, indirectly, then directly accusing the questioner of being a criminal. Then when he's called on this he resorts to a rather insulting and bizarre strawman attack.

I specifically came to the talk page to complain about this. APL (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Without defending Bugs specifically (he does well enough with that on his own), I will refer you both to that oh-so-true truism: Ask a stupid question; get a stupid answer. The fact that Bugs is a major purveyor of stupid answers is easily handled by discouraging stupid questions in the first place. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But, It's not a stupid question. People are often warned that the effects of electrocution are much worse if the 'path of least resistance' passes through the heart or spine. It's perfectly natural to wonder how this applies to tasers and it's perfectly natural to ask a science question in the form of a hypothetical.

Even if the question-asker's curiosity is more practical, I would never begrudge someone basic self-defense information. APL (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between a legitimate self-defence question and a question based on near-superhuman skills. If someone asked the correct way to swallow a sword (like stage performers) I would not give him the information, because doing it correctly (and yes, it is possible to do) requires years of practice. an unskilled person with the correct information about procedure would end up killing himself. If someone asks whether they will get a full shock if they grab a taser dart out of the air with their bare hands, then you need to recognize that doing that would require extensive practice and fairly significant physical skills - we're talking 'batman' or 'jackie chan movie' type actions. remember, jackie chan regularly broke bones filming his stunts, and usually required multiple takes to make it look effortless. and batman is fictional.

Put another way, I don't want to hear about some 'Dumbass' film where the doofus kids start off by saying "we figured out this stunt by asking people at wikipedia", and then go on to break their fool necks. --Ludwigs2 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The original question was not about "near-superhuman skills". The OP asked if putting his hand out when someone fired a taser at him would reduce it's effect. People instinctively raise their hands to block when something is about to hit them. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're reading the question too literally. To me it read more like a question about the effects of a taser on different parts of the body. (ie: Does it still incapacitate me if it doesn't hit my torso? ) But even taken literally its not entirely unbelievable that you might put your hands up and block a the shot. The attacker is probably going to be standing right there you might be able to put your hands up more or less right in front of the muzzle of the weapon.

Anyway, if a question-asker asked about Sword Swallowing, I would direct them to the Sword Swallowers Association International, mention the extreme danger as described in our article, which I would link, and then point out that a much safer and easier course of action is to use one of the gimicked swords widely available from conjuring supply stores. APL (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - there are perfectly good, legal reasons why an honest person could need to legitimately defend themselves against a taser - so Bug's definitely answered inappropriately when he assumed the worst of our OP because we are required by Wikipedia rules to Assume Good Faith - and Bugs simply didn't do that which is unconscionable. It would have been nice if the OP could have clarified why they need to know this because answers might have been more forthcoming if a good reason could have been given. If you suspected the worst, you could have politely asked "Why do you need to know that?". But in the end, the best answer to a bad question is to simply not answer it...I wish more people would do that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP did not ask how he could defend himself against a taser attack; the OP asked whether catching a taser dart in his bare hands would reduce the shock of it. The first question might have been reasonable (though the answer is, frankly, you can't); the second question is either (a) a misplaced science desk question, or (b) stupid. let's not give the question more merits than it deserves. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it stupid? People instinctively raise their hands to block when something is about to hit them. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

New essay prompted by taser question

In response to Bug's problems with that taser question, above, I've just thrown together an essay, part of which explains the difference between legal advice and simple legal information. See Wikipedia:Reference desk advice. It's a bit rough and ready at the moment. Futher contributions would be welcome.--Patton123 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too vague, and it shunts off too much to "subtle" differences, which isn't illuminating. I think the pre-existing Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice does a better job, as does User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Patton your essay presently illustrates by 3 examples what you consider is common sense. The first example of "Don't ask the OP unecessary questions" is poorly conceived because good reasons for asking include 1) Clarification e.g. "When you say 'this country' which country do you mean; and 2) Suggesting a consideration that the OP may need to take on board. That includes your example of 'Which rocket fuel do you think of using (implied: because that will affect the answer)?' which I find to be a reasonable first response. I agree with Mr.98. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I really dislike this essay. I don't think we should discourage people from asking the OP for clarifying questions. If a question is clearly answerable without asking questions of the OP, then we should obviously strive to do so - but I don't see any harm in asking for a clarification - even if it's really not necessary. What harm does it do? What we shouldn't do is demean the OP by making them seem like an idiot for not stating some trivial detail explicit. A somewhat vague question like "How much is it safe to drink?" could require a clarification: "Do you mean water or alcohol or something else?" - but "Do you mean mercury or liquid nitrogen?" is clearly an annoying pedant trying to 'score a point' by seeming clever (trust me, that doesn't work around here!). We do have a few super-pedants who do this kind of thing - but they are usually just made to look pathetic when someone else comes along with an actual, useful answer without the need for the clarification. I don't think we need a guideline in this regard.

But the essay's examples for medical/legal advice give PRECISELY the wrong results. All they do is to encourage the OP to 'game the system' by rephrasing their question. It's like that freaking stupid quiz show where you have to phrase your answer in the form of a question - it doesn't ANY difference to whether the advice should or shouldn't be given - why is it any safer/more-legal/whatever to provide an answer to "I have these symptoms, what's wrong with me?" versus "What would be the diagnosis from the following symptoms?" - either way we're doing the same thing - why should we allow people who know the right "magic phrasing" to get an answer when those who don't know that are barred from doing so? Kainaw's criterion is the right answer and this essay only serves to undermine that. Sorry but I don't think this essay has any value whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I also don't feel this essay captures the nuances of Ref Desk guidelines, nor does it jibe with current RD consensus. As such, I've removed its link from the actual guidelines page, as I feel it's inappropriate at this point to conflate the two. — Lomn 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Language Reference Desk contributions by Noetica

Visitors to the Language Reference Desk may wish to refer to archived contributions posted by Noetica. There is a convenient list of them at User talk:Noetica (permanent link here). If anyone wishes to comment about the list to me, please do so here instead of there. Noetica is away from Wikipedia, and will not respond to messages left there.—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone other than Noetica want a list of their contributions to the reference desk? No slight is intended; it just seems like an odd thing to do and/or advertise. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone who remembers a discussion to which Noetica contributed might find it more easily there than in the general archives.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Month by month analysis of how many people have viewed the talkpage?? Is there any kind of precedent for that sort of stuff? Don't get me wrong; I think it's cool that you went to all that trouble (and you obvious have their permission), it just seems like a curious step to take. The note on the talk-page reads almost like you're being held as his (her?) literary heir or something and you're now letting us know that your preliminary notes are in order and we can look forward to the authorized biography in time for the holiday season :-). And if you are, my vote for the title would be Noetica: Life and Laughs on the Language RefDesk. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical edits to question header on science desk causing offence

I re-buried this section. @SteveBaker: Do you accept my offer to take the issues below that concern you to Wikipedia:Mediation? Mediation can be non-binding, confidential and without preconditions beyond responding YES to the offer to help by a neutral mediator. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}} NOTE: Null section added so that links to this section will work either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammitical edits to question header on science desk causing offence

Copied across from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Reptile's_sense_of_time :

Some pedant has altered my title twice. 92.29.126.166 (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Correcting grammar is what editors do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers 87.102.23.18 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But not to other people's questions. I've altered my question title back, for the third time. There is plenty of other less than pedanticly-perfect grammar on these pages, go and interfere with them, not me please. 92.29.124.254 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Apostrophe explains the rôle of this punctuation mark in marking of possessives, as in the cat's whiskers. Editors have corrected the title of this question to Reptiles' sense of time. The title is not the question. When necessary, editors frequently correct a missing or faulty title. This is done so that the question and its responses can be properly archived. The guidelines[5] allow additions to titles that are lacking. Trovatare correctly punctuated [6] [7] the title. @92.15.12.165 your edit[8] moves the apostrophe from plural to singular possessive but Trovatore notes in edit summary[9] that the plural possessive is called for here. I think you should note that Trovatore whom you describe as "Some pedant" is a volunteer who answered[10] your question. I agree with Trovatore and advise you to observe the WP:3RR rule. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a great breach of etiquette to interfere with other people's wording. In any case, I'm only referring to one reptile, although I dont have to justify myself. I've changed it for the fourth time. Stop trolling. And I refer you to the link given by 87.102.23.18 above. 92.29.124.253 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please observe that I linked to exactly the same guideline as 87.102.23.18. You are now wilfully in breach of the WP:3RR ruling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be avoided by following "Do not correct spelling or presumed typos" as per the reference desk guidelines, linked above. I thought we all knew not to alter other peoples questions in this manner. If you feel strongly about spelling/grammar I would suggest mentioning the correct form, not unilaterally correcting. Don't forget that changing a section heading can break links to it as well.94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that since the questioneer asked not to have their title change, and the guidlines are clearly on their side, then Cuddyable is in the wrong here - especially in terms of continuing to edit war after a clear request not to.94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been loads of discussions on this, and they always end the same: don't edit other peoples comments, that includes section titles. The only time its appropriate to edit titles is if they're either too long as disrupt the page layout, or too short like "question". Theres nothing stopping you from pointing out peoples spelling errors if thats your thing. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean THERE'S, PEOPLE'S and THAT'S ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not change anything in the question. I changed only the section heading. I would not have changed anything in your running text.

Section headings are often changed; I admit I haven't checked to see what the guidelines say about this. The fact that changing a heading can break links is precisely why I changed it immediately, without waiting. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A proper citing of the referenced guideline[11] would note that it says about questions or answers (not titles): Do not correct spelling or presumed typos, or anything that might change the meaning of the question." Titles are considered separately. I remain with Trovatore here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on, the title is an extension of the question and should be considered as such. The whole reason for not editing peoples questions (and indeed any comment) is that you could inadvertently change the meaning of it. Editing titles also runs the risk of changing what the OP meant. Either way, the guidelines only say it's ok to edit section titles if they're "non-descriptive" or disruptive (very long for example). Nit-picking over typos isn't a reason to edit someone elses words. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If a title were ambiguous, I would change it, but otherwise I don't see the point. Especially if the OP objects. It just isn't worth fighting over. Is this a candidate for WP:LAME? --Tango (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If the title is ambiguous, how could you possibly know which disambiguation to change it to? Since you can't possibly know that, you can't "fix" the title and doing so would be very wrong because it might result in the OP being given an incorrect answer rather than people asking for clarification or answering the question both ways. If the title is sufficiently unambiguous, then we can all figure out what it was supposed to say and there is no point in correcting it (unless of course you think you're smarter than the rest of us...and therein lies the problem!). Either way, it's wrong to do so. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually find out what a question is about by reading the question, Steve. --Tango (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I posted that without having scrolled down to see the rest of this section. I now regret posting at all... what the hell is going on, guys? --Tango (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not worth fighting over, that is true. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both the above. And a reminder that the above discussion should have never taken place on the main page. and that you have to make a big effort to get into WP:LAME, let's not make that effort :) 94.72.242.84 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be the mayor of WP:LAME. --Sean 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's getting there. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3's role as resident grammar/punctuation nazi is well established - and I do my best to ignore the continual petty jibes we get about tiny typos and irrelevant grammar "rules". The English language is in a state of continual evolution - and the "correct" use of the apostrophe is one of those things that's evolving the fastest. That's all wonderfully debatable - BUT what is certainly NOT debatable is that we have a very clear guideline about not editing other people's posts - which means that this time Cuddlyable3 has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. So let's make this very clear: Our guidelines say that you do not edit other people's' post's's...OK? If you can't stand the occasional misplaced apostrophe - then bite your tongue and let it slide. If you can't do that then get the hell off of the ref desk and find someone else to annoy - it's not like we can't cope without your contributions. This behavior is not clever, it's not smart, it doesn't impress anyone, it sure as hell doesn't improve anyone's grammar - it just pisses people off and gets in the way of a smooth running operation and a friendly environment. So give it up and apologize to our OP for your unacceptable behavior. SteveBaker (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

SteveBaker is fond of citing Godwin's Law. This is what the nazis did. Calling me a nazi discredits everything else you say. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair here, I was the one who changed it the first time, and then changed it to the plural when it was changed to singular. I do regret the outcome, but I am not sure I can sincerely apologize. I find it very strange that the OP would deliberately insist on incorrect punctuation, and it is not clear at all that the guideline applies to section headings. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've apologised on our behalf to the OP User_talk:92.29.126.166. (Actually they did eventually change the heading to "reptile's" instead of "reptiles'" which shows the subtle problems inherent in this. 94.72.242.84 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the OPs issue was with the punctuation, it was with someone changing (for good or bad) what they'd written. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed...and rightly so. We have these guidelines for a reason. If the OP misplaces an apostrophe and gets the wrong answer as a result of genuine grammatical confusion, then that's their own silly fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. But if rearranging the punctuation of a question (and potentially changing its meaning) causes a question to be answered incorrectly or misleadingly - then that's a very bad thing. It's actually rather useful to note when a question is poorly written because in extreme cases, it might imply that the answer should be given in a more simplistic manner - or using simpler language because the OP may be a young child or a non-English speaker.

"Cleaning up" the grammar provides zero benefit. After all, if Cuddlyable can divine what the mis-written text was supposed to say - so can I - so it's not like Cuddlyable is helping us all out somehow or that he has some god-given telepathic means to know what the OP really meant. If the question is truly ambiguous then Cuddlyable cannot fix it - if the question is unambiguous despite grammatical errors, then there is no value in correcting it and all it does is subtract from the information that we have about the OP.

So the rule is that we don't change other people's posts (questions OR answers) except when it disrupts the flow of the page (like a missing </small> tag or something) - or when the questioner used a useless title like "Question?" in contravention of our request at the top of the page for a clear title. That's an excellent rule - and a cornerstone of how we make progress here. If we let people simply go and edit other people's posts, that's a recipe for chaos. It's exceedingly rare for revert wars to break out on the RD - and the reason this one did is precisely because Cuddlyable3 ignored a clearly stated guideline. The consequence was entirely predictable.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, it has yet to be demonstrated that there is a rule about changing the section heading. Please do not conflate "section heading" with "question". It's true that the heading will normally state summarize the question, but the question properly speaking should be the initial post, not the heading. Also I am uncomfortable with you blaming Cuddlyable for my actions. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression that the consensus would be that we include the section heading in the "do not edit others posts" rule if we had to clarify that rule. As for Cuddyable's role - the above (top) segment cut from the main page shows them not being sympathetic to the OP's issues. I haven't checked the full edit history, but it looks as if they were the ones exasperating (sic) the problem. 94.72.242.84 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no rule specifically about changing section headings, it's true: because they're part of the OP's entry, and thus should not be edited, per the general rule. There are two exceptions to the general rule that pertain to section headings:

1. It's fine to "to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability", and these are particularly frequent with section headers.
2. "If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title".

But if neither of those exceptions apply, for goodness' sake, just leave the OP's title alone. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to section headings have problems with these five characters: [ ] { | }.

• User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page one
• User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page two

—Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So you wish to add Wikilawyering to the charges of grammar nazi-ism? Come on! It's 100% clear that if both questions and answers and "posts" in general should not be edited - then the title (which is probably a question - and was certainly "posted") falls into that category. Claiming otherwise is really just a pathetic effort to worm ones way out of an abundantly clear guideline. If you truly think it was deliberately intended that the guidelines intended to allow you to do whatever you like to any title - then I think you would have to concede that we'd have said so explicitly because it's such a strange exception to such an otherwise clear rule. I don't believe you truly think that - you're just looking for a loophole to get yourself out of a tight corner. I know that and you know that - so let's stop pretending, OK? Well forget it - we're not impressed by Wikilawyering. See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - especially clause (2). SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a lawyer thing at all! I hadn't even looked up the text of the actual guideline. I really do not think of the section headings as being on the same level as the actual discussion. This is quite normal on talk pages, which is what the refdesks are. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that grammar titles should only be changed if they will prevent the functionality of the archive search. Questions should not be changed; if they are unclear, ask the OP politely "What do you mean?". I have my share of people speaking... lets call it beginner English and most of the time you can understand what they are saying. If you cannot, a polite word of correction or question would be in line. For example if someone writes "Bdoy temperature of retpiles" I would correct it because it would disrupt the search and make the section hard to link to. But if it is "Body temperature of reptile's" it should still be easy to find in the archives and I wouldn't correct it. I occasionally correct broken links such as someone calling sodium hypochlorite sodium hypochloride. It helps them to see what articles they are linking to.

For this example; I think that the header change was unnecessary, and the big deal about the change was unnecessary. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The archive search doesn't only search the headings - it searches the body text too. If you think the title is wrong, you are perfectly at liberty to say:

"I think the title is wrong, didn't you mean sodium hypochloride?"

- and then the archive search will still find it - and you won't have to break the rules and piss off the OP if he really did mean 'hypochlorite' for some bizarre reason. Also, if you just silently correct the title, then nobody will come along and tell the OP why it's "ide" and not "ite". Also, the OP himself may search for the answer to his post - and he'll be unable to find it if you've 'corrected' it. So, no - you don't have a good reason to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I believe you have swapped -ide/-ite in your discussion above. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - but now you have to ask yourself: Did he do it by accident or was it done deliberately to make some kind of abstruse/ironic point? SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(No, it was an accident) SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of changing any headers unless the text somehow breaks the page or if it's simply "Question" or "Query", which would be of little use to anyone. As I've mentioned here before, I make frequent use of my My Contributions special page which allows me to click directly to the question - and changing the name breaks the hyperlink for me. It is also my opinion that, unlike discussions on the talk page, the headers to questions asked on the RefDesk are indeed the "property" of the OP; they asked the question, the thread is theirs barring contraventions of WP:SOAPBOX, etc. I'm also not in favour of jumping on anybody due to typos or spelling errors and I try not to even point it out unless it actually interferes with comprehension or it is otherwise germane. And speaking of hyper-correction, am I the only one puzzled by the exchange taking place here? Matt Deres (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, world's gone crazy if you ask me. By the way did anyone else notice that the OP's corrected grammar appears more correct, and not the other editor's corrections eg [12] since the question begins Would a reptile (singular) ie if the title had begun "A reptile's .." which the following question seems to imply, and frankly I imagine the OP knows what they meant better than anyone else.............................94.72.242.84 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bare singular nouns are not ordinarily used in that way in English. Had it been "A reptile's...", then yes, but just "Reptile's" is weird. Unless of course he had a specific reptile in mind, say his pet iguana. But there was no indication of that. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is common to drop articles in headlines and similar contexts (email subjects, RD section headings, etc.) where brevity is valued. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the question heading was right or wrong - or whether the OP is or is not able to defend what (s)he wrote. It's that you aren't supposed to edit other people's post. It's rude, it's unhelpful, it's contrary to our guidelines...we do not permit it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But if they're wrong for multiple reasons, it's best to address all of them. Defense in depth, or something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the issue with offtopicness on that question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#What_bridge_is_this? : [13] 94.72.242.84 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the consensus is not to edit titles to avoid problems. Can someone please close this discussion with one of those nice boxes, and we can Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks.94.72.242.84 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the stupid boxing - a discussion isn't over until it's over - and when it's over it doesn't need to be hidden. Who made you ruler of the discussion page with the right to close off discussions at will? Maybe I should just stick boxes around all of your comments so people don't read them? Argh! SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, I suggested that we stop this pointless discussion. Cuddyable boxed it [14] one action of theirs with which I do agree. Maybe we should just stick a cork in your mouth too?77.86.6.186 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve is right. This is the talk page; there's no reason to conceal discussions here. And please remain civil. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I never asked the discussion to be hidden, just one of those nice pastel shaded boxes be put round it so we can walk away and do other things. But if the horse is still twitching it's still alive; keep hitting it with the big stick. (joke).77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Cuddyable didn't do exactly what I had in mind - I meant like this Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Example_of_a_closed_discussion.77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closing_discussions says (amongst other things: "Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. "...so that should not have come as a surprise. Discussions that should be formally closed are those that have a time-critical deadline - or those for which a clear consensus has been reached. Closing a discussion just because you personally have had enough is completely unacceptable. Hiding it all (especially when you are the person whom we're debating the actions of) is unacceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed on other pages discussions are closed by an independant person, with a summary at the top, giving a basic overview of the consensus (if any) reached .. it's helpful for future reference. I would expect the person to close the discussion to be neutral and an administrator, or of impeccable credentials.77.86.6.186 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology offered to SteveBaker about cork suggestion.77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. SteveBaker (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake, you guys—this is such a petty issue. Perhaps the header shouldn't have been edited, although the alteration was undoubtedly made in the very best of faith. The same cannot be said for the revert: I genuinely cannot think of a single acceptable reason for anybody to restore grammatical errors onto any Wikipedia page, at all. Now can we all move on? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced it was an error in the first place. However, it's best not to mess with section headers unless they're disruptive, because it breaks a type of link that apparently many editors use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree that there was no need to tinker with the title, and that the tinkering should not have taken place. However, there are grave problems with rewriting time, and since the adjustment was made, there was no good reason to revert it. I think the lesson of this story is "just cope." ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  Reverting it would restore the link that was destroyed by changing it, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually would. Don't think there ever was a link to it, but yes, probably.77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Since the question begins "Would A reptile..." the heading saying "Reptile's" seems acceptable. If he had headed it "A reptile's sense of time", there would be no debate. Which also goes to demonstrate why it's risky trying to "correct" an OP's heading or question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  I do not care about the grammar. At all. The change should not have been made; nor should it have been reverted. End of. How anyone managed to produce an entire page of debate about this is beyond me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  The grammar was fine in the original, and reverting it would fix the link that "correcting" it broke, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  The grammar was fine in the original—do you really find, I do not care about the grammar. At all, difficult to comprehend? And as for the second half of your message, I genuinely don't have a clue what it means. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(respond to Bugs) Actually the original was reptiles (wrong grammar), it was then changed (in good faith by Trovatore as we all accept) to reptiles', the OP then changed it to reptile's - signifying what they had originally intended it to mean I think.. .. Then that change was reverted (not sure why), then all hell broke loose unsurprisingly. 77.86.6.186 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've been told a number of times here by other editors, any change to the section heading breaks a link. So the heading should not have been messed with, and should be reverted to its original status, even if it's "grammitically" incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about it either until someone explained it. Look at an article's history or your contrib list. Off to the right is the edit summary. In front of it is a little arrow, which if you hover over it, tells you what the link was at the time. If the section heading is changed, that link is lost. That's the primary reason not to mess with section headings, especially on a talk page, or something like a talk page which is what the ref desks are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just changed the title of this section, to test the theory, and they were telling me correctly. If you look at the history, the only little-arrow-link that works is for the change I just made. Since I broke the link, the other arrows only take you to the top of the page rather than to the specific section. If you think this is petty, some regulars lectured me about this awhile back. I don't use that arrow, but others do. So DON'T MESS WITH IT. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back to "grammitical", and now all the links work again except for the one change I had made. If you all think this is petty, don't gripe to me, gripe to the ones who griped to me about it some months back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a null section just above this one, so that both links now take you to about the right place. I did likewise with the reptiles / reptiles' / reptile's thing on the science ref desk. Hopefully, this will bring home the point not to mess with headings, for practical reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here [15] is where I learned about this "link" stuff a couple of months ago. I was unaware of it until then. I'm guessing some of the editors in the above section were likewise unaware of it. It doesn't exactly jump out at you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, I had no idea the little arrow hyperlinked to a section, (in fact I'm not sure I knew it did anything) I would have expected it to include a "#section heading" in the pop-up that appears.. Put an outdent in, hope I don't get into trouble for that. 77.86.6.186 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you hover over the arrow, the article and section names appear in the bar at the bottom of the screen (or wherever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and I'm not going to bother to read this whole long discussion but FWIW, I wouldn't edit the title of someone else's question to correct grammar/punctuation/spelling unless it is likely to cause confusion. I definitely wouldn't advise edit warring over a title if the OP objects without a very good reason (and grammar isn't one of them). However previous discussions and policy outside the RD has established that as the title isn't signed, editing it is quite different from editing a signed comment and personally I wouldn't usually mind people correcting any titles where I definitely made a mistake (but would still discourage it because few people are likely to get annoyed if you don't do it, but some will if you do). Of course a better and more important reason (then the idea that they belong to the OP) not to edit titles is because as BB mentioned editing them does break links. On the other hand I do agree it's silly for an OP to edit war to keep a title with a mistake just because they don't like someone else correcting them or the way it was done (I'm not sure if that's what happened here or the OP genuinely feels their title was not a mistake or was making a pun or whatever else) and breaking the 3RR is definitely not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Between messing with the OP's entry and breaking the link, I would go so far as to say that what was done by the "pedant" was unwitting vandalism, and hence 3RR does not apply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW in case anyone is interested the relevant parts of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say

Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.

I've added some IMHO relevant emphasis Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that whoever wrote that guideline was also unaware of that obscure arrow link thing or else didn't care about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Should add that from memory most previous discussions concerned titles in this talk page, not the RD itself. Nil Einne (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We've got a fundamental dilemma, in that the guideline ignores the existence of those little arrow thingies. A couple of months ago they were telling me not to change headings on talk pages because it would break the links. The ref desk is essentially a set of talk pages. Obviously, you have to have flexibility in articles, and you have to be able to modify section headings if they violate policy in some way. But in general, they should be left alone. If the "corrector" understands whatever mistake was made, presumably the rest of us do also, so no "correction" is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Wow. Even Vranak didn't get this much attention... Aaronite (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Yeah, everyone come stare at the traffic accident.77.86.6.186 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite that dramatic. More like staring at a car with mismatched hubcaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have un-buried this section. Cuddyable3, this thread is not yours to close as you see fit; obviously, people still wish to comment. I can appreciate that you're just trying to stop this from spiralling further out of control, but that's not how things work here - closing a discussion after one day prevents people from registering their opinions. Mediation sounds like a great idea (though I think it's mostly used for content disputes), but this is not simply between you and SteveBaker; there are at least a half-dozen folks who have registered their opinions and some of those do not fall into either camp. Matt Deres (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting the nannyism of fixing someone else's spelling, the larger issue would seem to be, how important are those little link-arrows, which will be "broken" if someone messes with a section heading? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, Bugs, I think you've mentioned the arrows 8 times so far. Someone else responded once. It was worth raising, but I think you've provided enough emphasis of that point. -- Scray (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs has identified a bug in the Wiki software that fails to track title changes. AFAIK search engines are blind to punctuation so I wonder does moving an apostrophe break links? The OP doesn't even want to keep their first title version so we can deduce that they were as unaware as most of us were of what Bugs would reveal. The issue is not directly relevant in this thread which started about an alleged offence, not a defective function. If anyone likes to discuss the links dilemma it should be in a new section. I cannot claim any active involvement in the subject since the title of the question about lizards had been changed repeatedly before I re-corrected it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up about 8 times is that subsequent posters appeared to ignore it. So the question still remains, how important are those little arrows? To me personally, they are of no importance whatsoever, since I never use them. But other users, specifically Matt Deres and TOAT, lectured me that they are important to some users. So any discussion of this matter should take that issue into consideration. It doesn't stand alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How many is about 8? Having WP:AGF one is assured that users read carefully what is posted and hold their peace unless they can post something constructive, since to do so otherwise is to seem foolish. Some others post to prove it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I raised the concern about the arrows, and others commented as if they had not read it. I'm still waiting for someone here to indicate whether those little arrows matter or not. To me, they matter not at all, but I got lectured by your fellow regulars on this subject, I'm merely passing it along. Don't yell at me, yell at them! If you don't agree with them, speak up! I can't read your mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the arrows matter to me. (And I wish they could magically follow a question into the archives, actually.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. If the arrows matter to a significant number of users, then this entire thread can be archived, because the headers should not be messed with, period, end of story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The arrows are relevant to me as well. I have no idea how widespread this is, though. My suggestion is that when the headers are sufficiently unambiguous (i.e. not "question"), they should be left alone. However, edit-warring over whether or not the headers should be restored to a previous state is also LAME. Where the guidelines are more lenient towards editing headers (again, "question" and the like), the arrows are also often useless as-is, so I don't see a problem with that practice. — Lomn 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What to call (and do about, if anything) a question that is a teaser to watch a video?

This question is obviously (IMHO) just a teaser to watch the video, since the point of the video is to provides a detailed explanation of the trick. Is it acceptable to collapse, or delete, what essentially represents spam? -- Scray (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's spam, fry it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(No I think you've misread the question). Didn't the OP give the video of one trick and then ask about another subtly different trick though.77.86.6.186 (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right - re-reading it after your comment I see I overlooked the twist, hence I was wrong and this was NOT spam. Thanks - this is why I like to ask before "frying". -- Scray (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Humanities section

Does anyone else feel that Geography should be listed in the Humanities link? And if not, can someone explain to me why it's not there? -- Jack?! 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is one earlier discussion on the topic. I still feel it is one of the integrated disciplines that can fit several desks, depending on the exact question, and hence shouldn't be featured at only one desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From our article ...modern geography is an all-encompassing discipline that foremost seeks to understand the Earth and all of its human and natural complexities—not merely where objects are, but how they have changed and come to be. So questions could come to the Science Desk or perhaps the Math Desk, like Sluzzelin said. hydnjo (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Science I could see but how would the math desk be relevant for geography? Except for where someone pedantically states that you can not know the length of a coastline because of some kind of fractal theory. Googlemeister (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, some silly question related to this perhaps? hydnjo (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You just replied to someone talking about the coastline problem to suggest the coastline problem as an example... why did you do that? --Tango (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not pedantic. It's true. Any statement of the length of a coastline is completely meaningless without giving the scale at which it was measured and the choice of scale is, in most cases, completely arbitrary. --Tango (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just turning around "someone pedantically states" into a possible question about the subject from someone seeking information and chose the Math desk to do so, geesh. hydnjo (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I apparently. hydnjo (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hydnjo please provide a diff to help us understand! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It was purely a hypothetical speculation as to how a geography question might be posted at the Math desk so, no diff. hydnjo (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides the coastline problem, consider questions like: How do you calculate great circle distance on a sphere from the lat/lon of the endpoints? On an ellipsoid? What is the area of a "square state" whose borders are lines of constant latitude and longitude? These area calculations I'm doing fail when the region contains a pole; how can I fix them? -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Purpose creep

This is why opinions don't really have a place on the ref desk. There are some solid responses buried under a lot of statements of personal preference and counterstatements. But can we really say that most of the banter helped answer the OP's question, or bettered Wikipedia? If anything, it makes the good responses needles in a subjective haystack: the extraneous discussion does a disservice to editors whose useful contributions have been obscured.

Would it be possible for all regular and semi-regular contributors to agree to something? A mutually-agreed short period (e.g. three days to a week) where:

• First replies must contain a link or reference to a helpful article, book or external website.
• Users whose questions cannot be answered objectively are politely directed to a relevant forum.
• Subsequent posts must either:
  

1) build uncontroversially on a previous post, or

2) offer further links or references to illustrate a different point of interest, in the same way that first-repliers justify their response.

The goal of this is to see whether a conscious effort to get back to basics would improve the productivity, and quality of advice, of the reference desks. Ideally everyone would give this a spin for the brief duration of the experiment (as little as 72 teensy hours). We could put a banner up at the top of the RD pages so all editors could see we are trying a different approach to answering questions.

Do people think that this would be a worthwhile effort? Brammers (talk/c) 10:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey man we're all volunteers here, giving our own free time to Wikipedia for nothing in return. If the OP isn't happy with our free help, they can go and pay a professional service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.16.252 (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it would not be possible for all regular and semi-regular contributors to agree to something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a majority of the most active contributors? It would probably still make a difference. And I accidentally made my question unclear: I meant to say "Would you try this out" rather than "Do you think we could rope everyone else into it". Brammers (talk/c) 11:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we could all agree that we would never agree. -- kainaw™ 11:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we're never going to get 100% participation: this was a best-case target and deliberately set high to try to get as many people as possible involved. I was hoping that some of the big guns would all agree to pull in the same direction for a spell, but I guess the weight of opinion is that this won't happen. Oh well. Brammers (talk/c) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Like herding cats! hydnjo (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Unresolved

This cat likes Brammers' intention. But this cat doesn't want to substitute instruction creep for PURRpose creep. This cat suggests that we should mark every question within 24 hours with either one of Resolved or Unresolved. Like Mae West's explanation why she had a mirror in her bedroom ceiling, this helps us see how we are doing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

When cats start marking around here, I'm gone... -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Good luck Tom, maybe you'll catch a pretty one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with anyone except the OP marking questions as "resolved", since only the OP knows if their question has been answered to their satisfaction. I would however agree with encouraging questioners to use the resolved tags more often themselves, perhaps this could be included into the "how to ask questions" guide at the top of each desk. Also, what the hell is going on in this thread? OP raises some valid points and almost every reply is nonconstructive or a joke about cats? 82.43.90.93 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A large percentage of questions are posted by drive-bys who make only that one entry, or who never get back to it to acknowledge that it's resolved. I've also heard that the "resolved" tags have some technological issues, like causing the page to open more slowly or something. Maybe the tech-sperts here could speak to that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't refer to people as "drive bys", it has very negative connotations. While you are right that some people may never check back on their questions, it still doesn't seem appropriate to presume they got the answer they were looking and mark it resolved without confirmation from them, except in very, very obvious situations where it's a yes or no type question. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the unvarnished truth, and if the unvarnished truth bothers you, that's your problem, not mine. And if someone feels insulted by themselves being called a drive-by, they are free to complain to me about it directly, as my talk page is not protected. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT the truth. Calling infrequent or one time editors "drive bys" implies they came here with an intent to cause harm or disruption. "a drive-by is a form of hit-and-run tactic, a personal attack carried out by an individual or individuals from a moving or momentarily stopped vehicle." "Hit-and-run tactics is a tactical doctrine where the purpose of the combat involved is not to seize control of territory, but to inflict damage on a target and immediately exit the area to avoid the enemy's defense and/or retaliation." 82.43.90.93 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim the term "drive-by" doesn't have negative connotations? Have you actually even read the article drive by?? Calling people "drive-bys" clearly shows you think they're trying to cause harm or disruption, that's what the term means by it's very definition. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean ITS very definition? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your right. Thank's for corecting that for me. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You failed to misspell a few words in the above comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot share 82's strong disagreement because no one is obliged to satisfy the OP, instead we individually volunteer what we think is helpful and is our best effort. Often the Resolved status becomes obvious and placing the tag can both save reading time and discourage excessive OT diversions. Anyone who thinks the tag was placed prematurely is free to change it to Unresolved, hopefully with an explanation why. The OP here has agreed that their proposal is dead. Let's call them visitors not drive-bys. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there, in fact, a technical issue that would recommend not posting that "resolved" tag? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Any template forces the pre-processor to expand it, query the DB for the template page, substitute the template arguments, etc. In this case, an image is also used so that has to be retrieved/cache-checked as well. Also, when the page is saved, the what-links-here table has to be updated for the template. So yes, there is some (small) load. It's not really an issue for the reader using default settings, but for editors with non-default preferences there will be some latency while the parser renders their particular combination. The problem can get worse with a large number of templates, but I've seen the complaint more often arise with complex templates like {{convert}}. I personally just use a Unicode tick-mark: ✓ when I need to mark something resolved (which I wouldn't do on the RD's though). Franamax (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And even that is imperfect. I don't see a check-mark (or whatever); all I see is a small box with the numbers 2713 in it. Matt Deres (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh wise-guy eh? Why I oughta...woop-woop-woop! :) Indeed, venturing beyond the absolute minimum font load of Windows and/or OS/X is fraught with peril. You are only one MS charset download away from the green tickmark - but have provided a lesson to me that I should become known as the guy who closes threads with the notation U+2713, abandon hope all ye who enter here... food for thought, that. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Que? I thought it was a SVG ie this File:Yes check.svg , or am having obscure sense of humour failure? 87.102.42.55 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed an image in {{resolved}}. I was smart enough to figure out a much less system-intensive way of showing a tick-mark using just a Unicode character and some markup language - but not smart enough to realize that if you don't have international language support loaded on your system, it just shows up as a squiggly. Your humour ability is safe (for now). Franamax (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While RefDesk regulars might not have any qualms about changing an "Unresolved" to "Resolved", for someone new to the place (e.g. those who would be termed "drive bys" by Bugs), that "Resolved" tag seems pretty final. (It has a "Your question has been answered to our satisfaction. We don't want to deal with it further. We don't care what you think. Now GTFO."-ish feel to it.) If I was a new user, I doubt I would change it - I'd probably take the brusqueness as a hint and move on. Given how snippy Wikipedia users can be about procedural issues (e.g. the heading-changing thing above), I can just imagine a future exchange where there's an edit war where one user keeps re-opening the question, and another keeps re-closing it, claiming that insufficient evidence was given that the provided answer wasn't sufficient. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In some - perhaps many - cases, there's no real telling when the question has been resolved, even by the questioner. We often correct one another, sometimes even late in the thread, "Oh, yeah, forgot about that detail..." kind of thing. If the OP prematurely marks their thread as resolved or similar, it may prevent another respondent down the road from checking the question and correcting the answer. Of course, sometimes (not often!) my opinion swings the other way and I think it would be best for OPs to archive their thread as soon as they're satisfied with their answer to reduce drawn out joke threads and such. Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Matt Deres. I've seen questions being marked as resolved with incomplete or even inaccurate replies (which is why the "resolved" tag doesn't stop me from posting, if I so see fit). The OP will be able to glean the signal from the noise. I do agree that long off-topic debates etc. can be confusing, even annoying, but the solution is for us to restrain ourselves when we have nothing relevant to add, not for questions to be marked as resolved. (That being said, I wouldn't remove a "resolved" tag added by the OP, but I might revert one posted by someone else). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt has the right idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't post often, I do look all the time. I try and post when I have something relevant to add. (All to often, it's a goofy comment, but I try.) We would be best to only contribute when there is info to add or correct, as needed. Aaronite (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of Brammer's suggestion is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio on the desk. Specific dictums or mandates requiring citations are tough to enforce (just from experience, some questions don't work that way). But every contributor should think about every contribution: "am I adding signal or adding noise?" before hitting submit. Nimur (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Was looking for the up-vote button, then I realized I'm not on StackOverflow. I love that paradigm for Q&A. -- Scray (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks Nimur - you've got it in one. I was never going to suggest "compulsory" citations - firstly, as you say, they are not always appropriate and secondly there is no point restricting the freedom of contributors. A drive to see how we can maximise the signal:noise ratio through scrutinising each action we take might benefit the desks long after it's stopped.
I'm not asking everyone to agree to it on behalf of everyone else. I'm asking each user to say "Count me in." and step forward for themselves. Brammers (talk/c) 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to intentionally reduce the quality of the service I provide by restricting myself like that. It is certainly wise to consider whether a post is adding anything to a discussion before posting it, but specific rules, even self-imposed ones, are unwise. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it time for

Resolved

? Hee hee. Aaronite (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too totally agree with Nimur's "Signal to Noise Ratio Metric", it's an excellent personal guideline, we could do with a essay subpage such as we have with the excellent Kainaw's medical advice criterion. Obviously we can't legislate effectively for this, but +1 or whatever.87.102.42.55 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Noise"? We might find noise annoying, having to scroll down through so many layers of crud. However, the OP might find meaningful discussion, point dissection, and side points interesting and either learn from it or be more motivated about the subject, all of which seems to fit the mission of this very website. There is no noise but that which the OP indicateth. Let's give them the tools they need to guide discussion and put ourselves on the sidelines. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are certain editors here who think of themselves as the owners of the ref desks, and want to exercise pedantic control over how it's to be used. As you may have noticed, the slightest transgression (in some of their eyes) will result in page after page of discussion here - typically with no resolution. I used to find it frustrating, but more often now I just find it entertaining. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanking answerers

Thanking editors for their answers to my questions involves a judgement of timing. If I thank them too early, other editors might be dissuaded from adding their answers. If I wait too long, the discussion could go to the archives before I do so. If I say that I appreciate the answers (or some of them) so far, but that I would still appreciate additional answers, I might appear to be greedy. At other times, the answers (or some of them) have been unsatisfactory, and thanking editors might be equivalent to tipping for poor service. Therefore, I have only seldom thanked editors for their answers, although my appreciation for answers exceeds the quantity of my expressions about it.—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I often choose the greedy option. I guess I just enjoy thanking people. I certainly never interpret lack of feedback as a lack of appreciation. If everyone thanked the way I do, it might clutter up the desks. I'd continue doing whatever feels comfortable to you. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm too exuberant with my thank yous and they get reverted :( 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I wouldn't continue whatever feels comfortable to YOU (but I wouldn't have reverted you either). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure TT meant well, but he apparently failed to observe that you were also the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think things should be left for about a week before being archived. That would give everyone time to see their answers and offer thanks if desired.--88.104.81.234 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

They used to be left for a week before archiving, but a few months back there was discussion here and the time was shortened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What you call "greedy" I'd call gracious both to the answerer and to others who have not yet arrived/answered. I find "resolved" tags and thank-yous that sound final to be too stifling for alternative answers - no one should cut off the discussion, and the OP should be sensitive to the reality that once they've posted it, they don't own the question anymore (neither does any answerer). Go ahead and be gracious, but keep the door open. -- Scray (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the question. On the entertainment desk, someone might ask, "What's this song/movie/book" or whatever, and once the right answer is posted, that's pretty much it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing grammar, general bitterness

This is also why we don't fix a poster's title grammar unless within a couple minutes after the fact, and if it's obviously a mistake and unironic (and even then I'd be cautious). I think there is one idea we need to consider: barring vandals and trolls, the OP is always right. They are the ones asking the question - they are the ones who seek knowledge from us who volunteer as knowledge-givers - they are the ones upon whom it befalls to successfully convey to us what knowledge they seek, and sometimes there are indeed unknown unknowns that must be revealed through discussion. Point is, unless it's obvious the OP can't communicate too well in English, don't change their grammar - these aren't articles here. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It was done by Ludwig here [16] and should have been immediately reverted, if anyone had caught it, and the user should have been pointed to the megillah about it on this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I informed Ludwig of this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I support Luwig Ludwig because this is English Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a complete non-sequitur, Cuddlyable3. Do you, in real life, go around correcting the words people speak? Well, maybe you do; but observing passively the behaviour of others without getting caught up in it is a good discipline to adopt. It's even worse if one does that here, a la Ludwig, because it doesn't just comment after the event on what an editor has written, it actually changes what they wrote in the first place, which is intellectual theft and typographical fraud. Sometimes it's appropriate, even necessary, to make some comment on the spelling or grammar of what an editor has written, but it's never OK to make them say what we think they ought to have said. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, who is "Luwig"? I am completely and utterly unable to understand your comment, because I don't know who Luwig is. Unlike most people, I cannot understand writing with simple mistakes, so I insist you clarify your meaning. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I say another word, I apologise to Ludwig for my misspelling. It is corrected. Then I thank Coneslayer for correcting me. No less is demanded by this adage: The wise one loves correction, knowing that it guides to Perfection. The fool merely defends its error-making. The following explains my support of anyone who helps another to use English correctly and Ludwig in particular. This is English Wikipedia. As a courtesy to whichever side of the Atlantic is not our home side we accomodate both American and British flavours of English. If someone is moved to start a Wikipedia in a new speech form, such as (but not limited to) Pigin, phonetics, Ebonics, rap grunting, let's-revolutionise-how-the-apostrophe-works-ese or dumbed-down semiliteracy-ese, then all Wikipedians should encourage them. Just please don't do it here. If you are a visitor whose English is not good then we will help you by answering in correct English though there are good reasons for not rewording your question. The following is controversial to some: the title (section heading) should be used to categorise the question, not to express it. It is a good act to fix a poor title properly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you are such a fan of correction, I will use this opportunity to correct not only your spelling of "accommodate", but more importantly your etiquette: Authorities on the topic generally agree that it is poor manners to habitually correct the grammar of others. I would advise you to devote your talents to copyediting article space, where nobody has ownership of their words, and where we should indeed strive to maintain high standards of written English. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)