Misplaced Pages

talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:07, 29 November 2006 editLight current (talk | contribs)30,368 edits →Responses that reflect poorly on the RD: thats all youre gonna get← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,306,673 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 133) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>]</small></div>
<div style="color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all;"><div style="font-size:150%;">'''This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only.'''</div>Please post general questions on the relevant ].<br>Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.</div>
<div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div>
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|||{{pp|small=no}}}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/talk header}}
{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes |collapsed=yes| age=7 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |


{{center|''']'''
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{flatlist|
|-
* ]
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
* ]
----
* ]
|-
|] * ]
|] * ]
}}
|-
}}
|]
}}
|]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|-
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|]
|maxarchivesize = 256K
|]
|counter = 133
|-
|minthreadsleft = 4
|]
|algo = old(7d)
|]
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d
|-
}}
|]
__FORCETOC__
|]
|-
|]
|]
|-
|]
|]
|-


== Unreadable in dark mode ==
|colspan="2"|
----
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
__TOC__


Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but ] is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. ] (]) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
== RefDeskBot Archives: Caution ==
:It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::See ] @] ] (]) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. ] (]) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. <small> (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.)</small> -- ] </sup></span>]] 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you ] and ]! Looks great now. ] (]) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Great! <span style="background:white; color: black;">🐸</span>&nbsp;] (]) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


== Humanities and header hatnote ==
Just a couple of things to look out for to ensure that the archiving goes through with smoothly. There are a couple things that will confuse the bot at the moment, but they're easy to prevent if we're paying attention.
# Make sure every question has a proper title.
#: Do not allow non-titled text to sneak in below the date header. If somebody adds a question without a title tag, give it one. Not doing so will currently make the archives pretty messy.
# Make sure the date headers are done properly, i.e. <nowiki>= November 13 =</nowiki>, just to be on the safe side.
# Do not change the number of days transcluded, or move around the links to the transcluded pages. If you want to suggest an extension or shortening of the transclusion time, talk to Martin so that the bot doesn't get confused again.
# Be careful when restoring pages after a blanking so as to restore it in exactly the same manner.
# Add &lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt; tags or codify HTML/scripts in article titles to keep the archive indexes from screwing up. Normal Wikilinks are OK.
If a couple people keep an eye out for these things there should be no problems : )! ]] 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Last week, ] decided to to the humanities desk, and then ] decided to a few days later. Here's the content:
:How about a date with no questions (only very seldom on the /Math desk)? I've been adding a comment just in case. --] ] 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


{{redirect|WP:RD/H|the template header used in all areas of the ]|WP:Reference desk/Header}}
::Hmm... should be OK; the bot will probably just create a transcluded page with only the date header, though the index might screw up. It might be best to play it safe until we can ask Martin and make sure, but you can always just let it happen and see if it screws up or not; the bot isn't going to crash or anything, at the very worst it will just screw up the archives for that day, which won't be a big deal if there are none! ]] 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was . So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. ] (]) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi - sorry for my inactivity :) I think I've found the reason for that problem a few days ago, though freshgavin's points above are all still very important. The bot will accept <nowiki>=November 13= and = November 13 =</nowiki> - nothing else! The wrong date header, or the wrong number of transcluded pages will cause the bot to fail to archive anything that it hasn't already done - this is some behavoir that I'll look into improving, so it only fails on the bad desk. For the problem with no questions - I'm happy to report that there isn't one! The bot just takes all the text from the start of one date header to the start of the next, so the amount of text there makes no difference to it (thankfully ;)). Thanks - <strong>]]]</strong> 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --] 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for ] they probably know how to find it. ] (]) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


== Bots ==
==Editing archived responses==
If I look up something in the archived responses and find an erroneous response, or feel that an additional response would clarify or improve the quality, is it possible and or allowed to add something? ] 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words ] (]) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, I add to them all the time. Beware that it's not as likely that anybody will see the post, however. Therefore, you might want to post to the user page of the person to whom you are responding, in addition. ] 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:Where did you see that? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


== Fake Desi media content querant ==
::I had seen editors scold questioners to the effect that such and such a question had already been answered, but did not see how to search in the archives, then found that if site:en.wikipedia.org "reference desk" was added to Google search string it would turn up those archived Q and A's. As soon as I looked up several topics of interest, I found a veritable 'Child's Garden of Misinformation,' but wasn't sure about putting in my own thoughts. ] 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.)
== '''Note''': This page is 257 kilobytes long ==
Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Time for another talk page archive by the looks of it--] 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
*And in the last 12 hours since it was archived, it's already jumped back up to '''139''' kilobytes, we'll be ready for another archive by the end of the weekend--] 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC) :Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --] 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --] 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== I dont like what you have written, so Im going to delete it ==
To allow any '''one''' person to decide what "might possibly be offensive to some potential reader somewhere" and allow to them to remove it (except in clear cases of WP:BITE, WP:CIVILITY etc) is in my opinion the start of individual '''CENSORSHIP'''. This would be the end of WP IMO 8-(.--] 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:<s>Sometimes community pressure can be achieved by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of ]. --] ] 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)</s>
:Sometimes, the community's response on this talk page can be demonstrated by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of ]. --] ] 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Whats DFTT? Nothing under D in link! Also what happens if two or more people are being silly with each other at the same time? 8-)--] 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Well then, silliness abounds. I'll start the well, you know, the ''ignoring'' for now just to see what happens. --] ] 23:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::OK I dont mind! And I wont hold it against you! Not that I admit being a t**** or a disruptor. 8-))--] 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::::DFTT - Don't feed the trolls. --] (]) 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes thanks I did find it 8-)--] 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Censorship is a red herring here. You have no free speech rights on Misplaced Pages, except insofar as they serve the goals of the wiki. -- ] 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::"You have no free speech rights here?" Be prepared to be assimilated into the Wiki. Resistance is futile. ] 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

==I dont like what you have written, but I'm not going to delete it==

Neither am I unless it violates existing policy OR I can get someone else to agree rthat its not acceptable! 8-)--] 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I started this section but was remiss in that I didn't add context immediately below the header. As a result, the purpose for which I added the header can and has been misunderstood so I'll add my intent.

This is a talk page and as such is subject to the talk page guideline of
"''Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.''" I think however, that the guideline should not apply strictly to this particular talk page as it is not related to an article and am proposing that the guideline be interpreted more liberally here on this page. And further, as I have stated in the previous section, irrelevant or "silly" commentary should be ignored rather than debated at length. I'm definitely not suggesting that the RD itself be immune to the deletion of inappropriate comments. Just the opposite, because of the public face of the RD I feel that we should be quite strict about deleting inappropriate material there. --] ] 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Seagulls ==

Non-serious questions about seagulls are no longer funny. They are vandalism, and should be reverted on sight. ] 13:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


:I assume this was triggered by the (currently deleted) question on the Science RD about the placement of seagulls' eyes. I see you placed several notices on the anon contributor's talk page about this, but when he responded on your talk page, you didn't really explain your deletion, you just described the question as "idiotic". Taken in isolation, it looks like a serious question to me - certainly not idiotic. Yes, I know there is a history of "odd" seagull-related questions and answers on the Science RD - but labelling this particular question as "vandalism" seems a bit extreme to me. Is it possible that in this instance you are over-reacting ? ] 13:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:: No. This is a continuation of the seagull inside joke. Occham's razor. ] 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:: And let's be clear - brand new users don't know how to read edit summaries. This one does. I don't know or care who is behind this most recent stupid gull question, but it needs to be nipped in the bud. ] 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I hate bloody seagulls too and anything to do with them 8-(. However this is a serious question from a person who deserves an answer. Our resident seagull expert (Kurt) will be along shortly to do just that! 8-)--] 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: It was NOT a serious question, and it did NOT deserve an answer. Serious questions are NOT asked about gulls, and they are NOT asked by people that are reading edit summaries and know advanced wikipedia concepts like "revert", and "vandalism," but have no edit history. Is this hard for you to understand? ] 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::How do you '''know''' what is serious and what isnt. Can you read peoples minds? Pllease do not remove posts without agreement as to their undesirability on these pages. Thanks1 8-)--] 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I will edit the reference desk with the intention of having a useful and usable encyclopedia, not to preserve process fetishism. Further gull questions from that IP address will be shot on sight. Future gull questions will also likley be shot on sight. Reasonable editors to this encyclopedia, whom have been driven away from the RD by editors who like lolgull questions will return, if we allow them. This is not up for debate. ] 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hmmmm! Do you think that is wise? 8-)--] 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I have a dynamic IP. I've been around WP for ages but I've never really contributed enough weighty content to think about registering (I mainly go around reading stuff I'm interested in and correcting small errors that I find). As I've already explained to you, I was not attempting to vandalize or disrupt. I was watching the gulls from my window this morning and the question came into my head. If I knew what a fuss this was going to create, I wouldn't even have bothered. Thanks to all the people who've supplied serious answers. I really do appreciate it. --] 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Not. Fooling. Anyone. ] 17:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::I've explained my position and I don't see the need to do so any further. Anyone reading this is free to make up their own minds about my intentions for posting my question. I feel that you are not following the policies at ] and ] and that TBH, you are bang out of order. I'm not going to be drawn into a flame war over this. --] 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::JBKramer, starting a topic on this talk page and then saying "this is not up for debate" could seem a little inconsistent, perhaps ? Anyway, ''if'' the anon contributor really is trying to make a point instead of asking a genuine question, as you seem to suspect, then you have given them exactly what they wanted. ] 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Their point was to have a little laugh about their inside joke again. I don't see any laughing, do you? Also, before anyone gets the "just an innocent gull question" look on their face - {{User|84.68.216.184}}. ] 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::*{{User|84.65.209.240}}
::::::::*{{User|84.67.70.185}}
::::::::*{{User|84.67.79.146}}

:::::::::All the same dynamic ISP. ] 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those were all my questions. What's your point? I love seagulls and I want to know as much as I can about them and I would quite like to own one as a pet, so I was asking in the place where I thought I could get some answers. --] 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

: You can find answers to all of your future gull related questions at ]. They are no longer appropriate here. If KSB is unable to answer your gull related questions, I will answer them on my talk page. ] 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have noticed a strong trend on Misplaced Pages, which is taking the word 'vandalism' and making into something quite seperate from its classical meaning.

:Vandalism, in the original sense, was about defying the Roman Empire's rules and regulations. Defying the '''guidelines''' and '''principles''' of Misplaced Pages should not be called vandalism as such. It is merely inappropriate editing. Sometimes, inappropriate editing will indeed be vandalistic; but please be cautious that you do not use the word to accuse someone you don't approve of in an inappropriate manner, or you yourself might be called a 'vandal', though it will still be improper usage.

:Putting a string of profanity into the George W. Bush article is clearly vandalism. Writing about seagulls at the help desk is merely silly. Don't call someone a vandal if they are only being silly! Tell them to get their act together, yes, but with the right words!


Deleting questions as you see fit isn't your prerogative. Good questions have value regardless of the OP's intent. --]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

: Questions about gulls are not good questions anymore, and it is my perrogative. ] 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::No, JBKramer, I don't think it is your prerogative (or anyone else's) to arbitralily delete questions from the RDs just because you don't like them. The question did not break any RD rules. It was a sensible question which just happened to be about seagulls. ] 16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::If we were all given free reign to exercise our so called prerogatives of deleting anything we didnt like, there would be very little of WP left! Im sure all your stuff would go quite quickly 8-)--] 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I think it would be best if people were to ]. Take a deep breath everyone, and remember to ]. &mdash; ]<i>]</i> 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::::If the string of silly questions had been about, say, cucumbers (or masks, or whatever) instead of seagulls, then would someone be declaring that "THERE SHALL BE NO QUESTION ABOUT CUCUMBERS (or masks, or whatever) BECAUSE THEY ARE INHERENTLY SILLY!" and then bite the head off an innocent newbie who posts a question about the same subject? Things must be kept in perspective, and individual questions should be judged on their own merits. Deletion should be the exception, not the rule. A warning to a user who posts the same or similar question repeatedly as a form of trolling and disruptive editing could be appropriate, since the humor wears off rather quickly and becomes annoyance. ] 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hmmmm. Seems an interesting idea. After how many posts would we post this warning to desist?--] 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Three in all of history is not too many. One a day is too many. The max number which does not seem lke trolling will likely be in between and is pretty subjective. We must also allow for the child who is infatuated with a subject; you can't always judge the age and responsibility of an editor easily. Deletion messages and postings to the user's page should always be civil and be worded objectively and impartially. It would help to have a well-wordsmithed standard message 1 through say 3 to be posted if someone decides to delete a question which appears to be trolling or failed attempts at humor. ] 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

== Unilateral censorship ==
It seems we have a new censor on board who thinks he can delete anything he wants! I dont think he can! 8-(--] 21:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:That's just silly. Sometimes, the community's response on this talk page can be demonstrated by simply ignoring silliness when silliness seeks response. Something along the lines of ]. --] ] 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::What? My statement is silly or the action of censorship is silly? 8-)--] 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think Light current may be referring to - the deletion of a serious, but possibly misguided, question ''and'' an appropriate response. Nothing to do with seagulls. ] 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Is that true Lc? I assumed perhaps wrongly that you were bringing up the seagull dispute in this section.--] ] 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well that one of 'em! 8-(. Hes not actually asking for advice just info on what it might have been.--] 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Diagnoses expose Misplaced Pages to legal liability - review ] for why we may not diagnose a condition you say you have had or do have. ] 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Note that I followed up the deletion of that question and repsonse with a message to that users talk page, which he recieved, saying that we don't give medical diagnoses, because we don't, ever. This, like deleting gull questions, is not up for debate - but this one is not up for debate for obvious legal reasons. ] 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::People who dont debate usually get steamrollered here 8-)--] 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: It's not a debate because it's already a decided question. Got a problem with the gulls? Get a consensus of users (not reference desk hangerouters) that I'm wrong to delete it, or get me blocked for deleting them, and I'll stop. If you try to solicit opinion RE the gulls, I might present my case there. Got a problem with the medical opinions? Get the Foundation, Arbcom or Jimbo to stop me, because nothing else will. ] 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because a question is inappropriate doesn't mean we should delete it. On medical questions, for example, we can still say "That sounds serious, you'd better see a doctor immediately". Nobody will get sued for that advice, and it may even save a life. ] 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:Which is why I placed that information on the experienced users talk page after deleting the question. ] 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not sure we need to remove inappropriate questions of this sort; it's better, as StuRat says, to answer them appropriately. In this case, that means saying "see a doctor" and ''giving no speculation''. If there were speculation, I would strongly support removing it. -- ] 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Agreed--] 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Leaving it in a public place invites speculation. Disapearing it removes the impetitus for someone who dosen't know not to speculate to do so. ] 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Just chill right down Billy, its not that important! 8-)--] 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::JBKramer looks chilled to me. -- ] 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No I said chill. Dont become ice cold! 8-)--] 23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: (Edit conflict) I think we should be able to expect question-answerers to follow the rules. If the questioner were a new user, and in particular were anonymous, leaving the question up would be the best thing to do. Since it was an experienced user, though, your action seems sensible enough to me. -- ] 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== I just removed 140 kilobytes worth of discussion page to ] ==
The size of this talk page was really getting out of control--]<sup>'''The ]'''</sup> 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

==refdeskbot==

Surely the current activity of refdeskbot is wrong.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMartinp23&diff=88532501&oldid=88528654

Currently because of this bot changes to discussions on the main page do not appear in the edit history. The bot operator admits other users have 'complained' and says it would be a simple matter to fix. However he says he requires consensus before making any changes to the bots behaviour and suggested trying here. (See ])

(Personally I note that the bot is operating incorrectly and should be stopped, but as it is only a minor niggle I should try the correct polite methods first before becoming angry.)

So please help. Thank you.] 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:By way of background, the previous discussion is archived ]. I'd like to make it clear at this point that the bot is '''not''' malfunctioning, and is working perfectly as it has been coded (by myself, to the specifications given to me :)). Of course, the reason that the edits to the archives don't appear on the main apge history is that the edit is not beng made there, but on the archive page which is transcluded onto the main desk. This sort of problem with watching discussions is somethat similar to the above cited coversation (in the part of the bot behaviour it address) but is completely different in operation (previous proposal was to have transcluded archive pages from day one, this is to only move content off the main page and into archive pages after the full 7 or 4 days (depending on desk) - of course, this gives the stiuation that existed before the bot!). Just chipping in, based on my role as the bot operator. <strong>]]]</strong> 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
::Surely the archives should be for inactive discussions, (and any points made about previously inactive discussions should be made on the current talk page - with a link to the previous thread) - as it stands the archives contain still active discussions. This makes no sense. I understand the the bot is not malfunctioning as such - my view that the function it has been given is wrong. I think I understand that you know what the solution would be - it's obvious isn't it. (that is archive after 4 days I think and no transclusion). Could you give a link to who or whatever gave you the specifications so I can go and reason with them. Thanks {{unsigned|87.102.21.190}}
:::Any activity on the archive pages is well out of control of the bot. I don't see what you are complaining about. It also clearly states at the top of every archive page that new questions should be asked on the current page. I guess I should clarify that ''all'' discussion should be moved to the current page, but that doesn't really make sense because we don't allow starting threads without a question. There's no problem with continuing discussions after the question has been archived. In fact, the archive pages have ''always'' encouraged users to answer questions that weren't properly solved even after they were archived. That way any user to search the archives for an answer may come across it in the future. ]] 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

== Arranged marriage questions ==

The sections at ] and ] got a bit too chatty rather than factual in their responses, as the questioner himself noted. If a question appears to be clear trolling, it can be removed or ignored; if it's possible trolling, feel free to ignore it. But in neither case should the question be used as an excuse to have fun with the questioner. -- ] 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with SCZenz. If the questioner is serious then let's not screw around with him, please give a serious answer or just move along. If on the other hand you feel that it is a trollish question then I suggest that also you just move along; please don't feed the ]. --] ] 00:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yes but: If you believe its serious and give an answer, but it turns out to be a troll, then you have fed the troll! Game over. 9-)--] 01:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I suppose, but at least we're trying (aren't we?). --] ] 04:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::And you're better off feeding it than becoming one. ]] 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::If those are the only choices then, for sure! But can't we avoid both? --] ] 05:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Meaning??--] 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::LC: "Do not feed the trolls" definitely stands below the ''policy'' ], which states that we should "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary." If there's no clear evidence that someone's a troll, and you help them, and it turns out they ''were'' a troll, you still did the right thing. -- ] 17:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Just pointing out the gaping hole in the DNFTT approach! BTW I noticed that there hase been a lot of ']' going on lately. Ie certain opinions '''trump''' other opinions 8-( --] 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::I wouldn't call it a gaping hole, but I certainly agree that DNFTT must be applied with discretion. See ], which says (among other things) basically what I said earlier. -- ] 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Is the ] always a troll?--] 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

== Missing Day ==

Has anyone else noticed but all the QAs for November 18 seem to have been excised. I'm not quite sure what to do about this, as I assume any reversion would delete all that has been added since? ] 08:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Uh-oh. We've got problems. Give me a minute to find where it starts. ]] 12:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::The bot probably disconnected half-way through its update. Computing and Mathematics were correctly archived, but Humanities cut off in the middle (the 18th was removed from the current page, but wasn't properly transcluded). I'll see what I can do manually for now. ]] 12:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::OK, all of the questions have been transcluded and are now back on the desk. Thanks for the heads up. Now let's see what we can do about the other desks. ]] 12:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Someone might also want to look into the date headers for the 20th--]<sup>'''The ]'''</sup> 12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Good point. I just checked them and they were all done correctly so thanks to whoever did that. 11 and a half hours until the 21st so let's hope the bot's back by then. ]] 12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== French politics question disapeared ==

Where did the question about who would win the French election go? I think the title was something like '''Royal vs. Sarkozy vs. LePen'''. Are we not supposed to talk politics because these discussion systematically turn into wars? I can't find a trace of it. Thank you ] 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:Could your problem possibly be related to the question immediately above? If you asked on the 18th, it should be restored now. We have no problem with you talking politics : ). ]] 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you very much, yes, I couldn't remember which date it was asked on. Just to clarify, I didn't ask the question, I was just looking forward to the answer.
::Thank you ] 12:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

== Funny answers ==

I remember seing a discussion on this page about whether we should keep or remove the ''funny'' (sarcastic ?) answers. Can someone tell me what the outcome was ? -- ] | ] 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:No outcome. Eight archives of discussion. ]] 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed there was no consensus, though of course we all agree that funny/sarcastic isn't a bad thing. Nevertheless, I do plan to remove comments that are excessively far off-topic or unnecessarily insulting to new users. -- ] 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yes and because I dont remember you being elected as sole arbiter of good taste, I will revert it if I see fit ! 8-(--] 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the person who answers can put a mark (may be a smiley?), to indicate that it is not a serious answer. I am not sure if this suggestion has been considered (and discarded :-) )-- ] | ] 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well, there are those answers that are just funny, and those which are funny, but also answer the question. And some responses are so obviously an attempt at humor, it would be silly to mark them as silly. ] 07:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I always indicate my seriousness 8-|--] 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::See also ]--] 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion was an attempt to make theanswer not sound rude or serious. It is possible that a naive questioner will take a funny answer to be serious. On the other hand, if the question is ''Why is the black sea called black sea ?'', the answer ''Because someone named it black sea'' would be taken to be rude, even if the answerer meant it to be funny. -- ] | ] 08:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that such a symbol should be added when the answer can be taken two ways. ] 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How do I propose this to be implemented? Is there a page for this? -- ] | ] 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yes I have my own (brilliant) system! See ]--] 22:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the addition of such a symbol will probably render all funny responses less funny, or possibly unfunny. Much like the way that lots of exclamation marks make astonishing things seem more mundane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And funny things less funny. <small> And unfunny things very annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!</small> --] 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. A smiley at the end of a funnly line does not make it any less funny. May be a symbol at the beginning (indicating that what follows is supposed to be funny) does. I suppose that a smiley at the end of the answer should serve the purpose ? -- ] | ] 09:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Oh sure Wikicheng, then of course we must have the "smiley police" and then of course the inevitable "rv" and then of course the "smiley police review committee" and... --] ] 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that a small smiley placed by the person who answers wouldn't hurt. After all, nobody else but the answerer decides if the answer is supposed to be serious one or a funny one. But if you think that this is not necessary, let us not have it -- ] | ] 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:We don't need rules and procedures, we need common sense. -- ] 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The average questioner will likely not be falling down laughing as editors try to top one another with funny answers to his question. Imagine if two or 3 RLRDL's (Real Life Reference Desk Librarians) turned your sincere question into a subject of their humor traded back and forth like an unfunny TV Celebrity Roast. On the other hand, there are experts who contribute their time for this unpaid service which adds value to the Misplaced Pages project. A little camaraderie is perhaps their only compensation for perhaps $100 per day of donated expertise. It is more acceptable if the question is well answered first, and if the humor is not in the nature of poking fun at the naivete of the questioner. Such meanness or sarcasm hurts Misplaced Pages and drives off newbies, and might well be deleted. ] 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:THe critcism of poking fun at the questioner is a fair one and that should never be tolerated. But Im not really aware of this happening much, if at all, now. If the question has been answered, then as in a real library, the librarialns can have a laugh at the subject (not the customer) I really dont see anything wrong in that. Of course I expect that some will say that we must be deadly serious all the time. Watch the space just below here for instance.--] 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

== Impolite questioners ==
Please refer ].
Can we have a better way of dealing with impolite questioners ? All of us are wasting our time in either admonishing the questioner or arguing among ourselves. I suggest that we put a one line (or a template?) stating something like'''''Your question / reply seems to be rude / impolite. As we don't like to answer such questions, this is the end of this discussion'''''. Let us keep quite after this, unless ofcourse either the questioner rephrases his question or some kind hearted wikipedian answers the question in spite of the rudeness. -- ] | ] 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think people would answer it anyway, making the threat meaningless. ] 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Answering in a rude way also provokes rudeness. –]<font color="#FF0099">]</font> 09:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The purpose of the proposed template is (I presume) also to avoid an escalation of provoked rudeness. While the questioner was rude, the first reply given may also have come across as somewhat unpleasant and thereby triggered the reaction. Believe it or not, the use of the word "hell" is consider ] by some. What about a simple polite admonishment without stated penalty, something along the lines of: '''''<span style="color: darkgreen; background-color: pink;">Please help to keep the reference desks to be welcoming places. Rudeness is not considered acceptable. The librarians working to answer the questions are all volunteers.</span>''''' Maybe also sprinkle in some soothing fragrances or such. &nbsp;--]] 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with like'''''Your question / reply seems to be rude / impolite. As we don't like to answer such questions, this is the end of this discussion. If you wish to re-ask the question please be polite.''''' They can obviously ask again in a new section if they wish.
As for the 'black sea case' the first reply was abrupt - but did give a link to the page. We are not here to write essays. This may be rude but the reply just confirms the initial impression of the questioner ie "Do my homework for me, I'm a lazy little brat".etc. Personally I'm sick of even attempting to excuse such people.] 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::I prefer Lambiam's wording to Wikicheng's. Wikicheng's version claims to speak on behalf of all RD users ('''''we''' don't like to answer such questions'') and prescribes how other RD users should behave towards the questioner (''this is the end of this discussion''); both of these attributes are, in my opinion, unhelpful. Even better is not to have a template, but to respond to each rude questioner individually - templates encorage ]s. ] 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::''copied from the RD/S:''<br>
:::''] would seem appropriate to describe all comments after the forth one (by JBKramer).--] ] 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)'' <small>] ] 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)</small>

<blockquote>
''If you would ask your question in a polite manner, we may be able to help you!''
</blockquote>
::Would this be any good?--] 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::It's pretty simple really, if you don't care for the manners of the questioner then just move on. Your attempts to arbitrate manners to the many that will visit here will do as much good as giving the finger to a rude motorist does in reducing the number of rude motorists. Sometimes it's best all around to just smile at the rudeness, be thankful that you're above all that and move on. --] ] 01:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree. IMO questions fall into two categories, v/v rudeness: Clear trolling, such as, "''I hear you fucking retards don't have anything better to do than tell me how to give my girlfriend 20 orgasms an hour.''", which should be either ignored or deleted, and ''all the rest'', which, no matter how they are worded, we should either ''answer in ]'', or skip (for whatever reason - we don't know the answer, we don't like the way the question was asked, or whatever). ] 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ignoring such rudeness is the best way to deal with them. But do we ignore ? ''Someone'' is bound to reply to a rude comment / question and someone else feels like adding to it (moral support ?). After sometime, we have many comments and the questioner must be enjoying loking at them. My suggestion is to put a '''standard reply''' (that is why I suggested a template) after which everyone is expected to refrain from '''retaliating'''. But if somebody wants to answer the question in good faith, I am all for it. Taking all suggestions, can we make it '''''Your question / reply seems to be rude / impolite. You are not likely to get any more answers. If you would ask your question in a polite manner, we may be able to help you!.'''''
In any case, this will not prevent the guy from re-asking the question nicely, getting an answer and then thanking with a ''I still got the answer I wanted from you f!@$ing b@$%^&*s''... -- :-) ] | ] 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:WikiCheng please, there is no "system" to deal with impoliteness or rudeness that will benefit the RD. Adding layers of bureaucratic meddling will always be controversial and lead to unnecessary debate whereas ignoring any question that you dislike will not. We cannot and should not allow this very public face of WP to end up as either seen as pedantic or worse, made up of intrawiki squabblers. We've enough of that already. Please reread Anchoress' reply just above yours, it is as succinct as can be about this matter. There is zero energy required on any of our parts in ''overlooking'' rather than ''overseeing'' a question.<br>

:There is however something that we could all pitch-in and help with for the common good. Whenever we see an unsigned question, add the <nowiki>{{unsigned|username or ip}}</nowiki>template. This allows the rest of us to be one click away from information that helps in determining the appropriate response to an unsigned inquiry.<br>

:Oh, and please don't try to standardize the folks who are volunteering their time and effort to be helpful when help is genuinely requested. Give us at least in your mind, the ability on our part to reckon the differences between the obvious troll-baiters from the homeworkers from the genuine but uninformed from the "perfect" questioners; we usually know who's who all by ourselves. Please refrain from adding unnecessary overhead to our efforts to be a gateway for first-timers who are sincere but inarticulate. Our response in such cases is after all their first gauge about this project and a considered response (rather than a template) may make all the difference as to whether we gain a contributor or a detractor. <br>

:We really don't need a template for rudeness, a smiley for a joking response, a star for a "good" question, a ten section RD or any other substitutes for common sense. I do know the frustration of some who come aboard and feel that ''geesh - this place is really screwed up and I know just how to fix it''. But please, just hang around a bit longer in order to experience the richness and diversity of it all; there are folks popping in and out all the time and you'll see that we have a pretty good handle on things without formality. Not to say that there aren't some rough edges but rather to say that discussion amongst ouselves has had positive results without formal stuff. --] ] 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. -- ] | ] 04:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:OK back to you WC. :-) --] ] 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

== A question about a film ==

I have a question about a film. Should it be asked here or on the humanities section?

--] 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Humanities would probably be best, and post to the project page, not the talk page of that section. Good luck! ] 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

== keeping the reference desk factual ==

Moved from the main reference desk and, partly, from THB's talk page. This is in regard to the question on the humanities desk about unjust laws (specifically, ])

::Hey everyone, can we try to keep our answers ''factual'', please? Something like "many people consider the Patriot Act to be unjust, because they think it violates such-and-such fundamental rights" or whatever, would be better than THB's comment above. Reference desk, not discussion board. -- ] 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The question specifically asked about "unjust" laws. That requires opinion. -] 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::::No, it did not ask about unjust laws. It asked which laws are "considered unjust"... that could have been answered factually. Furthermore, even if a questions asks for opinions, it should be answered factually because that is the point of the reference desk. Please do not continue to use it as a discussion forum; the distinction between facts and opinions is very important. -- SCZenz 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:THB" & moved here by THB because it was a response to a comment here. -] 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We have to be more accepting of opinion, as many fields in the humanities, language, and even soft sciences don't lend themselves to strictly factual answers. For example, the precise shades of meanings of words can't be documented scientifically. ] 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:What do you mean by that exactly? 8-)--] 15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==Re: Escorts==

''(Discussion moved from project space <small>] 10:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)</small>)''

:::So this page is now to be used for giving advice on obtaining the services of prostitutes? A real class act. ] 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::That's miscellaneous, isn't it? It doesn't fall into any of the other categories. Or were you suggesting restricting the content of questions here? ] 04:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm suggesting that there are questions which people should have the intelligence and sense of taste to ''ignore'', if not remove altogether; and giving advice on escort services and prostitution falls among these. There are limits, even in your libertarian world; or at least I assume there are? Perhaps you would like to give advice on access to child pornography? ] 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Clio, there's a method to my madness. I'm not going to address your indirect insults, but bear with me while I answer your queries.

::::::First, I look at it like this: just as most parents would undoubtedly prefer their kids to get information about sex and drugs from them, I'd prefer for this guy to get his information about the sex trade from me (a sex-positive feminist with a lot of accurate information about sex work) than from one of the scumbag STD-infected serial philanderers on the escort review boards.

::::::Second, the problem with judging people for answering questions on topics some people find morally reprehensible, is that such morality is completely relative. The 'child pornography' angle is a red herring, because it's illegal in every respect, unlike prostitution (in the English-speaking world, at least). But if we judged questions by their moral value, we'd be in a big fat mess, because it would introduce an unenforceable set of rules that would doubtless be used (as you have used them right now) to chastise good-faith editors for attempting to use the board for its stated purpose.

::::::Third, it's a relatively legitimate question, possible to answer factually, asked in a neutral and correctly-worded way, and it happens to be in one of my areas of expertise. Therefore, IMO it's better to give a thorough, neutral and legitimate answer ''quickly'', because that lessens the likelihood of the thread being taken over by the goofy chauvanists who love to have a yobbo party on these kinds of threads.

::::::Fourth, consider that the OP (who may in fact have been a troll, as s/he was blocked for trolling shortly after posting) is - if s/he in fact asked the question in bad faith - getting more trollish glee out of your shrill protests than s/he got out of my factual answer.

::::::And finally, if someone (you for instance) had decided this question was NOT legitimate, or was a poor use of the boards, and had deleted the thread (including my answer), I would not have protested, and I doubt anyone else would have.

::::::--] 06:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I have clearly touched a raw nerve, Anchoress. I, too, am a feminist, and I am only too well aware of the causes and, above all, the effects of prostitution, and the forms of slavery that now accompany it. I can see nothing in what I have written that is either insulting or shrill ( a term, if I were so minded, I might be tempted to call insulting); I merely said, as a general comment, that people should have the intelligence and good taste to avoid this kind of question. I am sorry that you have taken this personally. I for one will not, nor will I ever, delete any question: simply ignore those which deserve to be ignored. However, I bow to your superior knowledge in these sexual matters, and will do my best to see that our paths do not intersect in future. ] 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Actually you haven't touched a raw nerve at all, Clio. But as to the insult, I was the only person who answered the OP, and you said that some people should have the sense and intelligence not to answer certain questions. The inescapable conclusion is that I, by answering the question, lacked sense and intelligence. And if I offended you with my characterisation of your response, I apologise. But I am ''certain'' that the OP, if s/he read your response, would characterise it thus. If you feel you need to stay out of my way for your own self-preservation, I won't try to dissuade you (you wouldn't be the first), but you certainly don't need to on my account. I am neither offended nor angered by anything you said in this thread, and I certainly don't bear any grudges or feel a need to maintain distance. ] 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::My self-preservation? Despite your detached tone-and your denial-it's all too obvious that I have touched a raw nerve; I am truly sorry to have upset you in this fashion. However, I must confess that it was not just the fact that you replied at all that disturbed me, but the content of your reply. Some poor woman, who has managed to control her sense of disgust, is then to be sent packing by some creep because she does not meet his expectations. Now, that really is bad. And I am sorry, but I have to say this: for a woman to be giving such advice makes the whole sordid thing even worse in my estimation. ] 09:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Lol, well, I promise you that you haven't touched a nerve, and I ask you to believe me. I communicate in strong language that's often mistaken for emotionalism; just ask my boss! I've come to grips with him several times when he mistook my Vulcan for Klingon. (I'm serious, email me and I'll send you his info and you ''can'' ask him. It's really, really true about me). Anyways, I truly, sincerely am not hot about this issue, I'm not the least bit irritated or touchy, and again I'm sorry if my characterisation caused you offense. My other words I stand by (despite your disgust), because they were offered in good faith and based upon my personal experience. Peace. (I mean that, I'm not just saying it and I'm not being sarcastic). ] 09:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::::''Pax vobis''. There are too few intelligent women here to risk a serious falling out. ] 09:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to see questions deleted. Whether the question is in poor taste or not is....a matter of taste. It is also irrelevant.
I also believe that when a troll asks an answerable question, it should be answered, and everyone moves on, seems easier than deleting it. Behind a trolling question is a lack of knowledge about the subject, and I don't think the reason for asking a question is relevant. (To be clear, I don't believe this particular question is trolling at all.) LIke I read on another website today, if someone doesn't like a particular post, there's a little "X" up in the corner of their browser and they can click on it. -] 07:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A factual, neutral response to a question about a licit and legal service (in many parts of the world) is perfectly appropriate for the RD. Please stop insisting we share your offense, Clio - Anchoress handled the question very well. ] 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:I am not insisting that ''you'', or anyone else, share my views on this or any other matter under debate. Try to think a little more clearly. ] 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, that's how your comments, and your strawman of child pornography, read. I'm thinking clearly enough, thanks. ] 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people are enraged by sexual questions while others are perfectly fine with them to me suggests that we need a Sexuality Ref Desk, which the more sensitive readers could then avoid. ] 12:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== a question about Dedicated servers ==
''(question moved to ])''

== Tarka the otter section removed ==

I the section on "Tarka the otter" from the Humanities reference desk. It seemed to be a clear-cut case of a question calling for opinions, which was in fact not possible to answer factually, and it was asked by a user familiar with the reference desk and its proper purpose. The responses were likewise ''all'' discussion, which is again not what the reference desk is for. If I missed something, and someone can argue that this discussion involved actual facts, I will apologize for my error. -- ] 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:SCZenz - there are other recent RD questions that call for opinions and cannot be answered with facts - for example "why are French women so much better-looking than English women" from Humanities RD Nov 25th. If you are going to take it on yourself to cleanse the RDs, I think you need to do it consistently. ] 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'd like to do exactly that, and I've been trying to, but I had limited time over the holiday and I guess I missed that one. (I'll go back and look now.) Bear in mind that I'm only one person, trying to do the right thing as time permits&mdash;as with everything on Misplaced Pages, if you think I'm a good thing you're welcome to help me. -- ] 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::. I'll try to survey the entire ref desk over the course of the day... but in general, if you see a problematic section I missed, you can bring it to my attention&mdash;or better yet, take care of it yourself! -- ] 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::SCZenz - I won't be helping you in your clean-up campaign, as I don't happen to agree with your approach. However, my point was that if you are going to start a clean-up patrol on the RDs then you need to do it regularly and consistently, otherwise it could appear that you are acting in an arbitrary fashion and not treating all RD contributions on an equal footing. If you do not have time to patrol regularly yoruself, perhaps you should think about organising a rota. ] 09:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yes you are correct. It was question prompted by the mention of otters somwhere on RD. I wondered if anyone had anything positive to say about it, or whether others found it as boring as I did! Of course I could have phrased it as: '''What are the literary merits and demerits of the book 'tarka the otter'?''' Would that be removed?
--] 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::That would be an ok question. An even better question would be to ask for information on published criticism of the book. -- ] 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:Oh and also, I think you should get agreement from somone else before removing stuff!--] 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with SCZenz. The question is more suited to a chat site than a Reference Desk. --] ] 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::I think there's consensus among Wikipedians that certain questions are inappropriate for the reference desk; it seems inefficient to get committee approval every time I act on that consensus. A better way, and the standard for Misplaced Pages, is to get consensus that I made a mistake afterwards; if people often agree that I screwed up, then I'll obviously change how I do things. -- ] 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Im not suggesting committee approval. Im just suggesting that you get at least someone else to agree with you thet the (any) offending item should be removed. You may be surprised at who agrees! 8-)--] 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Lc, Are you perhaps suggesting that you'd delete your own question if it were deemed to be inappropriate for the RD? --] ] 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::If two consenting editors agree, then it can be removed. If I was convinced by another editor that my post was not appropriate, I would remove it myself. I just dont like having a '''sole''' arbiter. 8-( --] 00:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::I understand that you don't. However, in clear-cut cases it seems better to do the right thing promptly, and argue about it later if necessary; this is, after all, a wiki. -- ] 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Yes one meaning of the word Wiki is 'quick'. But the other meaning is 'informal'--] 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Why exactly is it so critical to remove it quickly that this trumps any concerns about fairness ? Will the foundations of Misplaced Pages collapse if this question is left in for a few more hours ? ] 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== An advice question that I think might have been handled wrongly ==

I do not know if the reference desk community handled ] correctly. It seems to me that the question requested advice, and was responded to with personal opinions about what to do (including what was more or less medical advice) rather than facts. Any thoughts on how we could have handled this better? -- ] 00:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:Not strictly a medical question. But we could have treated it as one. Other homebrew recipies from peole who have solved this problem, I think are valid answers.--] 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::It's not strictly a medical question, but borderline medical advice (e.g. to take specific chemicals to possibly help) was given. The point is, everyone gave what ''they'' thought should be done, and nobody pointed to any references or studies on the issue. Providing references is what we're about here, not providing advice. -- ] 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Are vitamins classed as chemicals or drugs? I think this is a marginal case that could be looked at either way--] 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The meaning of dreams is nothing but opinion, so no strictly factual answer could be given. ] 12:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==Unhelpful responses==
The following is copied from RD/S and is an example of what we should not be doing, being unhelpful:
:''==Sticky notes==''
:''What is the adhesive on sticky notes? ''']<i></i>]''' <small>(]|])</small> 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)''

::'']--] 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)''

It is far better to move on to another question if you can't be helpful. --] ] 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:THe link links to all the glues under the sun and as such the answer is helpful (but not necessarily complete)--] 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Also a quick and dirty answer is sometimes all a questioner needs and is better than no answer.--] 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::In this case the questioner ''knows'' that it is some form of "glue" as he has used the word ''adhesive'' in the question. Your response seems uncaring, flippant and unhelpful. --] ] 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::It may seem so to you. But thats your interpretation. Ask Mac what he feels.--] 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The person asking the question isn't the only one reading the page. We want the ref desk to appear welcoming to those with questions. -- ] 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::That just aint gonna happen. Some Q&A will always be misinterpreted by someone (Take Popping collar for instance). It appeared offensive to DirkVdM (hence his relpy I assume) but apparently was not intended to be.--] 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::OH Jeez! Nos da!--] 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::And good night to you as well. --] ] 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

== Removed from ] ==

<small>I took this accidentally-unhelpful answer, and discussion thereof, out in order to make it easier for the question-asker to find the answer to his question. -- ] 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)</small>

] After looking see what you think. 8-)--] 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think the link to ] is precisely ZERO help in answering the question, and I find myself muttering "wtf?". --] ]

::Yes well I shouldnt mutter too much. You may get locked up! Oh and BTW, what help is your staement to th OP?

<blockquote>
''In film technique or audio recording, '''splicing''' means to join the ends of two pieces of film or magnetic tape, for example, in editing.''
</blockquote>
--] 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::Photoshop's "Splice" tool does not do that, nor is it a program used for film technique or audio recording. Aka your answer is still "precisely ZERO help in answering the question" as Tagishimon put it. --] 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::So? It was still an attempt to help ]. How does criticising me help the OP?--] 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::It is a not too gentle reminder to you that if you know damn-all about the question's subject matter, you should not waste the time of the questioner and the community by posting fatuous links, nor patronise them with a comment such as "after looking see what you think" after directing them to a place which will not in any way assist their thinking. Even charitably assuming your good faith in making the posting, you were inconsiderate in not pausing to consider that your ignorance disqualified you from answering. Show a little restraint please. (Oh. And your "Toys and Prams" question is a churlish ].) --] ]

:::::Please do not post personal attacks ]. Also see ]--] 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

==Responses that reflect poorly on the RD==
The following is an example from RD/S of an unhelpful response that reflects poorly on the RD:
:''==Castor bean==''
:''I decide to eat a ], will I die? ''']<i></i>]''' <small>(]|])</small> 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)''

::''look it up--] 01:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)''

That response is uncalled for. If you don't intend to be helpful then just move on to another question for which you can provide a helpful response, --] ] 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::'''No''' Im sorry! I linked the word in the OPs post for the OP to look it up. So the response was helpful! Check the hist!--] 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::Anyway Mac is a regular RD editor and knows me. He's not a newbie!--] 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Then he knows how to look the Misplaced Pages article first. Thus telling him so is, once again, unhelpful. -- ] 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Call it a gentle chiding then. Like what you are doing to me! 8-(--] 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Also, Mac isn't the only one that will read that particular Q&A. A newcomer could easily become intimidated by curt responses such as yours and be reluctant to post his own question fearing that it might be deemed "stupid". --] ] 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::And further, you aught not be modifying a question as you did by wikilinking as it adds a layer of confusion for the rest of the readers. If you would like to wikilink a word then do so in your response. --] ] 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::If I add a link to a question or title, I try to say that in my response: "Click on the link I added to the title to see our article." ] 11:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::I aint got that sort of time. If Id put " Look at link". Is that curt or OK?--] 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Anyway Ive done it now- thats all youre gonna get! --] 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference deskThis 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 Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Misplaced Pages, please see Misplaced Pages:Help desk.
Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133


RD Guidelines

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Unreadable in dark mode

Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but Misplaced Pages:Reference desk is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_214#Dark_mode_for_logged-in_users_on_desktop_coming_this_week! @Baseball Bugs 97.113.14.140 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. 97.113.14.140 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.) -- Jack of Oz 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Jdlrobson and Izno! Looks great now. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Great! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Humanities and header hatnote

Last week, Mod creator decided to add a hatnote to the humanities desk, and then PrimeHunter decided to remove it a few days later. Here's the content:

"WP:RD/H" redirects here. For the template header used in all areas of the reference desks, see WP:Reference desk/Header.

Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was one reason given for its removal. So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, the comparison – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for WP:Reference desk/header they probably know how to find it. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bots

Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words Avyanna.Owam (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake Desi media content querant

Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.) Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --Viennese Waltz 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)