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.

Guilty as charged

Guilty as charged. I try to keep my inner grammar Nazi at bay, and I succeed most of the time. But sometimes he’s goaded beyond endurance, and he’s only human.

All I would say in my defence is this: A taxi driver knows they’re required to take their passenger by the shortest and cheapest route to their destination, unless the passenger specifies some other route. Readers of texts are like taxi passengers: they expect to get to their destination without interruptions, pauses, back tracking or other unexpected developments. If these things do occur, they lessen the value of the ride to the passenger, while increasing the price. And that’s a doubly bad thing.

The above was, in effect, my experience when reading Kainaw’s post. Sure, it didn’t take me long to work out what he meant; and maybe my playing a deliberately straight bat with a deliberately straight face didn’t win me any favours. I was not actually as naïve as I may have appeared, and that was disingenuous, for which I apologise. And there I was the other day, telling Cuddlyable3 to bite his tongue when he saw something he didn't like. How low the mighty have fallen .... but they shall rise again, have no fear.

On a philosophical note: some people take as much care with their language as a surgeon would with a patient’s anaesthetised body, or a chef would with his pièce de résistance, or a painter would with the brush strokes on his canvas, or a conductor would with the symphony he’s presenting, or a mathematician would with his proof of a complex proposition, or the IT people would with making Wikipedia work properly. I am such a person, and I would never apologise for that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a strong distinction between beating up on newbies who obviously don't know English well, vs. teasing the regulars for writing something that's unintentionally funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is entirely the result of another user's highly annoying practice of nitpicking the obvious. When Mr. 98 is editing, it appears that he follows every single post I make with a rather rude demand that I provide some verifiable reference for every single statement. So, I was initially going to state that because Jodie Foster likes Italian so much, she probably has a home in Italy. But, that would result in Mr. 98 demanding a reference. So, I slipped in a disclaimer that it makes me assume she has a home in Italy. If Mr. 98 wasn't being worse than a grammar Nazi, I wouldn't have to slip in disclaimers throughout every post. -- kainaw™ 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the next time you get assaulted by a Grammar Nazi, tell him to stick it where the moon don't shine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Mr.98 if he comments civilly about source quality. In this thread he supplemented his opinion with gratuitous abuse which I do not allow on my Talk page. @kainaw, don't worry about what Mr.98 might say when you post. Nothing Mr.98 has done justifies your connecting him with those perpetrators of "the ultimate blasphemy" (Michael Bentine speaking about Belsen), the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1920 - 1945. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that he is not civil. However, I do not see where I attempted to connect him with anything other than his hostile requests for references. -- kainaw™ 18:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "Grammar Nazi" in this case is less like Hitler and more like the "Soup Nazi". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The term Soup Nazi was made up by an american TV comedian in 1995 and was protested as a damaging slander on restauranteur Al Yeganeh. The comedian seems to have apologised, as he should. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Where in the TV show was the actual guy's name given? If he recognized himself in the character, the problem is of his own making, and no apology is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs, Wikipedia has an article on what you are doing to restauranteur Al Yeganeh. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To placate Cuddlyable3 you might want to use the less exciting term "grammar police", although the grammar police don't have such a neat logo. 81.131.25.84 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if everyone is picking their word to be offended by, can I pick one also? I think I will opt for "moist". Instead, use a less exciting term like "wet" or "damp". -- kainaw™ 19:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I also suggest using "grammar extortionist" instead of "grammar blackmailer", should the need arise. 81.131.25.84 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What, those are somehow better than "Nazi"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just mean because blackmail is such an ugly word. 81.131.25.84 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have just the term: Tongue-Clucking Grammarian, from the song by MC Frontalot, who probably lurks right here. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "nanny"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The "G" in KGB stands for Grammar. Aaronite (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How this ended up on me, I'm not sure. But in any case, I only get a little rude when people are very egregious about their either incorrect information or wild generalizations. I don't follow anyone in particular on that. When people make a habit of saying nonsense or citing horrible sources, I certainly do try to be direct in pointing that out. If they appear to be ignorant about the purpose of this desk, I do sometimes suggest they either shape up or take their work elsewhere. I don't beat up on newbies or people who I think are in good faith just incorrect at times. I don't think I've called anyone a Nazi, but I might be wrong. But I don't hold personal grudges. I spend 99% of my time on here actually trying to answer questions, and have honestly no interest in trying to police other answers unless they are really bad or are actually disruptive to what we are trying to do on here. I see nothing wrong with putting disclaimers in one's posts about what one does not know — I do it all the time with my own posts. It is a good habit in a place where we are trying to provide answers, to acknowledge where one is just guessing. To present guesses as facts is exactly what we are trying to get away from on here. This is not a chat room. But I am not wedded to my take on things; if people whom I generally trust as having good sense disagree, I will happily defer. (For anyone who cares, the two comments above stem, I believe, from a criticism I gave Cuddlyable3 regarding his use of Yahoo! Answers as a reference, and presumably when I asked Kainaw to justify his blind assertion that generic drugs were manufactured with cheaper quality by the same companies who made the brand-names in order to convince patients that they should shell out more money for the brand name. Or maybe when I reacted in an admittedly testy manner to what I thought was some bad advice he gave someone on database architecture. Whichever. I think my general points on these are fairly clearly correct, though my means of delivering the messages in question probably could have been more sugar coated.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It is obvious to Mr.98 that both I and kainaw have had unsatisfactory contacts with him. Mr.98's first sentence "...I'm not sure" above shows the same kind of insincerity as this comment on the desk. There is nothing to complain about in the rest of what he says above. It is unjust to connect Mr.98 with grammar corrections because AFAIK he has not posted any. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no insincerity in "I'm not sure". This thread here was prompted by several off-topic replies to an off-topic grammar correction. Mr. 98 was not involved in the distraction, and I too am not quite sure how it ended up on him, despite kainaw's explanation "Actually, this is entirely the result of another user's highly annoying practice of nitpicking the obvious ...". Questioning the factual content of a reply or asking for references is actually helpful to the reader and on topic, unlike grammar corrections. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it is easy to see how this all relates. I posted an answer. I edited the post because Mr. 98 repeatedly makes very rude demands for references. The edit created grammar ambiguity. The grammar ambiguity resulted in a nit-picking comment about the bad grammar from an IP. Bugs claimed that the IP was actually a well-known user. That well-known user came here and stated it was him. I explained that this was not created by a grammar issue. It was created by an edit I made as a result of Mr. 98's rudeness. The side-comments about use of the word "Nazi" have nothing do to with what caused all of this. So, claiming that it is hard to see how it ends up on Mr. 98 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

As for what I mean by rudeness: Mr 98 used two examples of his rudeness towards me, so I will explain those further.

In the first one, I explained that while the acting drug in a medication is the same from generic to brandname, the effectiveness is not always the same. I gave an example of a long-acting drug that, in brandname form, releases a little every 2 hours. In generic form, it releases a lot every 6 hours. Depending on the person, the brandname may be more effective. Then, unrelated, I mentioned that the same manufacturers of brandname medications also manufacture generic medications in order to reinforce that the acting ingredient is the same, but the way it is packaged in a pill changes. His response, as I read it, was that I was claiming that drug companies purposely make crappy generic meds so they won't compete with the brandname meds. That is not remotely close to what I posted.

In the second instance he stated, a person wanted to know how to set up a many-to-many relationship in a database using a single field. I explained that if it was a many-to-one relationship, you could use an enum field. Instead, I suggested a separate table to map many values from one table to many values of another table. I pointed out that using a bitfield where each bit relates to a value is something that should only be done by experienced programmers. Mr 98's response, as I read it, was a very rude assertion that I was telling the user to use a bitfield and that I knew nothing about databases at all for making such a ridiculous suggestion. His suggestion to the questioner was to use a separate table to map the values from one table to another (identical to my suggestion).

In both cases, Mr. 98 completely misread my post. He then rudely demanded that I back up what he somehow thought I suggested. When I explained that he misread my post, he responded with another rude statement. In the end, the insertion of a disclaimer in the post that started this particular thread was the result of not wanting to deal with Mr. 98's rude requests. -- kainaw™ 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... we really don't need to have this conversation on here. It seems to be derailing things. I've posted to both of your talk pages with explanations and apologies for being rude. Perhaps we can resolve this amicably. I doubt anybody else cares about the few, recent squabbles I have had with the two of you, to be honest. Let's not clog up this talk page unless you are really trying to make some kind of broader action against me. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay by me. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Me also. -- kainaw™ 13:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too. -- Alpha and Omega, aka Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the same deal as last time. We have to ask why there is benefit in complaining about or correcting grammar/spelling/punctuation/whatever. I can imagine three reasons - none of which seem acceptable to me:

1. To make the person doing the correcting feel somehow superior because of their grasp of the language. I hope we can all agree that this is a bad thing...but I strongly suspect this to be the most common motive here.
2. To try to teach the OP better English. This is (IMHO) a terrible reason. Our questioners don't come here for language lessons (well, they might - but they'll go to the language ref desk for that). If they ask why there is foam in their fishpond, we don't also toss in un-asked-for advice about improving their sex lives or their personal finances...so why should we correct their grammar? It's like if you went to a real library reference desk and the librarian berated you because your tie didn't go well with the color of your shirt instead of answering your question! It's really rude and entirely off-topic to do that - I wince every time I see it happen. Worse still is that this almost always derails the thread. Look at that thread about the fishpond. The poor OP had to re-ask the question further down the page in a desperate effort to get an actual answer - and the answer was derailed AGAIN! That's unacceptable behavior - those involved should be ashamed of themselves. We're here to answer people's questions - nothing else. Saving the planet from the evils of misplaced apostrophes is not the role of the Wikipedia reference desk.
3. To try to "fix" a question that's somehow hard for subsequent respondents to understand. That's a more laudable goal than (1) and (2) - and it's possibly even justifiable in some cases. But there is a serious problem: If the question is somehow ambiguous without this correction - then the person doing the correcting is just as likely to be misinterpreting what the OP is asking as anyone else reading the question (unless you think you're god's gift to linguistics...in which case, see (1) above). Worse still, you are imposing your best guess on which of the possible interpretations of the question is the one the OP intended. If you are wrong, you may well derail the entire thread. I recommend that if the question is truly ambiguous - with two or more reasonable interpretations - then you should refrain from correcting anything and simply (politely) ask the OP which he meant - without snarky grammar comments - and if possible, save time by answering the question both ways: "Did you mean <interpretation A> or <interpretation B>? If <A> then the answer is <this> if you meant <B> then <that>." Doing it like that allows subsequent respondents understand the source of the possible confusion. But if the grammar/spelling/punctuation is incorrect - but still comprehensible without serious ambiguity - then this is in no way a valid reason for correcting it. That's the case in maybe 99% of the cases where people try to correct our OP's.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No SteveBaker it is not the "same deal". This section was triggered by the ambiguity of a post by kainaw that included "Being fluent in Italian and having shown a lot of interest in Italy in the past, I strongly suspect that she has a home in Italy." That was an error in word order (the sentence could better have been constructed as "I strongly suspect that she being fluent in Italian and having shown a lot of interest in Italy in the past has a home in Italy."). The OP's question was not involved yet that is what you keep addressing. Your rhetoric above is a succession of strawman attacks starting with "We have to ask why there is benefit in complaining..." (no, we don't) and continues with your WP:AGF-failing psychobabble about "feeling superior". The rest of the rant displays your own intolerance of any interaction with others concerning language errors so obviously that little comment is needed. If it was painful for you that your misspelling of it's/its was seen by me and others here, then that is something you will have to get over. Don't pout with nonsense examples about improving sex lives, shirt color, saving the planet from evils, god's gift and allegedly snarky comments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually SteveBaker is correct, and I didn't even notice the alleged word order problem of Kainaw's Italian comment. Just stop the grammar corrections, please. You tongue-clucking grammarian. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Kainaw's response in that case was mildly ambiguous.

Did Kainaw mean that the OP had fluency in Italian - or that Kainaw has fluency in Italian? If you squint a bit and tilt your head 10 degrees to the right, the words could maybe read either way. So it might be that either of these two possibilities could be the reason why Kainaw suspects that the OP has a home in Italy. I don't think it's really ambiguous though, and it certainly didn't make any difference to the answer given. I can't imagine why Kainaw would mention a personal interest in Italy as a reason for providing that answer - so anyone with a modicum of common sense could figure out which was intended. Indeed, by correcting that sentence in the way you did, you picked just one of the two possible interpretations and thereby made it clear that you weren't confused by the possible ambiguity either. So if none of us were confused, the communication fulfilled its task and no correction was needed.

So I have to ask: What were your motives for correcting Kainaw?

In the absence of further information, I suspect it's just that you're addicted to some supposed superiority you feel over Kainaw (and others) that drives you to point out how much cleverer you think you are...well, trust me, I've been on the receiving end of your petty nonsense and I do not feel for one moment that your command of the language is devastatingly impressive. That's just not the way you make people feel. In 'Article Space', we need people to come in and improve our use of the language - but outside of that limited realm, language lawyers are just annoying. So, please stop doing it. WP:DBAD applies here.

Having said that, I'm not so much concerned with people correcting our answers. We ref desk regulars are thick-skinned and have mostly learned to simply ignore the petty complaints of self-appointed language-lawyers and to get on with answering the questions in the best way we know how. My main complaint is with people who complain/correct the OP's original question. That's just rude - and too often derails the thread unnecessarily. We should all just refrain from doing that.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. Kainaw posts an ambiguous sentence. [1]. IP 202.142.129.66 shows how the ambiguity can mislead. [2]. Comet Tuttle is rude about 202.142's post. [3]. BUT then here Comet Tuttle says [4] "I didn't even notice the alleged word order problem". HELLO ?

SteveBaker thinks Kainaw was talking about the OP! Please go back SteveBaker and read the [5] question. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs now and then. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was incomplete. I meant to write: "On first reading, I didn't even notice the alleged word order problem of Kainaw's Italian comment." I didn't notice the harmless "error" until the IP decided to start this whole thing by correcting Kainaw's allegedly incorrect grammar, which defies what I am pretty sure is a consensus on this talk page that correcting other people's spelling and grammar on the Reference Desk is a dick move unless it's truly necessary to prompt the errant editor to clarify a totally unclear post. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Comet Tuttle, thank you for clarifying that you belatedly noticed the ambiguity, thanks to the IP 202.142.129.66. It would have been better if you had expressed your displeasure to the IP on its home page. The IP never corrected Kainaw's post and only based their comment on what was in it. This rude post[6] showed no concern for the OP's question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I handle this correctly?

This looked a lot like like the first bad example in our guidelines for medical advice only in reverse order, and was screwing up an otherwise acceptable question. I figured I'd remove it and post here so that any discussion of our medical-advice guidelines wouldn't clog up the desk. Should I have left a notice of its removal in the post? Please feel free to revert if I've overstepped my boundaries or I'm coming off as an anti-Wikipedia, pro-censorship ninny. :) Regards--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The best approach would have been to say that we're not supposed to address specific medical issues. Simply removing part of the question without notice is probably among the worst approaches, I'm afraid. Looie496 (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just removing part of the question doesn't change anything as far as whether or not the OP is asking for medical advice. I don't think the question is asking for medical advice. It's asking us to look in a crystal ball, though. --Tango (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the OP meant to ask for medical advice, either, but I was afraid that what he/she mentioned about their specific case might draw speculation ("That dog bite is probably pretty deep, so...") about the OP's injuries, which, since there's no way to know how grave they are or the likelihood they can be ameliorated, would only raise false hope or misdirect the OP. In the end, the details of the OP's scars didn't add anything to the question except slightly hint for medical advice, so I've added notice about the removal to the post with a summary of the above why we can't consider such details.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

side question: I've been seeing these 'secure.wikimedia.org' links (like the one at the top of this thread) popping up here and there for no particularly identifiable reason. Why is that, and what are they for? --Ludwigs2 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

When you log in to any of the Wikimedia projects, you're offered the option of logging in on their secure server. While data transfer from the secure server can be slightly slower than the default unencrypted version, it offers better protection from password snoopers. While its good practice to use the secure login, in most situations for non-admins it's not really necessary unless someone tech-savvy is out to get you and steal your Wikipedia identity. You can read more about the specifics at HTTPS. As for the links themselves, they're "side-effects" of people posting links to pages on Wikipedia while they're logged in over the secure server.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "it's good practice". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

oh, cudds, you're sooooo cute when you do that. --Ludwigs2 22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "Oh Cuddlyable3". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.56.3 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you think that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm sure Ludwigs did mean it when he used a nonce nickname for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.245.29 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

deleted a question

I deleted this question as a matter of core policy: software piracy is illegal in the US, and hence in the State of Florida. --Ludwigs2 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move. It's unethical for the Reference Desk to answer such questions.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The question wasn't asking for help committing software piracy, the question was about how to get an already downloaded game working. People assumed the OP had downloaded the game via illegal means, but you can legally download "The Sims 2" from http://eastore.ea.com 82.44.54.4 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

legally downloading and legally using are different concepts. a lot of software is available for download that still requires a valid user license to operate legally; that's what cracking is all about. if the OP has a technical problem with software he legally owns, he'll get better and faster help from Nintendo, and wp:NOTHOWTO applies. if he is trying to circumvent software licensing restrictions then he is breaking the law, and we can't help with that either. looks like a nono either way to me. --Ludwigs2 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He/she mentioned using a crack in the title, but the question itself "setup isn't starting... what could be the problem?" isn't asking for help circumventing any laws, it's asking for help on why a program isn't starting when he/she tried to run it. Simple answers like "check if it's a 64bit version and you've got a 32but OS" or "are you trying to run the windows version on a mac" or "if you downloaded it from an unreputable source, it might be a virus" etc could solve the problem. Also, I don't think wp:NOTHOWTO really applies to the reference desk. 82.44.54.4 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

<shrug> I'll leave it up to others to judge the issue; I think what I did was the correct move. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm operating some software which the license says I'm not allowed to, that's an illegal act in the sense that I could be sued, right? It's civil rather than statute law. Does it make a difference that, since the game is available for free (or in my case, £1 from a charity shop), EA/Maxis wouldn't sue me? It would be breach of contract, with zero damages. And questions like "am I allowed by the contract to use a crack on this software" and "does this contract actually apply to me anyway" remain to be decided in court, so it's not definitively illegal. Also, if the purpose of the crack is to make the software work, that's rather different from a crack designed to circumvent copy protection; and even if the crack is intended for circumvention, the fact that the distributors themselves are also circumventing copy protection by offering the game for free rather undermines the case for the crack being illegal. Sure, we can say that the distributors want people to be attracted to their site rather than obtaining the software via file-sharing, but there's a limit to how controlling the law can reasonably aid a company in being in the cause of their business model. Contracts that bind you to outrageous things ("you must henceforth only shop at Wal-mart") don't stand up. Edit: I see the game is not actually being offered for free, but for £20. Even so, that's a silly price for a 10-year-old game which many people would happily give away second-hand. The OP is welcome to my one... 81.131.69.70 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had previous consensuses about not deleting questions seeking assistance for suicide. It was deemed they're fair game as Ref Desk questions, but whether any particular respondent wants to respond is a matter for them. Suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions; but whether that's true or not, many respondents have ethical problems with assisting suicide. So, how come they're ok but video piracy is not? If we decide to remove questions because of individual respondents' personal ethics, we wouldn't have many questions left to answer. There has to be a more constructive and workable basis than that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The right answer could have been, as Ludwig suggested, "Call the manufacturers of the game." Then if he owns up to it being an illegal copy, we're done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait on. We often redirect questioners to better places for their answers. Just because WP is not the best place to get an answer to a certain question does NOT mean the question should never have been asked in the first place, and does NOT mean the question gets deleted. How could it be deleted? That way, we could never tell them where else to look. That is certainly NOT the "nono" Ludwigs refers to. The issue is whether or not the particular question should have been deleted because of the ethics of appearing to be giving sustenance to people involved in video piracy, so let's stick to that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

When he says "not even with crack", maybe he's merely talking about drugs he uses while playing video games. Not that that's any improvement. I understand why Ludwig deleted it, but I think it would be better to leave it there along with a proper response as discussed here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) oddly, the moral justifications for suicide are better than the moral justifications for software piracy, so it's easier to rationalize playing fast and loose with the legality of it. regardless, however, if he is admitting to cracking the software, then Wikipedia could potentially be liable in any lawsuit if we assist him, and possibly even if we merely allow the question to remain. I doubt that the wikipedia lawyers would be entirely sanguine with that prospect - shall we send the foundation an email and ask? --Ludwigs2 22:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the "even with crack" part of the question because no law-abiding Wikipedian could possibly even know what that means. Let the question stand and answer it as Ludwig + Baseball Bugs agree. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts, since I type so slow :) ) For the record, it's hard to assume good faith with this question. The EA Sports website linked to by the IP user above mentions in its terms of use that online authentication is required to play (legally) digitally downloaded games. I'm sure many other digital-download sites are the same (cf. DRM for legally downloaded music). These services are engineered to work seamlessly so that little effort is required from the client side; otherwise people willing to stay within their legal boundaries would only buy music and games on CDs to avoid the hassle. Even assuming good faith, I find it too hard to believe software for legal digital download would still include confusing messages like " 'please insert disc 1' ", with the solution in the "instructions" being to download some executable file and paste it in some directory. It's much more likely and credible that this executable is a hack to trick the game into thinking a legal copy of its game disc is inserted. I've heard of websites that legally provide these executables to people who have legally purchased software and have lost the disc, but they do not contain any kind of online-authentication scheme that legal digital-download websites require. Therefore, the OP could not have both downloaded the software legally and made use of one of these executable hacks, so it is clear at least in my mind we're talking about illegally-obtained software, and our discussion should focus on "whether or not the particular question should have been deleted because of the ethics of appearing to be giving sustenance to people involved in video piracy," as Jack of Oz said so well.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3: in the same way that no law-abiding Wikipedian will know what a bong is, or a Millwall brick, or a blue box? I have neither smoked pot, been involved in football hooliganism nor phreaked. Just because an activity is illegal doesn't mean that law-abiding citizens shouldn't know about the paraphernalia involved. The crack mention does suggest that the Florida-based OP is circumventing copy-protection, for which I support the removal of the question. Firstly, it's illegal in the US (as far as I can remember). Secondly, if they are going to freeload off the strenuous work of developers and publishers, they can bally well do the last smidgeon of work (getting the ill-gotten game working) themselves. Brammers (talk/c) 23:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So, we're back to individual ref desk respondents' personal ethics deciding these issues on a case-by-case basis, are we? Is it a free for all? We need some rules for these sorts of issues, if they don't already exist. We already say we'll remove requests for medical or legal advice. This wasn't in that category: it was a request for assistance in carrying out an illegal activity, a completely different matter. If we think we need a rule saying "Requests for assistance in carrying out illegal activities will be removed", then let's discuss that rationally. But let's not do this in a piecemeal, kneejerk fashion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that kind of discussion beyond the scope of this talk page? Seems like the question of whether or not we want this comunity to become generalised accessories to various crimes would go higher up in the project than a few volunteers on a help desk. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fair comment. But on the other hand, "a few volunteers" managed to nut out the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. What's the prob with at least talking about including the handling of this sort of issue there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of a question I received at an airport check-in shortly after 911 when security was heightened. "Are you carrying a weapon?" I answered "Anything can be a weapon if you try." Wikipedia has helpful articles for every criminal activity. AFAIK we are not employed to be detectives. Our mission is to give correct answers where we can give them. Our responsibility starts and ends with giving warning if receiving the answer places a significant new responsibility on the user. Copyright owners must protect their rights or lose them. We are not paid to substitute for the effective copy protection that a software marketer should have paid for but didn't.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that's not the issue. criminal activity is explicitly prohibited because the wikimedia foundation does not want to be the target of lawsuits or criminal investigation. if it were just about protecting copyrights, I wouldn't care much, but do you want some corporation trying to recover its pound of flesh from the encyclopedia? and don't tell me that that's unlikely to happen - I know it's unlikely, but lawyers don't run statistics, they work angels. --Ludwigs2 01:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, could you provide a link to that "core Wikimedia policy" you refer to? That still doesn't explain why we decided it's ok to help people kill themselves. Why is this less "off limits" than video piracy? But the core issue for me is that Ludwigs2 might choose to remove this question, but others might not think it's a big deal, and leave it. What happens when the Ludwigs2s of the world aren't around anymore? Where's the general guidance to help all of us decide how to handle such questions? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

JoOz - it's listed in a few places, but see Founding Principles at meta; exception to the first point in the second section. --Ludwigs2 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ludwigs2. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What if someone posted asking how to make a bomb? I can't find anything in the Ref Desk guidelines that would deem this an unacceptable question, like queries for legal or medical advice. However, I think most Wikipedians would agree that answering that question is inappropriate, and the question should be removed. What about "How to rape a girl"? Those are extreme cases, but they show that perhaps we should consider sensible content-based guidelines. By consider I mean just talk about it; maybe we really don't need guidelines if our only problem is questions so blatantly inappropriate anyone could remove them under WP:IAR, if they needed that for a reason. Maybe we should have guidelines if answering the question may enable injury to others. Perhaps that's the subconscious reasoning for why the consensus was to allow suicide questions (only hurting oneself). It doesn't hurt to throw around ideas, and since the Ref Desk has a different kind of atmosphere and more face-to-face interaction (well, as close as you can get with a computer in the way) than the rest of Wikipedia, it would make sense for us to decide on issues like this for ourselves.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hard telling why (or if) we would answer a question on how to commit suicide. Not only is it typically an illegal act, it's arguably a request for medical advice, which is against the rules. You could give a smart-aleck answer, though: "If you're in a hurry, jump off the highest object you can get to the top of; if you're not in a hurry, take up smoking." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe before your time, Bugs, but we do and we have answered questions that sought help with killing themselves. There was a spate of them for a while there. It generated a lot of heat, but as I recall, the consensus was that they are legitimate questions, and anyone who felt disposed to provide their "helpful" advice was free to do so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not recall this as a plain consensus. What I vaguely remembered and dug up is this thread on of the guidelines' archived talk pages. One has to distinguish between an author seeking a plausible suicide for a plot and possible suicidal OPs and trolls, and it always depends on context at the desks. Likewise, in my view, questions in the greyer zones should be handled with good imaginative and realistic sense, not by written instructions. I don't see Ludwigs removing questions by the gallon (in fact this is the only one I recall). I myself understand nothing about games and copyright, so I tend to trust others here. My point: While I don't wish to encourage removals at all and even lean towards restoring this particular one (though I basically have no clue), I don't think we need to codify every possible instance of inappropriateness. I'd like to see this handled on a case by case basis, with invitation for feedback, as Ludwigs has done here. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Brammers, I support removal of the question, or perhaps leaving the question there with only scolding for answers. Answers assisting criminal activity should certainly be removed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the ticket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, because applying a crack to The Sims 2 (specifically that game, or any other old game which is on the verge of being abandonware) is only illegal activity in the same way that trespassing on a farmer's field in order to camp overnight is - if you get caught, and damaged no crops, you'll only be chased away. It's neither morally wrong nor penalized. 81.131.69.70 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same. Violating copyright is theft, which is morally wrong as well as being punishable by law. Trespassing is not right either, and may also be punishable by law, but it's mostly harmless if you don't damage the property. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Violating copyright isn't theft; all you've done is not give them your money. 82.44.54.4 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Violating copyright is NOT theft for the simple reason that nothing actually gets stolen. If I go to a house, break in and steal their TV, then I have gained one TV and they have lost one TV. A zero sum game. However, if I borrow a friend's DVD and make a copy, my friend is not denied the use of his copy, I have simply created another. It is not a zero sum game. Much like it wouldn't be stealing on Star Trek to have the replicator machine create you some rubies. Googlemeister (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, even if it is theft, I don't think it's a very serious form of theft. For example, armed robbery is much more serious than shoplifiting, and shoplifting is much more serious than piracy. To simply refer to piracy as "theft" makes it seem more serious than it is. I don't think it's worth reacting to such questions in the same manner as if someone asked how to commit suicide, as someone suggested above. And, to be honest, I'm not even sure if piracy is immoral, given the financial status of the people who pirate software.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the financial status of the perpetrators got to do with anything? Hard to know what you're saying: either, it's ok to steal from rich people, or it's ok for non-rich people to steal, or maybe both. Well, you can stick those "morals" where they belong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to make piracy seem much more serious than it is by referring to it as "steal[ing] from rich people." I don't think it's right to break into a rich person's house and steal their possesions. So, don't group software piracy with such acts. Your "morals" are primitive. You're grouping software pirates with other types of thieves and treating them like trash. Perhaps they need the software for school? Perhaps they simply don't have the money? Where does compassion fit into your simplistic moral code?--Best Dog Ever (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have endless compassion with the plight of people who are so poor they're tempted to steal. I live in a country that was founded by English convicts who in many cases were guilty of nothing worse than stealing a load of bread to feed their family. Many of them were executed for these sorts of acts; the ones sent halfway around the world to a god-forsaken wilderness for 7 years were the lucky ones. So, compassion is in my blood, mate. But that doesn't mean I condone for one second the act of theft. Would you like it if someone stole something from you, and would their plea "I needed it for school" make it all OK, please come again and steal from me whenever you have the need, make yourself a nice meal while you're here, and hey, you can take my car too, here's the key. Well? Hardly. There is a question of degree, certainly; making a single illegal copy of one CD on one occasion is not in the same league as robbing a bank at gunpoint, and does not merit the same punishment. But at its core, it's still the same act, theft. It's still subject to the same basic principle - do not take other people's property without their permission. Semanticise it any way you like, you know it's wrong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're 100 percent right. Stealing might be somehow "justifiable" in some narrow circumstances, but it's still morally wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

believe it or not, I happen to appreciate the philosophical claims about the morality of software theft. The world is currently in the throws of a major redefinition of the concept of property, and the way we look at these issues in 50 years (assuming we haven't driven ourselves into extinction) will be radically different than the way we look at them now. I'm already working on my "When I was a young man we had this thing called 'personal property', youngling!" diatribes. but regardless, wikipedia is not here to fight that battle. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "in the throes of a major redefinition". Also WP:CBALL. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I bet you're right. Yet I somehow understood it without someone having to correct it for him. :) This idea that property is going to go away is utopian fantasy, promoted by those who don't want to work for a living. It will only happen if the concept of money goes away, which I wouldn't count on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aiding and abetting illegal acts is not appropriate for wikipedians to do, and if a wikipedian does do so on the ref desk or elsewhere, their comment should be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop saying zapped you sound like that gay guy from the Simpsons 96.246.40.129 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That term has been around for a couple of generations at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The etymology of zap[7]: 1929 (sound effect), 1942 (v.), comic strip word (especially from "Buck Rogers in the Twenty-Fifth Century"), of imitative origin. Meaning "to erase electronically" is 1982. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think removing that question is an example of biting newbies. If they're on the wrong site, just tell them that. Treating the visitor like a vandal will not fix the issue. If you want to make sure that they leave (and not just get angry), explain to them why this is the wrong site. I just left a message on their talk page telling them that Warez-bb and The Pirate Bay's forum are better venues to ask.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Above, Best Dog said that piracy wasn't major. Well, tell that to my brother-in-law who works at EA, where they've laid off hundreds of employees, and he himself is not rich. Regular people work for the rich folks who own the companies. Aaronite (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Though that's an excellent idea to spread around, it's not germane to the question of whether companies should make money by exploiting copyright law. Just because there exists a way to make money for lots of ordinary folks (and don't forget the rich folks, who also deserve to make money), doesn't mean it's a good thing. And the morality of that is itself largely irrelevant to the question in hand, which is whether the ref desk should encourage (or should sometimes encourage, or should somewhat help with, or should be impartial on) circumventing copyright law - since our acting as moral arbitrators doesn't seem to be appeal to us so much as protecting Wikipedia from legal threats of the kind that affect, say, the Pirate Bay. 81.131.32.185 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, if the OP is asking how to circumvent access-control software, then isn't it the case that people who answer the question are committing a criminal act under the DMCA? Unless ir's covered under an exemption because floppy disks are now obsolete. In any case, I think the WMF would be protected under safe-harbour provisions. I'm wary about removing questions because "you're trying to do something wrong". What if someone asks why their passenger van engine stumbles when they go over 80 mph? "mph" will suggest an American and there's nowhere you can do 80 legally on a US road. Does that question get removed too? It's a passenger van, so likely not on a ractetrack Franamax (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You know there are roads in Texas with a speed limit of 80 mph? Googlemeister (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One could ask the OP to clarify or give more information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Foundation would be better protected if the warning text "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." under the edit window were reworded "You declare that this contribution is not connected with any copyright violation." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, WMF is fully protected anyway, first by the safe harbour provisions of DMCA; second, because we deal with copyvio swiftly and brutally when we find it. If anything, it should say "if you violate copyright here, someone will notice, and you will find your every edit checked and be extremely embarrassed". Franamax (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually as we've established before, mph for road speeds is still the norm in the UK. Whether you can legally go at 80 mph in the UK I don't know. In any case, I would presume some race tracks would allow you to try driving a passenger van at 80mph. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into the discussions surrounding this except to point out offering support to people who are likely trying to infringe copyright does carry legal risks, as established in the MGM vs Grokster case [8]. From my experience, most P2P software sites and similar will remove such questions without hesitation. Personally I've always believed there's another good reason not to help such people. Anyone who frankly speaking lacks the basic common sense necessary to know it's not appropriate to ask here for help infringing copyrights poses a high risk of doing stupid things which may result in them being a part of a botnet or whatever, and while you may say haha for them, the harm they cause to the internet is not so funny, so they shouldn't even try. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but I'd like to strongly dispute User:El_aprendelenguas's contention that if a question on how to make a bomb showed up that "most wikipedians" would agree that it should be removed and not answered.

Making bombs, weapons, dangerous chemicals, questionable motor vehicles, insane power-tools, and other items likely to cause extreme danger to life and limb, can nevertheless be fascinating and intriguing subjects of study. I would have absolutely zero problem giving someone a reference to existing sources on those topics, and I would reinstate any such question that I happened to notice was deleted.

(As for your second example, It's difficult to imagine that question not being asked as an outright troll, but if it were asked seriously, and someone found an actual reference on that topic, I have to imagine it would at least be an interesting read.) APL (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, I'm guessing the legal advice thing on the main ref pages don't count here, because this whole discussion is about exactly that... Aaronite (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone commenting here could be classed as "knowledgable and willing participant" so there's no problem. One key test is whether the person being offered the advice relies on the offerers presumed expertise. I don't see anyone in this discussion who is in the habit of taking random legal advice from strangers on the Internet. Franamax (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The question should not have been removed. It should have been answered appropriately - informing the OP that we do not condone software piracy; and we should have referred the user to the best resources - e.g. the manufacturer of the game. Nimur (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye. How about this? "You are trying to install software from media it wasn't originally distributed on and it is asking you for a disk you don't have. We are not going to help you crack software that you don't have a license for. If you have downloaded free software, let us know what it is or check at the website you downloaded it from for FAQ's, help tips, installation instructions, user forums etc. If it is copyrighted software, contact the manufacturer or the distributor or check their websites for support information." Franamax (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. It can be compacted to: If you have downloaded free software, check at the website you downloaded it from for FAQ's, help tips, installation instructions, user forums etc. If it is copyrighted software, contact the manufacturer or the distributor or check their websites for support information. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great answer except that it seems to give the Heisman to people who are having trouble installing free software, and there's no particular reason for us to do that. I might change "check at the website you downloaded it from" to "the best information is usually available at the website you downloaded it from". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good blanket response. And if they come back with, "Uh, it's a bootleg copy, dude," then we tell them "See ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Best Dog Ever's solution (which he apparently put into action) of offering links to other forums which deal with subjects like software cracking. This three main advantages:

• It's providing reference.
• It's impartial and not censorious.
• It won't get us into trouble. Those sites may well get into trouble, but that's their problem.

81.131.32.185 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. We shouldn't be doing anything to knowingly aid and abet illegal activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't answer (or refer to other websites, or do anything other than post a polite message that our lips are shut) questions that are unmistakably asking for assistance in a criminal act ("Is it possible to trick a program into thinking its CD is inserted?" is okay, but "I illegally downloaded a game. How can I trick it when it prompts to 'insert disc 1'?" is not). For crying out loud, we refuse to do people's homework; why should we assist them in crimes?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should assume that all requests for advice on illegal activity are in fact homework assignments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mafia U, now offering degrees in Regional Illegal Beverage Distribution, Introduction to Gambling, Protection Racket Management, Advanced Bribery and Practical Car Theft. Googlemeister (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of those are offered at San Quentin. Not officially, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How should we handle questions about Fagin's school for pickpockets in Oliver Twist? Do we Assume Good Faith and treat it as a simple literary or historico-sociological question? Tell the enquirer that we can't do his or her Homework? Decline to give Illegal Advice? Are we confined to Reliable Sources (what came into the head of some Eng. lit. professor 68 years ago) or is Original Research called for? —— Shakescene (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What the dickens are those questions about? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is a controversial subject and not enforced the same way the world over (consider Spain, for instance). The article copyrighted content on file sharing networks discusses all the legal variations. Notice that as well as linking to various cases and statutes, and linking to articles about pro-copyright efforts, it also links to the article ethics of file sharing and to a number of tools that a person so minded could use to share copyrighted material, leaving it to the reader to make the moral choices. Wikipedia is not the police is a section starkly missing from the list of principles I just linked to there. Maybe Wikipedia is the police :( 81.131.57.69 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There are tough issues here. It's not clear that helping someone evade copyright in the way requested puts Wikipedia in any specific legal jeopardy. We should resist being reactive just because a potential — even likely — violation of copyright could occur. And comparing violating copyright to building bombs and committing suicide and raping women is really pretty silly. Just to put it into perspective, if someone (from the 1990s, I guess) came on here and said, "I'm trying to make a copy of a CD for my friend, but my cassette recorder keeps getting jammed. What should I do?", I'm not sure we should throw the book at them. If someone comes in an asks, "I'd like to scan the full copy of a book, how should I go about that?", we should not interrogate them on whether or not they (or we) think it falls within the constraints of fair use law before giving assistance. There's a way in which the above conversation is really more of an indication of the way in which computer piracy is a hot-button issue these days than it is about the severity of the crime itself, or how people feel about copyright infringement more generally.

All that being said, I'm not sure this kind of function is really what we want the Ref Desk to do. There is something a little sleazy about helping people who are asking for technical assistance with something they got for free by almost certainly illegal means (depending on jurisdiction). I do think that if someone came on here and asked, "Hey, I just stole a bunch of pens, and the ink in them was all dried out. How can I get them working?", we'd probably consider that to be beneath the purposes of the Ref Desk. We have a choice as to what kind of forum we are fostering here, and the kinds of assistance we are willing to give. In some cases we have in the past made judgments on what kinds of information could be given by others, as well — for example, our ban on medical and legal advice, which is not there (contrary to popular opinion) because we are afraid of getting sued, but because it is just a bad idea for us to start doing stuff like that. I similarly think this category of blatant software piracy falls under that sort of category, but I'm aware there are other ways one could feel about it.

Whatever we do, the idea that we can't answer a question that has anything to do with violating laws is silly. There are lots of questions about illegal topics. There is lots of information in the Wikipedia about illegal topics, or about topics that could be used in an illegal fashion. "We don't talk about illegal things" is a clumsy and really unsustainable guideline. But I admit to not being very satisfied with the idea of the Ref Desk helping lazy warez kiddies save $20. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Cows

I disagree with User:HandThatFeeds for characterising the "Stray cow problem in India" question (on the humanities desk) as insulting Hindu beliefs, or at least for giving that in justification of closing it. I agree with closing the question, though, for a different reason: because it was one of those "why are people X so crazy" questions which can't be answered in a satisfying way. I think Jon Ascton was being reasonable, and not trolling about Hindus. Many OPs seem moved to ask questions about this or that due to being honestly baffled by other people's beliefs. Anyway, posters are free to insult religious beliefs if they want to (as criticism of ideas, that is, not in an attempt to cause discord). There are no sacred ideas here on the ref desks. If the question was still open I would have chimed in with "memes" as an answer, but that wouldn't have been particularly helpful (what would?), and closing the question by reason of its futility would have been perfectly fine, and The Hand That Feeds You has been doing great work lately in preventing rubbish. 81.131.63.230 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible to prioritise Wikipedia-helping questions?

Is it possible to prioritise questions at the Reference desk (RD) that improve Wikipedia, as opposed to questions that don't benefit Wikipedia?

• Example of what to prioritise: a while ago I asked for some CorelDRAW help so I could finish a diagram for a Wikipedia article
• Example of what not to prioritise: a question on naming a song from a Youtube video.

I don't have the energy to trawl the entire RD for what I consider "high priority" questions, but maybe on this talk page a list could be kept. Regards --Commander Keane (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What would the list's purpose be? And how would you distinguish what benefits WP and what doesn't? (Unless you mean what directly benefits WP)---Sluzzelin talk 02:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is to single out "high priority" questions, so that people (like me) can use a watchlist or daily check just on those questions. The answers would still go in the usual spot. "High priority" questions would be added to the list in a wiki way, anyone could add or remove an entry. I think I do mean directly benefiting Wikipedia, but I could use some help defining "high priority". For example asking for coordinates of a scuba diving site to add to a Wikipedia article seems "high priority" to me. Asking a question on the wording of an Harry Book between different languages doesn't seem to benefit Wikipedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I wouldn't oppose such a list per se, as long as it carries no weight outside what you specified. I guess I find it more difficult to gauge a question's priority or potential benefit to WP just from reading it. Sometimes people ask a question because they couldn't find the information in mainspace. This can (and frequently does) result in the expansion or even creation of articles, even when this wasn't the original poster's intention. While doing research for the question on British v American wording of Harry Potter books, someone might happen upon an interesting aspect that might be included in an article (could be a HP article, could also be a linguistic article or an article on publishing). In my opinion, serependity is among the qualities the reference desks thrive on, and I would probably be ignoring such a list. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

10-15 questions a day, per desk, doesn't seem like that much to "trawl through" to me. 82.44.54.4 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in theory the ref desks are supposed to benefit the readers, which indirectly benefits wikipedia if the reader comes away feeling good about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is probably 6-8 questions per desk per day (7 desks ~40 questions per day). Yes looking through 40 questions is too much for me, since I am looking for a needle in a haystack. Also I probably visit once per week, so that is ~280 questions to through. I don't see how this proposal harms the benefit to readers. It has just occurred to me that the Help desk could serve these Wikipedia related questions, but I suppose the Help desk doesn't focus on facts etc like the RD does.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

¶ There might conceivably be some benefit to having a "Wikipedia" category of the Ref. Desk to match Humanities, Language, etc., although that might overlap the Help Desk. Someone asked today about the notability of an unelected state senate (legislative) candidate, and although we often can think of a guideline, WikiProject or help page where we can direct this sort of question (in this case, WP:POLITICIAN), it might not hurt to have a one-stop page rather than directing readers all over the back lots and side roads of Wikimedia/Wikipedia in the hopes that some text or some editor might someday answer their question. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but is this to benefit you or to benefit the users? To do this would be to ask the querent to decide where to put the question, and if we decided for them, how would they know where to look when we moved it? Library ref desks don't filter questions like this (if we did, we'd put the short or easy ones first and save the toughies for later, and they'd end up ignored.) Aaronite (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to think of it from the enquirer's point of view. It's easy enough for us to tell him or her to go to another desk. But (assuming he or she is moved to do so) to how many other places in succession might he or she be sent? Please hold on while we connect you. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any need to prioritize questions by any metric. It's not like we get 10,000 questions per day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And scanning the tables of contents shouldn't take that long. There will be some false positives and false negatives, but they should still yield 70% or 80% of what you're seeking. And you can see nearly a week's worth of questions on one table of contents. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An editor who visits only once a week will probably discover that most of the questions have been addressed in that week. In that case, forget the table of contents, go to the bottom of the page and work backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that there's a helpful "skip to bottom" link in the upper right corner of every RefDesk page, which makes starting at the bottom and working backwards that much easier. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there's also the helpful "End" key on the keyboard which does the same thing on any web page.—Emil J. 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The last time I looked at the statistics, most questions on the Science desk got their first response within about half an hour, and three quarters received their first response in less than two hours. While I cannot warrant that all of those responses are likely to be complete or accurate, it gives some idea of the speed at which the Desks generally operate. It's very rare for a question to sit around for as long as a day without a response, if it is going to be answered at all. While there's no reason to discourage occasional or once-a-week drop-in volunteers here, expecting any significant fraction of questions to sit around waiting for them is going to lead to disappointment. As well, since the vast majority of questions receive rapid responses, it doesn't seem necessary or constructive to try to sort them by some sort of priority scheme. (As Bugs suggests, just look at the bottom of the page if you want to know which questions are likely to need an answer.) There's no requirement to monitor all of the Desks, either — I'm a 'regular' here, but I generally make most of my contributions to Science and Misc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So ... High priority questions are ones asked by you, or asked on similar topics to the ones you would ask, while low priority questions are ones not asked by you on topics that don't interest you personally?

As an added point of interest, of your two example questions, isn't the second question more of a 'reference' question anyway? APL (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have thought of questions being given tags from a very large set of options, but I do not have any reason to believe that people will do better at tagging questions than they have done at providing concise but informative headings.—Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my comment.—Wavelength (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)]

Sure would make this page longer though. hydnjo (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We can't even agree on whether certain questions are ethically acceptable or not. Can you imagine the debates over the "priority" a given question should have? The mind boggles! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should generalize the discussion: "What would the reference desk of the future look like"? And how could it help us sort, organize, and prioritize all questions? I think it would have an "auto-categorization" system. Questions would still be posted to the desks, as they are now; but each question would be manually/automatically tagged and categorized. You could then use an ATOM/RSS feed to trawl for your favorite categories and keywords. This provides out of band signal or "metadata" for every question - so those who prefer to ignore such categories may continue browsing without being distracted by the additional complexity. This mechanism also solves the problem of "cross-posting", because questions can be posted to the one desk that is most appropriate; but interested readers can set up their RSS feed to scan all desks for certain keyword/category questions. At present, MediaWiki does not support categorization on this fine-granularity (entire pages, yes; sub-headings - no). And there would have to be some user-interface addons to assist in dynamic-tagging - a checkbox of common topics/categories, and a text-input for new keywords. OPs could tag their questions as they see fit; and respondents could further add and remove categories, in order to help organize. One such checkbox could include a "Relevant to the Encyclopedia" category; and Commander Keane could "subscribe" to only those questions, in the same way that he might also subscribe to questions about science (or specific keywords/topics like seagulls). Nimur (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With LiquidThreads on the way perhaps the RD of the future is close. Does anyone know if LiquidThreads can do tagging like Nimur suggests? If not I will ask the programmer about it (it could also be used on the Help desk to mark things resolved). The way this discussion has gone I do wonder if I am the only one that would subscribe to the "Relevant to the Encyclopedia" category, this seems like the wrong place to find out. The word "priority" isn't well liked here, "tagging" is perhaps better. And I am not trying to customise the RD for me, I am just trying to make it better serve the encyclopedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask another question: why must the RD serve the encyclopedia? It's a Reference Desk, not an improve-the-article session. This is where you go when the article isn't enough. If, when an editor sees an obvious shortcoming in an article, they feel the need to fix the relevant article, they may do so. Otherwise, let it be. Tagging may well be useful, and I have no objection if it isn't disruptive, but otherwise, let the questions come as they may. Aaronite (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk must somehow serve the encyclopedia (and that can be pretty broadly interpreted) because it is being hosted as part of the Wikipedia project – an encyclopedia project – by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation accepts donations on our behalf which keep the lights on and the servers running; we owe it to everyone who has written us a cheque to actually use their money the way that we said we would. If the Ref Desk cannot fit itself within the scope of the Wikipedia project, it has three options. We can move to another Wikimedia project within whose mandate we do fit; we can try to modify Wikipedia's official goals to include the provision of independent reference services as well as an encyclopedia; or we can shut down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The ref desks DO serve the encyclopedia, but from the other direction from most users. Lots of people are asking why the ref desks aren't as directly involved in article writing, but from my perspective, insofar as the ref desks help readers find information in articles, they serve a very important purpose. After all, what good is an encyclopedia no one uses? If the ref desks do nothing except helping lost readers find article which serve their needs, they have done their job. --Jayron32 03:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please Commander, let it be. hydnjo (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Nimur, you should cross-post to Bugzilla, they'll get right on that. :) Right after "finish MediaWiki" I hear they're considering "enhance and extend"... Dream as we will, software will not solve the problem, whatever the problem is. We've sufficient brainpower here to categroize and rate every question. Two questions of my own: who wants to take the time to rate and categorize each OP rather than research and answer them? And how many more servers should we buy for the discussions here about how to properly rate the questions? I agree it would be great if we could get to auto-rating, but ya know, reality and all that. Franamax (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it would be outright impossible to properly design an automated computer-system to organize information by keyword : ) I'm still convinced that human-based categorization is far more efficient... for now. Nimur (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of tagging questions after a week to aid searches of the archives. I'm worried vandals will destroy the system, though, as vandal patrol of tags sounds one-tenth as fun as the already-thankless job of vandal patrol of articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

deleted a question (2)

again, I took the liberty simply to remove this. It's a troll question, whose only possible response is to ask why the OP is such an idiot (is that genetic)?)best just to remove it. --Ludwigs2 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

good removal. Question is simply provocative. -- Scray (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, laziness can be fixed, while idiocy is forever. And compare with that IP's posting a couple of days ago:[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out that it is not uncommon for employers or enterpreneurs (whether native or foreign) to complain about the work ethos in a certain country. There are also studies on this topic. Psychology in India Revisited discusses the difference between a "Western" ethos that sees work as an "intrinsic motivator", while "there is a general consensus" that work isn't valued the same way in India. Just saying. Yes, the question was phrased without context and in a pejorative form, but the reply suggested by Ludwigs isn't the only possible one. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I wouldn't have deleted it if it had been phrased in a different way (I actually went through a bunch of studies on cross-cultural work-ethos a while back). however... --Ludwigs2 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting IP edit

Hello. I reverted this. What was he trying to do? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be related to the question I deleted above - at least, it looks like the IP undid all of the revisions immediately following my deletion of that question. Possibly s/he was trying to do what I did but got confused in the diffs? --Ludwigs2 17:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

removed probable medical advice

For a post relating to celiac disease and finding nuts not processed in facility with gluten, the following reply was given:

Are you sure that this matters? I would have imagined that microscopic amounts of gluten would have little efect on you - it is not like an allergy as far as I am aware. You could just buy nuts in their shells and remove the shells yourself. Nuts are not manufactured - they grow. Nuts that are used as an ingredient in manufactured food products are probably something to avoid. 92.29.115.21 (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2010 (U

This looks an awful lot like medical advice to me, and off-the-cuff medical advice at that. I don't know whether it is good or bad advice, but it seems to cross a line beyond the strictly factual, especially since it seems to be rather uncertainly held. (And, just looking into a little bit, it does appear that cross-contamination from processing facilities is an issue.) If it was something like, "the XYZ association says this isn't a problem because of ABC, see here [link]", I think it would be less problematic. Additionally, the "you" there (in "little effect on you") is not synonymous with "one" — it means the OP, who is asking about this because of their own condition, not an abstract question. Anyway, just my take on the guidelines. Any objections? --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Zap it. Wikipedia editors have no business playing doctor with the OP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

not AGF

From Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities#Is_it_harder_to_get_laid_if_you_have_few_friends.3F:

Hsardoft username and the post look like a troll joke so I reported your name here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention and then moved it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism on their instructions. I hope you did not mean it that way. : 70.31.58.221 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is silly enough that the admins at both places thoroughly vetoed the complaint immediately — it clearly does not AGF, and there is nothing wrong with the name or the post in question. I've moved this here because I think it is just going to derail the thread for no reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it was a troll (and I do see how the name could be read as such; it's an anagram of Hardsoft, if anyone hasn't noticed), the question is reasonable and I'm willing to bet there has been research about it. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks the typical kind of username and question LC would create and post. We should have a special barnstar (probably one with a cow in it, or maybe a cowpie) for those who continue to feed her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether to award such an udderly admonitory bovine barnstar would constitute further nourishment is a moot question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP

The abusive IP on the math desk has gone from annoyance to simple troll. In the past, trolls have been effectively dealt with by completely removing their comments without any notice or warning. The trolls recognize that no matter how much effort they put into trying cause trouble, their work vanishes and nearly nobody sees it. They give up and go elsewhere. I suggest doing the same here. Instead of giving this troll a huge ego boost by pasting [vulgar attack removed] all over the math desk, I suggest quietly reverting any and all posts from this IP. It isn't a single IP address, but obviously a single user. His posts are very easy to recognize as they always contain a vulgar personal attack on the questioner. -- kainaw™ 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The only debatable word I've ever used is "Bulltwang". In Aussie culture, "Bulltwang" is a friendly word and it isn't insulting. I don't know about other cultures but if you don't like it I can stop. Just tell me. Now you've told me, I'll stop. Sorry. If I continue, you have every right to belive that I'm a troll so I'm putting my word I won't used "bulltwang" anymore (if they're posts of mine that already have "bulltwang", ignore or delete them, you can't use them as afact that I'm not putting my word since from NOW ON I won't use bulltwang). Are there any other rules I've to follows? You should tell me so I can improve. But if you see any other misbehaviour of mine, ignore me. Just please give me one last chance? Obviously, I still don't believe I've insulted anyone, but I won't repeat my past behaviour since you find it isnulting. Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.244.210 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That apology doesn't seem genuinesincere to me considering you're claiming 'the only debatable word' but even for me, someone who doen't check out the RD/M a quick look easily finds posts with plenty more words then bulltwang [10]. People have also pointed out WP:NPA to you many times [11] [12] and other violations [13]. Unless you have anything meaningful to add, don't be surprised if any furthers posts of yours to this talk page are ignored or removed as well. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, when told to stop insulting people by calling them stupid and uneducated, this IP's response was: "Saying someone is uneducated isn't a personal attack. It's a warning that the guy needs to get his act together. I can understand why some people think that stupid is a personal attack. But uneducated? No, kanaw, I have every right to call someone uneducated. I'll stop using stupid, but uneducated I won't stop using." This IP either cannot understand the concept of "no personal attack" or is purposely refusing to refrain from personal attacks. I do not know of any condition that will allow a person to be able to provide partially constructive answers on the math desk and, at the same time, be completely incapable of comprehending what a personal attack is. Therefore, I believe that this IP knows full well what a personal attack is and is simply acting as a troll. So, as is done with trolls, just delete his posts on sight. -- kainaw™ 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should've been clear. The only debatable word I've used since I was LAST BLOCKED was bulltwang. I've learnt my lesson since my last block. And if you don't wanna belive me, see [14]. I asked this question. My IP changes cause not because I change it myself but cause my IP is dynamic. It's not my fault. I can't help it. I'm sorry for any inconvineinces but there's simply nothing I can do about it.

And Kanaw, yes you're right dude, I said that. But I've learnt. As I said, I've learnt my lesson since I've last been blocked. What a personal attack is? I thought Wiki was an informal place like other webforums. In other places on the interent people attack each other. If you donna wanna belive me that's fine dude but just remember I've promised not to attack anyone here from NOW ON. Yes I've attacked in the past but if I do it again delete my posts. Just take my last word for it and I'll be very gratefull.

Also, you can't delete my posts if they're not rude. I've promised to not attack, but just because I've attacked people earlier according to you guys, doesn't mean you can delete perfectly legal posts of mine NOW. And don't call me a troll. I've an honors degree in math and trolls are people who are uneducated. Sorry and please take my word. My apology's sincere and bumble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.197.241 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, including the Reference Desk, is an encyclopedia. We have standards for the content we include on these pages.

• Do the contributions cite references from reliable sources?
• Are the contributions phrased in encyclopedic tone?

If not, delete them. Nimur (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You qualifications impress no one. There are plenty of trolls who have qualifications, some even better then yours. (And plenty of people on RD/M who agree you're unwelcome, including probably some you have called uneducated/stupid/whatever have better qualifications then yours.)

Also the wikipedia community is perfectly entitled to delete whatever we want. In particular if we come to a consensus that a certain contributor is unwelcome to wikipedia and we have made it clear to that contributor, we will delete any contributions in defiance of that community ban.

And your apology again comes of as insincere given that you said "I've attacked people earlier according to you guys" in the very same post suggesting you are still refusing to accept that calling someone uneducated and whatever else you have said is a personal attack.

BTW, I have been a part of many webforums. While many are more lenient then wikipedia, most do have rules and quite a lot of forums do not allow personal attacks, particularly continual personal attacks from one person on experienced contributors in seemingly every post. This is particularly true of forums dedicated to more serious subjects and serious discussions. And if you really thought us like a webforum, you would think we have moderators (we don't) or admins performing that function (we do but they don't perform a moderation role), any in nearly every forum if the moderators tell you to stop, you stop and don't debate it any further or continue your poor behaviour, particularly reposting anything that was deleted. And if plenty of experienced contributors tell you to stop, it's usually a good idea to stop and at least check out the rules they're telling you about. In fact I would say anyone showing your behaviour on a webforum would have long since been banned and any attempts to post further, even with lame fake apologies would result in those posted being deleted on sight. If you have really had any experience with the 'interent' and webforums in other words, all your excuses sound hollow.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK dude. But have I done anything wrong since Kanaw posted here? No! I immediately removed bulltwang from my post (see history) I posted a question and apologised and now I apologise here. Not meaning to sound rude but your lecturing to me is hollow because I've agreed to stop and have stopped! If ya wanna discuss with me more go ahead dued but the point of a ban is to prevent dudes from trolling. And I've stopped trolling. So no ban is necessary. If I'm not making sense to you guys then you need to ask what your motivation is. Your motivation is to stop me trolling. I've stopped. So??? There shouldn't be need for my to give excuse anymore. I've stopped vandalising. Now you understand? Maybe in diagram. I vandalise => You ban me and lecture me. I don't vandalise => You stop talking about the past and don't ban me. If this isn't word enough I don't know what is: if I make one more mistake just one more it doesn't matter whether it's small or big => ban me forever. that's how sincere I am to not troll anymore. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.216.125 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude: no one is swayed by your bumbling, arrogant, not-very-sincere apology.

The only thing that counts here (especially when you're an anonymous IP, incapable of sustaining any real reputation) is behavior. So you should concentrate on that, not on these strained arguments here. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's sad to see a contributor resisting the point that those above try to make clear. Let us not exaggerate: a short ban is not a punishment. It is just a good move for Wikipedia when we hope that the problem contributor will come back later, with past history laid to rest. You would have to be very naughty to earn a permanent ban. (Saying Bullshit or bulltwang won't earn that but personal attacks can get you there.) If you are sincere you will accept the consensus here without protest. If instead you push things so far that you get WP:BLOCKED, that is bad for everyone: Wikipedia, yourself and the innocents affected by the IP range block applied to your dynamic IP addresses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Penn Jillette global warming guy

I suppose it doesn't matter from a what-to-do-about-it point of view, but what do you folks think about this guy? He seems less like a troll and more like someone who is mentally ill. Just curious if anyone else got that vibe. --Sean 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno — WP:NOTTHERAPY and all that. I hatted the most recent re-asking. If it comes back again, we might try removing it completely. A block is unlikely to provide long-term relief, as I suspect he is on a floating Australian IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was dehatted by an IP under the (rather shaky, IMO) reasoning that the question would eventually be archived anyway. I think we should just warn the OP that if they keep posting the same question over and over, their stuff will be deleted. And then start deleting. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen already deleted one of their questions. I think the only reason the last one survived is because they at least stopped asking what Lomborg et al think. Since we've already told them, it doesn't matter who you ask about and they seem to have returned to Lomborg et al anyway, I seem no harm in completely removing this latest question Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume coincidence, but our "WT:RD#Abusive IP" (above section) also hails from New South Wales (population 7 million). -- 1.47.203.216 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. But the global warming IP seems to have been constant for a few days and was different from the other IP in the same timeframe Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Feed of new sections

I've made a feed of new sections across all the Reference Desks. (validate) It works by reading the feed for each desk every ten minutes and removing everything that isn't a new section. (There are ways of fooling it, e.g. if you don't keep the default "new section" in your edit summary, and if you rename a section.) I made it to scratch an itch of my own, because I've been thinking recently that watchlists, while they're ideal for Wikipedia articles in general, don't really work well for the Reference Desks. Feel free to subscribe to it. Feedback and suggestions are very welcome. Marnanel (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very useful, but note that your section links don't always work due to overly long section titles or special characters. -- ToE^T 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just special characters, the software also needs to mangle id's when two or more sections happen to have the same title, and there may be other cases. It's fundamentally flawed to try to use a section title as a link anchor, the proper way is to extract the id attribute of the section from the HTML source.—Emil J. 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I should screen-scrape the HTML of each page, rather than processing the feeds? Marnanel (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "screen-scrape". I'm suggesting that you process the feeds as you do now, except that you do not second-guess id's to link to from approximate section names extracted from edit summaries, but process the HTML page to look up the actual id. No screen is involved.—Emil J. 11:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bother, I thought I'd got all the special characters. I forgot about question marks. Thanks. Marnanel (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT: Is the maximum heading length determined by the number of characters (counting a space as a character), or by considering characters of variable width? Either way, when an editor starts a new section, there can be a marker and a message that says "The feed will truncate the heading here."—Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When the feed is ready, a link to it can be added to each reference desk, including the main reference desk. Also, editors might wish to add that link to their user space.—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I think it would be intrusive of me to ask for the RD to work in a certain way to accomodate me, rather than me having to code around any oddities in the way the RD works. I'll look into scraping the HTML (probably at the weekend). Marnanel (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ugh.

I've deleted this thread - malicious virus needed - from the computer forums. This is a tad debatable, but doesn't really strike me as what the computer reference desk was designed to do. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest letting one of my coworkers use it. Give him a couple days and it will have every adware/spyware piece of crap imaginable installed. The harddrive will be overflowing with porn. Toss in the computer owner's email account and it will be signed up on every spam list. Toss in the owner's bank account or credit card info and it will all be in the hands of multiple phishers. Best of all, pure stupidity is not illegal. So, having the computer's owner let him borrow the computer, knowing his idiocy will destroy anything useful on it, isn't illegal. -- kainaw™ 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the computer reference desk was designed to provide references for computer related topics, and viruses are as legitimate as any topic. OP doesn't say what they want the virus for, perhaps they wish to run it in a virtual machine or old computer and see what happens, for fun or whatever. I don't really see a problem with the question, although I can certainly see how linking to viruses is problematic and possible even illegal in some cases. The best thing to do would probably be to explain that there is no "super virus" like they described, and then point them in the direction of the computer virus article for further reading. Removal seems a bit extreme 82.44.54.25 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

well, anyone can feel free to revert if they like - I'm not attached to this outcome. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And I just removed the section again after the original poster restored it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? The OP explained it was for a educational purposes only, with no malicious intent. While I don't support linking to viruses, removing the question is unnecessary. 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys I'm really geting tired of this, could you guys just allow me to restore it. Please, I want to know WHY it was pulled down. This is just not fair. Wikiholicforever (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The ref desk does not aid and abet potentially illegal or unethical activity. You want a virus? Just remove your virus checker and your firewall from your PC. That should fix it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've gone ahead and put it back. The person seemed to be legitimately asking a question and not intentionally trolling us. It's a stupid question that suggests a train of thought likely to get the poster, or the people around him in trouble, but we're not the coppers. (And besides, deleting a thread does not call down cosmic justice from the heavens, he's going to continue to try to do whatever he's decided to do.)

I seriously doubt that he's really asking "For research purposes only", but who knows, anything's possible. Viruses are an interesting topic. I don't know why he needs a "Malicious" one, but maybe he's got an old washing machine of a computer he wants to throw a brick into.

I've answered it with a link to an existing Wikipedia article. If an answer is in the encyclopedia we shouldn't be picky-choosy about who we direct to it.

(I won't revert-war over this, of course. If it gets taken off again I'll leave it be.) APL (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe by "educational purposes" he means "to teach someone a lesson". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've collapsed it. I won't revert that, but I will change the hat note to something less dismissive. Please try to be polite, even to people who you've ascertained are inferior to you. APL (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sarcasm is polite, right? I said 'Please'! APL (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your change was fine. I hid the heading in part because there's no such word as "malicous". (Where's Cuddly when we need him?) :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Instruction on character limits

A comment in the section "#Feed of new sections" (up from this section by two sections) indicates that the section links do not always work, because of excessively long section titles and because of special characters. I propose that the instructions at the top of each desk have an instruction specifying a meximum number of characters for a section title and also specifying (perhaps displaying) which characters can be used in a section title.—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Section links work fine, you just have to write them properly (try the links from TOC to the offending sections). The problem above is caused by the implementation of the feed, not by anything done by Wikipedia.—Emil J. 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure that we should further expand or complicate the top-of-page instructions in order to ensure compatibility with a third party's tool. (Is this a problem which also breaks internal wikilinks to section anchors? If it is, then it might be something that the Mediawiki developers could be persuaded to look at.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to sections can always be made, but you might have to escape special characters and add a number at the end if several sections of the same name exist. Templates in section titles also complicated things. There is a problem that the code that makes section links in edit summaries doesn't make all these changes, and so sometimes fails to work, but the developers know that already. Algebraist 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to internal wikilinks, please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63#Dysfunctional links in archived section headings.

It's clear from the discussion that these are obsolete problems that have already been fixed.—Emil J. 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

According to User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page one and User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page two, the following five characters are problematic for links to section headings: [ ] { | } .—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are syntax errors on your part.—Emil J. 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

Above, Nimur made the following comment:

Wikipedia, including the Reference Desk, is an encyclopedia. We have standards for the content we include on these pages.

*Do the contributions cite references from reliable sources?

*Are the contributions phrased in encyclopedic tone?

If not, delete them. Nimur (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, presumably you'll be deleting every "contribution" made to the Desks by Baseball Bugs. I can't remember the last time he cited a reference or used an encyclopedic tone, rather than the using the place like his own personal chat room.

The constant quotations from low-grade comedians are bad enough, but using Wikipedia as his soap box to post reactionary racism [15] [16] [17] will not stand. Please delete this bigotry. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You "can't remember the last time". First, your research is faulty. Second, you've only been on since August 4th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is "the last time" I posted a citation, but this compliment from a user is all of 2 days ago.[18] Meanwhile, the IP's grand total of 12 posts in 3 weeks are at least half pure snippiness, of no value whatsoever. When he goes to his doctor and asks why he's suffering memory loss and self-esteem issues, he could also maybe ask why he lacks a sense of humor, and whether there's any hope, or if it's terminal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we didn't turn this into another What's Opera, Doc? festival. It is not true that every contribution made by Bugs would be deleted if we followed Nimur's rules. He also provides accurate referenced answers to questions (I refuse to quantify in %). Moreover, I doubt that Nimur's rules will ever be implied rigorously. Otherwise, feel free to delete a percentage of my responses too: I don't always use encyclopedic style, and I don't reference everything I post. Right now, I can only think of two users who cite just about every single answer and never speak in a colloquial or chatty tone, and Nimur isn't one of them either. I'm not happy with Bug's response to the Romani question, among other reasons because, once again, it became a distraction to the actual question. Nevertheless, there is no point in chastizing Bugs on this page. It has been done countless times. In my opinion, his style has changed for the better, occasional (or frequent, YMMV) lapses notwithstanding. If it bothers you that much, I suggest either trying to engage him in discussion on his talk page, or, if it's really that serious, opening a request for comment. I really don't want to see another endless to and fro between Bugs and the rest of this talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(sorry for slightly over-reacting, in no ways directed personally at 87.112 who make a valid complaint at the end. I wouldn't mind seeing that subthread removed, or at the very least boxed. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC))

As a relative newbie here, I was quite shocked by BB's comments. In my view it demeans the whole Ref desk to have ill-considered opinions like that made by a regular participant here - and, if they are not withdrawn, the sooner they are boxed away the better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I boxed it. I felt that some of the responses and elaborations provided by others are not entirely off-topic and worth reading, so I indicated this in the box's title. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. But I am not the Wikipedia Police. There is no Wikipedia Police. I am not going to go around, vigilante-style, deleting anything and everything I believe to be beneath the standards for the encyclopedia. And nor should anybody else - (we have guidelines for clear-cut vandalism, but this is specifically about "not quite vandalism, but dubious content."). The deletionism debate will always rage, because these things are gray-areas; Bugs often makes comments that should be deleted, but he has also (occasionally) responded well to constructive criticism. We as a community have to work together to keep our standards high. In this particular instance, I think my "guidelines" are particularly applicable: were the posts encyclopedic? Did they cite references? If not, delete them. Probably the best person to make this deletion is Bugs himself. Nimur (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If Bugs has lapsed again into the habit of posting many bad, unreferenced answers, then a topic ban would be the appropriate action, rather than deleting the bad posts of his either a topic ban or the removal of bad answers are two possible remedies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking a quick spin through one of the desks, I see lots of responses from different users that lack references. To single out one user would be, like, "racist", dude. P.S. Gypsies are not a "race". The OP's original premise in that question was incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the griping IP above engages in his own "racism" with this comment:[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Even CT posts editorial comments that lack references. If you're going to have a policy that every response must contain a reference, that's fine. Just apply the rule to everyone and not one particular user that you happen to think is a jerk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I struck my claim above that a topic ban would be appropriate and that comment removal would not. I'm not sure that removal of bad, unreferenced answers would be such a bad Reference Desk policy, particularly for editors whose "good referenced answer" ratio is on the wrong side of the 80-20 rule. I'm also not advocating such a policy here; I'm just retracting me advocating against it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Question removed

I think this question should not have been removed, since it was not in any way asking for medical advice, per User:Kainaw/Kainaw's_criterion. Orgasms are not a medical issue. 93.125.165.43 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have reinstated the paragraph. This is perhaps one of those "borderline cases" mentioned in User:Kainaw/Kainaw's_criterion, but if it's borderline, we need to discuss it before deletion. Marnanel (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The question reinstated by Marnanel was not the first instance of that question from IP address 95.78.69.25. The first time it was asked I deleted it with the edit summary DNFT. The same question was immediately posted a second time by 95.78.69.25. I deleted it a second time and then posted a message on the Talk page for this IP address. See diff 1. Note that my primary argument was NOT that it was a medical question. My argument was, and still is, that this is not an appropriate question for Wikipedia, and certainly not for the Science Reference Desk.

Note that the text posted by 95.78.69.25 is not a question about the science of orgasm, or anything else of a scientific nature. Initially, the text asks for references or articles which might be relevant. (Wikipedia is full of references and articles!) Finally, there is the question … would I have had an orgasm? In between, there is a lengthy but irrelevant explanation of the User’s recent attempts at masturbation. This is not a question that science can answer in any satisfactory way because, among other reasons, it requires speculation and science is not based on speculation.

IP address 95.78.69.25 did not respond by accepting the situation and looking elsewhere, or refining his question. He continually restored the same question, despite it being deleted by me then Exploding Boy then TenOfAllTrades, and despite a number of good-faith edits on the IP Talk page. This IP address eventually posted essentially the same question six times until he was finally blocked for 31 hours by TenOfAllTrades. I suggest this is not the behaviour of a person genuinely seeking information. This is more likely the behaviour of someone intent on trolling. It is easy to take advantage of Wikipedia’s generosity and reluctance to censor, and in my view this IP address was intent on taking advantage.

Marnanel might be surprised at some of the other questions on the Science Reference Desk that have been deleted promptly in the interests of not feeding trolls. For example, see this deletion: diff 2. The consensus around Wikipedia seems to be that trolling should be deleted promptly. I am not in favour of Marnanel’s suggestion of discussing trolling before deletion. If a User has his post deleted because it looks like trolling it is not difficult for that User to re-post his request in such a way that it no longer looks like trolling.

If we are to debate this deletion, let’s debate whether the question was a genuine attempt to obtain information of an objective, scientific nature, or something else. Dolphin (t) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Kainaw's criterion, I use Jayron32's criterion. It has one part, rather than three, so for the sake of efficiency, it must be better: "Would responses to this question lead a reasonable person to take any course of action regarding their own bodies or health?" If the answer is yes, the question is for medical advice, and should not be answered. A question that asks "is my experience normal..." with regard to biological processes should not be answered. What should be said is "If you are concerned that your <insert biological process here> is not normal, see a qualified professional." End of story. If someone is asking if their orgasm experience is normal, responses are clearly in the realm of medical advice because they indicate a course of action regarding ones own body. Its that simple. If we give an answer one way or another, and he acts on that answer, and we are wrong, that is morally reprehensible. The best way to answer is to vaguely refer to a reference on the topic, and then tell them to take any individual concerns to a doctor. --Jayron32 04:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think I've mentioned before that your criterion is ridiculous, because it would prevent us from saying that smoking causes cancer, emphysema, or any other disease. It's ridiculous to claim that stating this about smoking constitutes medical advice. Your ridiculous criterion is not why the medical advice policy exists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think telling people not to smoke is a good idea. Answering questions about whether or not their orgasm experience is "normal" is not... --Jayron32 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Was it "a genuine attempt to obtain information of an objective, scientific nature"? I don't know, and there was certainly something trollish about the original wording of the question, but presumably to get past Kainaw it was re-worded for the Misc desk like this:

"Pre-orgasm feeling

"I'm looking for references regarding the feeling just before a person experiences an orgasm, how intense this feeling normally is, and how long it normally lasts. Please note, this is purely a question asking for references; it is in no way medical advice, since the question is not asking for diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice. Thank you for your time. 137.30.164.176 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)"

This was met there with the response:

"The book Human Sexual Response by Masters and Johnson is a classic reference that describes the phases of the Human sexual response cycle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)"

That's plenty "scientific" enough for me for this purpose. Truth is, I think the deleting/blocking editors were a maybe just a bit quick drawn here. Wikiscient (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That was posted by the user on a different reference desk in a different form from the original question and, it should be noted, after the user was blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is in response to Dolphin's comment above that if a [non-trolling] "User has his post deleted because it looks like trolling it is not difficult for that User to re-post his request in such a way that it no longer looks like trolling."

Well, that's what this user did (albeit from a different IP from somewhere else in the world entirely). Was this user not, therefore, trolling? Tough call, especially with all the IPs and all, but in the end the user did get his/her question answered and seemed content enough with that! If that is not "not trolling" then what exactly would "not trolling" be...? Wikiscient (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My larger concern at this point is the poster's use of multiple IPs to evade his block. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is thataway, though I should note that, reviewing the IPs in question, there may not be much that can be done, except WP:RBI, without the "B". --Jayron32 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiscient has made three very good points:

1. The question as originally worded was trollish.

2. The person asking the question substantially re-worded his question and posted it on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk.

3. The re-worded question has been satisfactorily answered at the Miscellaneous Reference Desk.

Therefore the person asking the question has received the information he was looking for, and there will be no objection if the question, as originally worded, is deleted from the Science Reference Desk. Dolphin (t) 07:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection here! Wikiscient (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Bugs seems to have summarily deleted (as a top-level "minor" edit with no edit summary) the agreed-upon, consensus-as-per-the-talk-page-above approved version of the question-and-response at the Misc. desk. Could someone do something about that? I did not not object to that! Wikiscient (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did an "undo" on the edit. Out of curiosity, why didn't you just do an undo yourself? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant more "could someone talk to bugs, please?" Rather than spread the contention needlessly on this one myself. I've just been around this desk for a couple of days recently, but I get the impression that bugs can be problematic but handle-ably so. Thanks, anyway! Cheers, Wikiscient (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That might have been the one where the OP is under suspension for block evasion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We probably can't delete the question on the grounds of medical advice - but we certainly can delete it on the grounds that we don't accept posts of any kind from blocked users who are circumventing their block. We have deleted questions from blocked users many times in the past - and that's what should happen here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Do I have to re-post it myself (as a non-blocked user) at the Sci desk in its form at the Misc desk...? This was in the end a good faith question that got some good responses of use to just about everyone, I should think. Why is there still this inclination to de-facto censorship in this case? Wikiscient (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The question as asked at the Miscellaneous Desk might have been in the form of a good-faith question, but the question as asked at the Science Desk most definitely was not. It was trolling, pure and simple. The question was deleted and re-posted six times until the IP address was blocked. The person purported to be a young man beginning to experiment with masturbation but the repetitive posting of his message, and the assertive post on my User talk page showed this was anything but a young man genuinely seeking information. This is/was a person who took a delight in posting a lengthy and irrelevant account about his recent attempts at masturbation. This is trolling, and the consensus at Wikipedia is that trolling should be deleted promptly. The troll is currently blocked and we should do as much as possible to emphasise that his trolling won't be tolerated. Dolphin (t) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, are we still beating this... dead horse? Exploding Boy (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

lol :)

I agree with your case as you argue it, Dolphin, and that the initial responses to the post were justifiable. It could have been -- and, in the event, it was -- handled differently, though. And I certainly saw some good faith from the start with this question, as full of unnecessary detail as it was.

BTW: why do you think the OP was a "young man"? There was nothing in the original post to suggest this, and in fact I would rather more expect this to be a question a young woman might ask, don't you think? Wikiscient (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I concede we have no knowledge of the OP's gender. I was influenced to assume I was dealing with a male, primarily because of the assertive way in which the OP kept re-posting the question in spite of good-faith requests to stop by myself and Exploding Boy; the assertive messages to myself and Exploding Boy on our User talk pages; and the fact that this person purported to be young and a first-time contributor despite the tell-tale way in which he or she confidently quoted WP:NOTCENSORED and Kainaw's criteria regarding medical advice. Dolphin (t) 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all very trollish. And I would not be arguing this issue at all if it weren't for the acceptable re-wording and response to it at the Misc desk, and then that that had been removed by Bugs after everything had died down. Everything seems fine now, so let's just proceed from here, ok? Wikiscient (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On orgasms and malicious computer code

I was thinking about these kinds of questions - which are obviously from people trolling for reactions, though I expect they will deny that profusely - and it occurred to me that the appropriate way to respond to such questions is simply to police wikipedia policy. The ref desks are traditionally a bit more loose than the encyclopedia proper, granted: people are less prone to using sourced material and more likely to give informed opinions, and I think that's fine for the ref desk. but when you have a suspicion that someone is only asking a question to get a rise, then the ref desk regulars should carefully police the responses the question gets to make sure that they are only the statements of reliable sources. For example, I don't know of any reliable sources that provide malicious computer code, so pretty much all answers to that question can be removed. Reliable sources on orgasms exist - Masters and Johnson, the Kama Sutra, a few others - so policing the responses to purely factual sources should destroy whatever visceral satisfaction the OP gets from asking leading questions.

I might make up a small template that says something like "This questions may be a hoax, a request for criminal assistance, an attempt generating dispute, or otherwise against Reference Desk guidelines. Please restrict responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements." We could attach the template at the top of any suspicious thread as a notice. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I like that idea. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I whipped up the template at {{RD-alert}}. looks like this:

feel free to tweak it. would it be useful to create a category for problematic questions, to make it easier to find repeat offenders? --Ludwigs2 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

... this is what we should be doing anyway (and I'm just as guilty for not doing so...) Aaronite (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(but I do think it's a decent idea) Aaronite (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Should read "an attempt to create disputes". And the last phrase doesn't quite match the rest of the sentence. But it's looking good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the idea, though we should be very careful with the wording. We don't want to use a template which will generate silly edit wars over whether or not it should be placed on a particular question, so we need to be cautious about implying that the post is in bad faith (however obvious it may be). After all, creating such meta-disputes would be quite satisfying to many a troll. Reminders to avoid getting sucked into back-and-forth bickering, and to resist the temptation to take the opportunity to crack jokes (at the expense of the OP or anyone else) would not be out of place, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Hence the weasel-word "may". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...are you sure that big honkin' template won't just draw more attention to the question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How about we try it and find out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"May" is not a weasel word, Bugs. Unless, of course, you have incontrovertible proof they do definitely fall into this category. Which you'd be prepared to share with us, no doubt. "I suspect" does not even equal "charged", let alone "guilty as charged". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A concern would be that we're going to get some editors crying "AGF!" even when it's obvious that it's from a troll or a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As they should. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. You know a lot about a lot of things here, but socks ain't one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, actually; I missed your phrase "even when it's obvious". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

10-Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a template available that is less big and honkin', as A Quest For Knowledge put it? It does look like a big klaxon. I don't think we need an icon, for instance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can redesign the template to be smaller - this is just the standard {{ombox}} alert. I guess the main stylistic question would be whether we want to (1) a banner like this, (2) a right-floating quote box, or (3) a flush-left notice like {{resolved}}. what do you all think? --Ludwigs2 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

P.s. edited the template to reflect some of the comments here. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think that if you open up a ref desk page, your eyes are going to be naturally drawn to the question with 'alert' template. Not to mention people's natural curiosity towards something controversial. But hey, we can always try it and if it doesn't work, no harm, no foul. There's nothing wrong with experimenting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't show at the top, you'd have to scroll down the page. But you might be right that it calls too much attention to itself. The "SPA" template is in small print. Maybe try this one with small print and see how it looks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"a request for criminal assistance" is not strictly against the reference desk guidelines. For good reason. Not only do many jurisdictions have amoral laws, it's also widely open to interpretation. And by interpretation I mean "guessing".

It would be a large mistake to officially sanction the sort of witch-hunt that results from trying to guess what people intend to do with the information referenced at this desk. We're not cops, it's not our job to investigate or interrogate people we think are 'suspicious'. We're not here to question people's motives. In fact AGF policies are there specifically to stop us from going down that unproductive road.

This question [20] should be informative. Would you want this person deleting threads here? APL (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Re-reading I see that Ludwigs' proposal would still allow us to provide references for such questions, which is good. ... But it might stop people from providing well-meaning warnings and advice, which could be bad. APL (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Copying from Help Desk) Restricting responses to neutral, factual, sourced statements is exactly what the reference desk should be doing anyway. Is there really any need to tag specific questions with this message, since it's pretty much ref desks ethos? And it kinda gives the impression that any questions not tagged with the message are open for speculation, debates and non-factual guess work. I'd also like to say, neither of the example questions you've given were trolling imo. Someone asking for computer viruses and someone asking if they've had an orgasm, while not really questions for the Reference Desk, I don't see how they are trolling 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All well and good, but if it's against RefDesk guidelines, then why would we answer it at all? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, did you copy that trolling comment over here??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing trolling about that post. You just happen to disagree with it. I agree with everything it said 100%.

Your hateful bias against IP editors is showing. You should probably apologies for your last remark. APL (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And when someone does provide well-meaning warnings and advice, other editors will yell at them for being nannies. I wish you all could agree on the rules, but I suspect it's not possible, because many regular editors here have a very fixed idea of exactly what the RD's should be and should not be - and those ideas are often contradictory across users. Hence the endless discussions here about the same topics, with no resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"I wish you all could agree on the rules" - Are you somehow outside the community here, Bugs? You're quite vocal for a mere observer. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) because it's the ref desk. There are obvious topic-areas that leave themselves open to abuse; questions on sexuality and sexual preference, religious beliefs, destructive/anti-social activities, medical conditions, and etc can actually be perfectly valid, but they can also be questions designed solely to aggravate/irritate/gross out people with impunity. for instance, if someone were to ask the question: "Is it normal to puke up green slime with little things in it that look like they are alive", it's not exactly medical advice, and while it's possible that someone actually did throw up something like that, I'd myself bet real money that it's just some adolescent trying to get people to answer a stupid question about green slime with wiggly bits. and unfortnately, there's usually someone good-hearted enough on the ref desk to answer it. or maybe if someone asked the question "Are [insert your favorite race] people really [insert your favorite insult] the way that [insert your favorite hate-group] say they are?". Again, good money that that's just some adolescent trying to stir up a stupid debate between respondents, and good money that the effort will work. The alert here is to remind answerers that there grave suspicions about the question, and keep them from feeding the OP with the kind of response the OP may or may not be looking to get. it's just pure wp:DENY, without actually bothering to determine whether or not the OP is trying to cause trouble.

If the RD regulars were all perfect, we wouldn't need reminders like this. since we're not (or at least, the rest of you aren't - <smirk>) the reminder sure can't hurt. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone's pointed this out explicitly: if giving "requests for criminal assistance" was against the rules of the Reference Desk, it would require editors to make some sort of call on the legality of certain actions, which is something we're not allowed to do. Marnanel (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. We are not allowed to give legal advice, i.e. advising someone on what they should do. Observing that something is obviously going to cause legal trouble does not constitute giving legal advice. Telling someone not to break the law is not "giving legal advice" Telling some to go ahead, that's giving legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Telling someone not to break the law in that kind of generic way you mention is one thing, but as soon as you comment on any specific activity, it starts becoming legal advice because you are providing them with your opinion that said activity is illegal. Matt Deres (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think our past consensus, or near-consensus, has been that we don't give answers to requests for criminal assistance; but neither do we create a list of approved and disapproved topics; we remain ambiguous on what "criminal assistance" means and take it here to the talk page for individual cases. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. It's case by case (pardon the legalese). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It primarily depends on how imaginative people feel. The harder people work to think up ways you might be a criminal, the more likely your thread might be deleted. Note that bad grammar, teenage slang, or an IP address will greatly increase the chance that we'll try to think up ways you might be a criminal. If you misspell a homonym forget having your question answered, you'll be lucky if we don't call the police!APL (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Support. Wikiscient (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Porn films

I hid the soapboxing and subsequent replies to the WP:RD/E#Porn films question. They don't actually answer the question, make wide sweeping generalizations, and are preachy. Dismas|^(talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this person really worth our time?

I have been constantly seeing his frivolous and ignorant replies for a long time in a serious resource like this desk, but this 1 2 is just too much. I'm also aware that this user is a somewhat controversial figure here. Nobody seems to care, though. --Belchman (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Beloved Bugs would not be controversial if no one cared. Frivolous sometimes, ignorant no. We have only smart people here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ironically, the very asking of this question is inimical to the idea inherent in the header. Trolls get their jollies by people reacting to what they say. Which is why I tend to stay out of discussions about trolls, because that just adds more fuel to the very fire they hope to stoke and thus shine the light of attention (positive, negative, it makes no difference) on them. I'm not saying the editor in question is a troll, but where controversial statements are made, others don't always have to give them life by commenting. Totally ignoring them might work just as well. Silence does not always denote consent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments concerned were first discussed up above, under "Encyclopedic tone". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be that a few people are getting very upset because Bugs told them that Romani and gypsy are not races, so laws to deport Romani/gypsy people are not "racist" laws. Bugs is correct. Romani is not a race. Gypsy is not a race. Sure, it is a semantic argument, but it is correct. Instead of throwing a tantrum, accept that racism is about race and choose another word. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the semantic difference would have been better accepted if Bugs hadn't prefaced it with posts strongly implying that "they" were all pickpockets and muggers. Matt Deres (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw, if you must bring up semantics: the usage of the terms racism and racial discrimination isn't limited to race. The UN defines racial discrimination as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin." I also agree with Matt Deres. Bringing up the old stereotype in a jocular fashion was problematic, not the semantic pedantry. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know. In order to make incidents of racism increase and, in turn, increase funding to piss away with research on how to end racism, the definition of racism is continually broadened. In another 20 years, racism will be defined as the act of looking at another person so we can have reports of nearly 100% racism all around the world. I don't like redefining words in such a dishonest way, just as I still refuse to use the term "gentrification" to refer to white people moving into black neighborhoods just to perpetuate the stereotypes that all white people are rich and all black people are poor. Words have meaning. If the word you want to use doesn't have the meaning you intend, use a different word. If it means that the UN won't get as much free money to combat racism, so be it. -- kainaw™ 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That wording was drafted almost 50 years ago. See Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The most solid criticism of France is presented in the context of Human Rights, so it makes more sense to use that as reference than whatever definition and linguistic criticism you are referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know. It should be about "the elimination of discrimination", but they wanted money even back then. So, it is titled "the elimination of racial discrimination" even though the document itself states that by "racial discrimination" it means more than racial discrimination. So, the document itself states that it is using a non-standard definition of "racial discrimination". In my opinion, it would be like me stating that I like to use the word "mosquito" when I refer to "Romani" people and then discuss a French law about mosquito control. My disclaimer makes my statement valid, but it isn't correct. It is obvious that I am attempting to use a term that sways the reader's opinion (in this case, nobody cares about mosquitos enough to worry about controlling them). -- kainaw™ 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was also because they realised, as I noted in the discussion, that race was an illdefined term, which could never have a precise meaning? (As our article on racism also notes BTW "This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.") Something which is becoming even more clear now that we are starting to be able to compare genetic profiles of individuals. You Kainaw, are obvious entitled to your opinion that Romani is not a race, but not everyone agrees including it seems some Romani [21]. I would note 50 years ago, the horrific events of the holocaust were still fresher on the minds of many where various races, ethic groups or whatever you want to call them, including Jewish and Romani people along with others groups the proponents didn't like were massacred in a short time on a scale never seen before. Anti-semitism, which sometimes manifests in a form often considered racism (even if you don't think it is), i.e. Racial antisemitism was from the article one of the things on the minds of the drafters. It's clear however that they weren't considering all discrimination. There is nothing on discrimination based on age, gender, sexual orientation, income, whether you like anime or not, whether you are a wikipedia editor or not, IP or registered accounts, whether you like to make jokes on the RD, etc... Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you saying that you don't consider Romani a race or discrimination against Romani racism, what I am saying is I think it's important we recognise people are going to disagree on this, and trying to establish that one is factually right or wrong, is not going anywhere. In other words I think it is important to establish that you, BB and 84.153.253.222 (who if they are who I think they are, I don't really care about) are ultimately simply offering opinions since there is no clear cut definition of either, no matter how any of us may prefer it if there were. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are supporting my point. I stated that the source of this argument, from what I read, is that BB said Romani is not a race. From there, he was attacked. It appears that he is NOT entitled to his own judgement on what constitutes a "race". -- kainaw™ 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs' conception of race is a strawman; if he'd claimed they were a race or an ethnic group or whatever and (gasp!) posted a reference in support of it, I doubt any comments would have followed. People aren't pissed about his conception of race in some ivory-tower academic sense, but by his characterization of the Romani as thieves and pickpockets and then his hiding behind semantics to argue against being labelled a racist because they don't fit his definition of a "race". If he'd posted something about how blacks are all rapists and drug-addicts and then hidden behind his comments by saying that blacks aren't a race and therefore he wasn't a racist, would you be so quick to defend him? The fuzziness of the concept of "race" should not be seen as a carte blanche to post racist garbage. Matt Deres (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, the majority of his contributions to the desks are good, interesting and helpful. However the (unfunny) jokes, bias against certain user groups, and heavily opinionated and often wrong comments ending with "ya dig?" can be very grating. If he cut back on that, he'd be a great contributor. As it is, he is still "worth our time" as his good to bad ratio is well above 50% 213.229.109.203 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has their problems and we need to work together to help them. Many people have bad habits; some are more noticeable on Wikipedia while others are not noticeable. A good piece of advice would be to not overdo jokes. The greater the number of jokes, the greater the number that people find "unfunny" and insulting. Baseball Bugs may be excessive sometimes; a courteous note on his talk page would do good if anyone is insulted from what he says. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The point that sometimes seems to be forgotten is that the reference desk exists primarily for the benefit of WP readers who are seeking answers to questions - it's not here for the casual amusement of editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it realy fair to the editor (BB) to criticize him so? I would think that if there was so much concern, this would have been brought up before. Everyone here acts like this is a long term problem, but has anyone ever let him know that this is not acceptable? I am sure that BB is reasonable and will quickly adjust once he realizes that his edits have crossed the line. Looking at some of the examples given above, I am sure that some users have avoided using the desk, either not wanting to be made fun of, or seeing the desk as being staffed by less than serious help. Someone should just politely let BB know this, and like any good editor he will surely see the issue and stop with the unwanted and/or out of bounds comments. Someone please show me where BB has been talked to before? If not, then now he should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.138.124.202 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncertain of how to search the archives (a search for his name will just bring up his signature...) but yes, this has been brought up many times here. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Most recently here, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs started contributing way back in May 2007 by repairing vandalism. Since then, thousands of contribution. Never Mind the Quality Feel the Width. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

...and two blocks for harassment and personal attacks... 188.192.58.186 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(NB. Only edit from this IP 188.192.58.186, so far)

It seems some now very respected editors and Administrators have been blocked at some stage. To be fair to Bugs could '188.192..' (or others) please provide links to Bugs' blocks? (and whats with the Hamburger?) 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The hamburger was apparently added by Baseball Bugs [22] for reasons known only to himself. Note that he appears disinclined to otherwise contribute to this discussion.87.112.158.100 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop it. Is the editor in question characteristically a racist? The answer is no and that should be the end of that. Some of you should stop being so self-righteous. He is not characteristically a racist and another good quality about him is that he doesn't take himself seriously. He seems to be always ready to laugh at himself. Additionally he contributes very valuable material often. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so mysterious, IP Editor '188.192..' apparently hails from ....Hamburg! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And the boy gets a cigar! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See here. As everyone can see, both blocks are from almost three years ago. He hasn't been blocked since. Harrassment and personal attacks aren't the topic of this thread. And I agree that block logs alone don't say a lot. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree blocks don't tell very much about a user; hell even Jimbo has a few blocks. My only reason for bringing it up was that Cuddlyable3 was presenting Baseball Bugs as a some sort of saint and model editor since "May 2007", which is somewhat of a warped truth. It in fact shows a lot that those blocks are three years old and he hasn't been blocked since; he learned and modified his editing to be better, which is great, and I assume the result we're all hoping for this time as well with the issues raised in this thread 188.192.58.186 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Jimbo was blocked because he was a terrible editor who didn't really understand how the wiki works. After the horrible incident with the wholesale deleting of images from the commons, he has now been stripped of most of his powers and can go back to being the empty figurehead and source of funding he is best at being. He's not really a good example of "otherwise good editor who got blocked once". 86.161.108.172 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making value judgements about what makes a good editor. If someone contributes in a generally good way, that is generally good enough. I don't think anyone has the expertise in the value of editors to make the sorts of fine distinctions being referenced. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW 188.192.58.186 (talk · contribs) is currently on a 2 week {{tor}} block! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Casual stereotyping on the Ref Desks

I'm actually rather surprised – and more than a little pissed off, to tell the truth – to see some people who are among our more-experienced editors engaging in casual stereotyping of races and ethnic groups on the Ref Desk.

• Baseball Bugs' comments linked above ([23], [24]) which carry the implicit assumption that Romani are thieves was one that I didn't see until it turned up on this talk page.
• Googlemeister draws the broad conclusion [25] that Chinese people's beliefs about medicine or health are "weird" and (implicitly) laughable because he knows one guy with an irrational fear of microwaves.

Were these a couple of isolated incidents, or is this sort of thing happening more often than I'd like to think? I would have thought it unnecessary to explicitly state "Don't post responses demonstrating your own ethnic/racist prejudices" as part of our guidelines, but now I'm wondering. These sorts of statements are unacceptable here, and if people are broadly unaware of that, then we need to take urgent steps to remedy the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Too bad more people aren't afraid of microwaves; they would get some good home cooking instead of a prepackaged microwave dish. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not broaden this too far. I think this discussion is about one experienced editor who sometimes shows an unwillingness to address issues that have been previously raised with him. Personally, I don't like the title of this thread ("Is this person really worth our time?"), I know he makes many very useful contributions, and I know he can be very amusing - but he needs to acknowledge and address the concerns raised and modify his approach, in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an increasing trend in any event. Whether it happens more often than you think, Ten ... well your surprise indicates that it does. There have always been insensitive remarks, idiotic opinions, misunderstood comments. Almost every Humanities desk question on Middle East politics receives its share of unnecessary provocation in a few of the replies. The United States probably get bashed more often than any other nation here ... and often some people don't see it as a stretch to extend their angry stereotyping to the American people. You'll see crass stereotyping in some of the answers to particular questions on religion. Then there are the less offensive, but nevertheless equally pointless and thus annoying snipes between soldiers of American v British (or Commonwealth) spelling. The list goes on. Overt racism towards groups of people who have suffered violent discrimination the past centuries is perhaps rarer, and the reactions are usually stronger.

I just try to ignore. I don't know what else to do. I resent removing posts by legit users. Nor do I like to feed the distraction by responding to these unreferenced off-topic stereotypes, even when they're offensive. Nope, silence does not indicate my consent. I just shy away from the hassle, I guess. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not seeing nearly as much of it because I tend to be over at Science and Misc, where there are fewer questions asked directly about cultural issues. It just sent up a red flag for me when I saw the one comment ad RD/Sci virtually simultaneously with the thread here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very early in that discussion, Sluzzelin provided a link[26] which explained the situation. What you've got here is the French government trying to fix what they see as a problem, by shipping certain Romanis "back where they came from", as apparently they are in France illegally, and the public perception of that particular subset of Romanis is that they are lowlifes, criminals, thieves, etc. I didn't invent this stereotype, it's been around for a long time, and the perception has long been that there's something to it, it didn't come from thin air. Now, are the French scapegoating them or using them as a distraction? Maybe. But when I hear someone cry "Racism!" I have to raise the question of whether that cry is itself a distraction. Are the complaints about this particular group fair, based on evidence? Or is it a case of the few tarnishing the many? And what is that group doing to try to improve its public image, beyond crying "racism"? The point of my original comment about pickpocketing is that the people of France are going to give them money to go away, which struck me as very ironic, in view of that stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So we come full circle, to the first link provided at the very start of this discussion. Bugs, you typed: "So instead of picking individual pockets, they are picking the collective pockets of France, taking the money and running. What's wrong with this picture?" Whatever your intention may have been, that looks like you're saying that all Romani are pickpockets and not to be trusted. Which is classic racism in form, if not necessarily in intent. If you'd chosen your words more carefully, maybe none of this argy-bargy would ever have happened. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Very likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what is that group doing to stop people stereotyping them? Hey, why don't we just assume all Americans are stupid until someone shows us reliable sources that they aren't? Why don't we just assume that there's something to it, it didn't come from thin air? Why don't we assume that all black people are lazy, that there's something to it, it didn't come from thin air? After all, I didn't invent this stereotype. Bugs, you're not stupid. You know that, when you're in a position of relative power, it's really shitty to make mean, sniggering jokes playing on stereotypes about people with less power. The Roma, and related groups, are in a position of very little power in Europe, and have been for centuries. Details of this can be found with very little effort, and does not require someone to specifically explain it to you. We have articles. When someone points out that you're making the world a little bit worse, rather than a little bit better, the correct response is not "I dispute your terminology!" but "Sorry". 86.161.108.172 (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

86.161.108.172—you link above to a cartoon posted on Flickr entitled "A Concise History of Racism." Its fault is that it is materialistic. Absent from the cartoon is reference to any of humanity's higher capabilities. You are referring in your above post to people in positions of "very little power." But where does "power" come from? In your conception, from what I can glean from your posts, power comes from nothing more than the material. That is a negative conception of mankind. You are pointing a finger of blame at someone else. But your own conception of mankind as described above is very limiting, in my opinion. And instead of giving another editor the benefit of the doubt you are demanding that they say they are sorry. That is once again: limiting. In my opinion, there is a world of possibilities. Conversation can take you anywhere. You need not dictate to another editor what they must say. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone who's in an economically disadvantaged situation has some choices. They can try to better themselves and better their situation; or they can take no action and blame others for their failure to succeed. The former is what immigrants have done in the USA for generations, to establish themselves and move beyond stereotyping and "racism". Currently we see lots of Asians running motels and such as that. That's become somewhat of a stereotype, just as things like the Chinese laundry used to be. But they have the last laugh, because they are bettering themselves over time. So I must ask again, at the risk of IP's calling me a "racist" again, but please indulge me here, as I am obviously an ignoranimous: Are these particular Romanis doing anything to better themselves and to escape their generations-old stereotype? Or are they content to blame someone else for their failure to succeed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've known countless Europeans who think Americans are idiots. Given that we bailed them out of two wars, with no respect accorded us, maybe they're right about us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You just don't know when to stop, do you, Bugs?87.112.158.100 (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I stop when I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So why is the French government doing this, and why do the majority of French citizens agree with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Things that governments do are not always right, whether or not a majority of their citizens agree with them. Perhaps you should admit your remarks were out of place, and think more carefully before you post in future.87.112.158.100 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

87.112.158.100—do you really have to dictate to another editor what they must and must not say? You say, "Perhaps you should admit your remarks were out of place and think more carefully before you post in future." Is it so important to determine what another person says and to curtail what they might say? Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If what that editor says is in breach of the guidelines, then yes. We take special care to treat potentially offensive subjects with sensitivity, diligence, and rigor. Like, for example, not suggesting that "they're all thieving bastards". 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Show us a diff of that alleged usage of that "b-word". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In order to combat the deadening effects of political correctness the occasional off-color remark is acceptable. That is my opinion. You can tell from the context of what was said, that no special point was being made about a segment of the human population that would permanently serve to disadvantage them in the eyes of the world at large. The point referenced was an extremely common stereotype associated with a people. That it was not repeated should be sufficient reason for any reasonable person to perceive it as a joke, and not particularly at anyone's expense. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Another school of thought is that the purpose of a Reference Desk is for people to post references, rather than bigoted stereotypes. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which they did. They demolished the OP's false premise, which was: "I recently read in the news that France is deporting all Roma (Gypsies). How isn't this racial discrimination a violation of French and EU law?" And by the way, how come nobody complained about the OP's usage of that term "gypsy", which by itself is a stereotyping label, or a "racist" term by that broader definition of "racism". "Romanis" is just a word. "Gypies" is a term that invokes all kinds of negative stereotypes (where do you think the word "gypped" comes from?) So if you want to yell at somebody for "racist" stereotyping, start with the guy who posted the question and opened that door. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

87.112.130.90—it seems you are endeavoring to portray the editor in question in a certain negative light. I take exception to that because I don't perceive the editor in that way. You are suggesting that they posited that "they're all thieving bastards," in reference to the Romani people, but in fact they did not say that. We are perpetuating something that should be considered over. A joke was made. It was off-color. Was it a joke? Did it have any implications? I think it was an observation on reality. People are perceived in a certain way. That doesn't mean you can't make references to the way they are perceived by many other people. The French government is perceived in a certain way. The people of France are perceived in a certain way. The Romani people are perceived in a certain way. We are permitted to make references even to perceptions. This is a dangerous thing to do because it involves pandering to unreferenced generalizations that are generally untrue. But to rule that area of speech off-limits is an unnatural curtailment of the very important human capacity for intellectual conceptualization. As long as a line has not been crossed then I think it is safe to say that this has been a good exercise in exploring what can and can't be said on the Reference desks. No one needs to apologize and no one needs to commit themselves to a narrower range of expression in the future. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Our records show that the choice of link by 87.112.158.100 has incurred Godwin's law," Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, it's a valid comparison that has already been made by others [27][28]87.112.158.100 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So how about answering my question, i.e. why is France doing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You are incapable of clicking any of the links given in the relevant section on the desk, incapable of finding any articles on this, and require someone to type up a special explanation just for you specifically here? You are saying you continued this discussion without following any of the links given, or doing any basic research into the topic? Okay! 86.161.108.172 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

86.161.108.172—please stop attacking people. No one said that anyone was "incapable of clicking any of the links given." What this thread is engaging in is a thing called dialogue. You are sniping. Dialogue involves contributing. Yes, it could be argued that I too am sniping. In my defense, I am responding to negativity previously in place. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It said they were there illegally and were being sent away - along with a government handout courtesy of the French citizens. They're paying people to leave who are not supposed to be there anyway. Seems like the French are being a lot nicer to them than they could be, or than the Nazis were. So what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when was Nazi treatment of anyone any kind of benchmark for anything, Bugs? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. 86 raised the comparison, suggesting that somehow the genocide of Romanis by the Nazis and the paid deportation of Romanis from France are somehow equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Can you show me a diff? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A few paragraphs above, where he says something about "Things that governments do", suggesting comparing the French with the Nazis, and Cuddly said he was in Godwin's law territory with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the confusion. It was 87, not 86, who raised the Nazi comparison. However, 87 could be the same guy as 86. There's no way to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than assuming good faith, given that there is no reason whatsoever for you to suppose that. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, numbers don't stick with me. If you had a real ID, I would be less likely to make that mistake. Don't blame my learning disabilities for your refusal to use an ID. Also, many IP users hop from one IP to another, and many IP's are shared. It's not appropriate to make any assumptions about IP's. They might all be the same guy under many IP's, or many guys under one IP, or many guys under many IP's. Since they typically refuse to identify themselves in any way, there's no way to know. We can only tell by attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Create an ID, because no one ever used multiple IDs." Ha! 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The point being I can't tell one IP from another, especially when they adopt the same belligerent attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you can't distinguish one set of numbers from another? You mentioned having a learning disability above, I'm curious what it might be. Dyscalculia perhaps? I could probably write you a greasemonkey script that would highlight different ip addresses with different colors, would that be helpful to you? 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean I literally can't tell one string of numbers from another if I put them side by side. It's just that those numbers don't mean anything. A user ID is a unique word or phrase that distinguishes itself. Four sets of up to three digits each and separated by periods all look pretty much the same. I've seen my own IP address many times, but I couldn't tell you what it is. I don't remember sets of numbers unless I see them over and over and over again, to the point where they start to have some kind of meaning. I know folks who can remember every phone number they've ever had. I can barely remember my own current phone number. If phone numbers were words, I would have a better chance of remembering them. Do you kinda understand what I'm getting at? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. As pointed out above, IDs are easily abused too. Whether it's a string of numbers or a nickname someone came up with, there's no guarantee the person on the other end is one person, 2 people or 20 people, or that several IDs aren't being operated by one person. 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, but a meaningful ID will stand out better. Just to clarify, the "learning disability" I referenced, if it really is a disability, is that I have a very hard time remembering strings of numbers. So if an IP spouts off, and another IP spouts off, they seem to me like they're the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why having a "meaningful ID" matters. You said earlier that "It's not appropriate to make any assumptions about IP's. They might all be the same guy under many IP's, or many guys under one IP, or many guys under many IP's" Well it's not appropriate to make any assumptions about IDs either. They might all be the same guy under many ID's, or many guys under one ID, or many guys under many ID's. But to prevent confusion, I could still write you a greasemonkey script if you'd like, so that you'd have no problem distinguishing the red highlighted ip from the yellow highlighted ip etc in the middle of a discussion 96.252.161.209 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia is unmentionable?

I noticed in a post[29] (on a private page but I raise it here) this statement it is generally discouraged per consensus here at English Wikipedia to mention, let alone provide a link to, the...Simple English Wikipedia. Surely this should not apply to the Ref. Desks where it can be appropriate to give a reference to SEW where one sees that the OP needs a basic introduction to a subject and/or is not fluent in English. Please comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely this should not apply to anywhere on Wikipedia. Since when was linking or even mentioning other Wikipedias "discouraged per consensus"? 82.44.54.25 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not what I really meant. Of course, since the mission of the Simple English Wikipedia is to break down the really complex stuff here at the English Wikipedia, we could point out that Wikipedia as an alternative way to learn more about some of the subjects here at the English Wikipedia in a different manner if they were to complex. The post above was in response to the unending cries I've heard over at the Simple English Wikipedia about ways to make it more popular and noticeable here at the English Wikipedia when consensus, or so I've heard, was that it was not necessary (e.g. someone mentioned putting a box showing the Wikipedia on every article, much like this). In regards to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and in general Wikipedia's internal workings, there's no need to mention the Simple English Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, your second sentence is incorrect. The purpose of Simple English Wikipedia is not to "break down the really complex stuff here at the English Wikipedia". It is not to make a more understandable version of the quantum mechanics article, for example. We are supposed to create understandable articles here at the English Wikipedia. (If one of our articles is too complex, it needs to be fixed — encyclopedias are mainly for the layman.) The purpose of Simple English Wikipedia is to be more understandable for people who struggle with the English language, usually because English is their second (or third) language. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What started this comment was that I noticed this. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the initial rationale would be for never mentioning Simple English, but it is occasionally given as a "here, read this, it is more simple," sort of answer when people are having trouble understanding complicated topics, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or what have you. In that case it is usually a bad source. Simple English is barely an encyclopedia, in my opinion, because frankly when you limit yourself to a 3rd grade vocabulary (or whatever it is), you simply do hobble your ability to express things clearly and accurately. You can talk about people's lives and what is a dog and other "simple" topics, but you can't do much with the really tough scientific stuff. In any case, it is not edited as heavily as En, and one should not confuse it with En in terms of quality, whatsoever. The quality is simply quite poor, above and beyond the question of whether you can dumb down some of these complicated things into explanations that are both simple and correct. We should endeavor to provide good references, not just simply references. Simple is generally speaking not a good reference. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I created a few articles on simple wikipedia, so drop me a note if I start writing in simple vocabulary on this wiki. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Layout problem at Computing desk

I just edited the Computing desk, and noticed that the page stretches way past the browser window, and there's a scroll bar. The content seems to still lay out properly within the browser's viewport. Other desks and pages seem fine. I'm using the latest version of Firefox. I don't have the proper tools installed to look into what's causing this (hopefully not my edits). Someone take a look? Zigorney (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, noticed it's caused by too long lines in code blocks. At least it wasn't me :) Zigorney (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I put the code into a box to fix the page formatting [30] 82.44.54.25 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)