Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

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.

Archives

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

RD Guidelines

1
2
3
4
5

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Vague question about Black Brutality on WP/RD:M

A currently unanswered query has had its heading changed from Black Brutality in Gloucestershire, UK to just the first two words, in a subsequent edit from the same IP address as the original query. Since the deletion also added a spurious character which removed the formatting, I happened to notice, looked at the relevant edits, and restored the abridged title (with formatting) and a NOTE showing the change. A query about interracial police brutality is going evoke different responses if geographically limited rather than not. I'm raising the matter here because that same IP addressee removed my note with an edit description of "not me, vandalism" - to which I restored my note and put a time stamp to my revision, explained in my edit summaries. Because the revised wording is potentially offensive and gives no indication that the context is police actions, I feel it needs some watching. Your help is appreciated. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The location was added by a different user[1], presumably using a highly dubious geolocation basis. The original[2] does not specify a location. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I didn't read far enough back to the actual original posting. So the "specify location" edit is attributed to User:Medeis? I'll give this a rest now. Thanks, User:zzuuzz, for clarifying. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note for the record that the issue User:Deborahjay mentions has been going on for over two weeks since this thread was started, Black Brutality and has nothing to do with me or my behaviour. As far as I can tell, without wasting the time looking at the history, well over a dozen, if not a score of editors have been snared in this ongoing attack, and I bear no responsibility for it, as might be assumed if one only reads the first few comments. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the geolocation was kind of a chancy thing to do, but the question does look like race-baiting trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same guy that posted this bit of Jew-baiting. There's been a rash of this stuff here, and the admins have blocked most of them, but they missed this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the unsigned IP wasn't trolling with his unsupported and unqualified racial claim, he could clarify himself. Otherwise the comment should just be removed as obvious troll is obvious. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, and he put it back. It's a troll, and not blocked yet. I'm guessing the admins are doing other things at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so Medeis and BB do run the Ref Desk. How convenient. Also, claiming that I'm behind some sort of anti-jewish claptrap is like suggesting I'm Osama Bin Laden. Complete and utter nonsense, with no basis in fact whatsoever. And no, nor were the moon landings faked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the above IP is blocked for a month - and not by either Medeis nor me, as we have no power to issue blocks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, this edit looks like an attempt to revert a series of edits, but an IP can only do one. This is of course stupid and ridiculous, but it's from a few weeks ago. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this is at ANI. I don't always agree with accusations of "trolling" thrown around here to justify removals/hats, but the comment immediately above, if I'm reading it correctly as purporting to be the OP, does make the whole thing look like a trolling exercise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a dead giveaway that it's trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That antisemitic question was from a now-blocked one-off account. The writing strikes me as coming from a different person than this IP editor. I do not agree, Medeis, with your addition of the location--come on now. If you think you're being baited, don't bait back. As for the IP's questions, I think they're malformed and rather silly, and I would block immediately if I saw it anywhere else in the project, but this page isn't the normal Wikipedia that I'm used to. So yeah, the real admins are elsewhere and you have to settle for me. The me who's about to go home, by the way. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user is an obvious troll, discussed at ANI. He's been blocked in his various sock and proxy forms (posting from among other places, NYC, the UK and Paris) and the page has again been semi-protected. And even in the light of this we have experienced editors restoring the material and demanding Moses bring down a third tablet before they will drop the matter? μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn those experienced users! Always pulling stunts like asking you for actual evince instead of a vague "See ANI". How dare they! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for those evil smugglers dressed as ghost pirates, we meddlesome kids.... It's one thing to ask politely for a diff. It's another to be so blind as not to look at a history or a talk page when there are a dozen reverts, and insist on abetting a troll because ...must...answer...every...question. That's why we can't have nice things. Someone can hat this until tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean weevil jugglers dressed as pirate ghosts. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

I often disagree with the way μηδείς handles these trolling or alleged trolling situations but I don't find much fault in the reversion. The only thing I would have done different, is I would have referred to this talk page, or not referred to anything rather than refer to ANI, but that's a minor thing. (Also it is relatively easy to find the thread at ANI by searching on the page for "reference desk" and I would have expected someone like StuRat could do that.)

WP:DENY explicitly encourages us not to make a big fuss about these things, hence why I left zero comment here despite reverting the comment about four times early on and would prefer we didn't need to have yet another one of these dumb conversations.

To be fair, I think DENY is sometimes overapplied, in particular I'm not sure if there's any point in applying it liberally to editors like Bowei Huang, who whatever they are doing are possibly not seeking or getting anything from people recognising or memorialising them and I'm not sure if they're exactly seeking attention either. (For that matter WickWack, who may or may not be back but likewise although they apparently wanted to always be right, they did so by maintaining at least 4 identities & didn't seem to actually want to recognition of their name or identity or otherwise want attention.)

Over liberal application of DENY can make things confusing when dealing with someone irregular or where it's a bit difficult to see the problem. It also mostly rules out engaging with the problematic editor and although I perhaps have a tendency to over-engage sometimes, there are times when it seems to make the editor realise the game is up. (And I also recognise it's generally unclear what some problematic editor is trying to do, hence why I too often at a minimum, try to avoid naming editors when I can.)

However from what I've read at ANI and elsewhere, it's likely this is a case where deny is a good idea as the editor probably is seeking attention. More to the point, this discussion is and was the most recent in this talk page. And even the header tells you it's about the same thing. Furthermore, by the time Medeis had reverted, the editor had been reverted after using 4 different IPs with extremely different geolocation data by me before the page was protected. (No edits then happened until the protection expired and the IP came back and reverted which Medeis reverted which StuRat then reverted.) In other words, even with the application of DENY, there was no reason for someone with the experience of StuRat on how to use wikipedia and the RD, should be confused about the IP being up to no good.

And even if StuRat is really incapable of noticing any of this, as has been said they could have always asked someone what was going on. I presume this is why an admin who doesn't frequent the RD except to deal with this stuff reverted StuRat [3] with the comment "rv proxying for block-evading troll".

BTW I actually do agree that adding the IP geolocation was unhelpful, but the Clinton question did strongly suggest the IP was simply trolling even if there was any doubt over the black brutality bit. (As has been mentioned, the Jewish question thing seems to be a case of confusion as the IP was trying to remove the question.) In any case once Drmies blocked, it became a moot point. If the IP wanted to ask for an unblock, they could have and did (and were denied by someone else). In fact, I'm still uncertain whether the IP is even the same as the person who keeps adding the comment back but it was clear that the (South Korean) IP who added it back was unwanted from the first time they added it back, which they proceeded to prove by adding it back using 3 very different IPs.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure everyone has noticed, this problem has not gone away - is there anything we can do other than locking down the Misc desk permanently? Or are we happy continuing to manually delete the question? Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same user is back with the black brutality question. Can @Jayron32: or some other admin either block the user or semi the page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up; TRM has taken care of it. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And he's back. The short-term page locks don't appear to be working, and presumably it's not possible to block the range of IP addresses in use. Should we lock the Misc desk for a longer period (a month or so) and rely on talk page edit requests? Or is there a better long-term solution? (One is tempted to mention the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but we're probably not at _that_ stage yet). Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter would work spectacularly here, if I'm not mistaken. It works very well in cases where a formulaic troll is hammering a page with the same shit over and over. I don't know the technical details, but I'd be willing to draw up a formal request; though I'd almost like an informal consult with an experienced EF admin, I'm going to ping @Samwalton9: and see if he can drop by and first indicate if this is the sort of thing the edit filter could stop. I suspect it can, and the edit filter is nice because it can target something like this, and leave the rest of the desk open for editing, which is most ideal. --Jayron 32 02:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost tempted to say we should have an RfC to ask whether the ref desks should be retasked as "tools for registered users", but decided against that, since many registered users do use the ref desks without the intention of using the gained information to improve an article, even though such users are here, for the most part, to improve the encyclopedia in at least some small way. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI we already have an edit filter set up for reference desk trolling (which may or may not be primarily aimed at this troll, I'm not sure) at Special:AbuseFilter/731. I've added the latest couple of characteristic strings to the filter. Apologies that it's hidden but it would be quite easy to work out how to avoid it. If you want to enquire about its contents please contact the mailing list. Sam Walton (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Sam. You're the best!--Jayron 32 10:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: He's back. The edit filter needs some tweaks, he's using breaching experiments to get by it. Check the history of RDM for some more patterns. Thanks in advance!--Jayron 32 22:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Further changes made. Sam Walton (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! --Jayron 32 16:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you can't just go to that guy's flat and threaten to destroy his collection of rubber duckies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my parole officer has told me not to threaten such violence. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD Question "How has the rotschild family managed to dominate world banking"

For information, the above-titled query (which looks mighty like trolling) on the Humanities RefDesk has multiple text entries under it, but when edit is clicked (I was going to add a sardonic reference to Solipsism) an entirely unrelated text relating to Virginia Woolf appears in the edit box. I lack the time and expertise to unravel this. Edited to add: OK, now it all appears as a legitimate Virginia Woolf query – not sure what's going on here, but doubtless someone thinks they're amusing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81/230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it was removed by the time you clicked edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To explain in a bit more detail, when you click on Edit it apparently grabs the section "that far down" (let's say the 28th section from the top). If that section no longer exists, it will then grab the next section (whatever section is 28th now). This method causes the problem you encountered, but also if a new section is inserted above it between when the page is refreshed and you click edit, you also get the wrong section. The alternative would be for the code to look for the section with that name, but then if the name was changed it won't find it. Perhaps a hybrid system would be better, where first it looks for a section with that name, and if it doesn't find it (or finds more than one section with the same name), then look for that section number. Not fool-proof, but should have a lower fail rate (it would still fail if section removed, but not if it was just moved elsewhere on the page). Does anybody know if this approach would be practical ? StuRat (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, StuRat. I was afraid that a clever hacker had managed to find a way of displaying text and obfusticating the edit box to prevent replies or removals! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's a well-known issue, and that there's an open bug on it. (But I don't know how to search MediaWiki bugs.) You could try asking on VP/T; I bet somebody there would know. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just when a section is deleted, I believe, but also if a new question has been added since you refreshed the page. This is a natural (not inevitable, but natural) consequence of the fact that this page, unlike every other discussion page in Wikipedia AFAIK, uses top posting. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that. New comments are added beneath old ones -- and new sections are added at the bottom, too. That does tend to exacerbate the problem -- but that's how every discussion page on Wikipedia works, isn't it? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015

This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have a question about vocabulary. If a person looks at something terrifying, they are terrified, and experience terror. If they look at something ghastly, they are aghast, and experience... what? 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RDL. --Jayron 32 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 212.105.160.248 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks also to Dbfirs for the answer. Is "gast" or "ghast", meaning "fear", used by Shakespeare or other authors of that time? 212.105.160.248 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on main page. (Thanks to Tevildo for noticing this second question.) Dbfirs 23:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Random interesting article

I've been trying to get some interest in adding a button that generates a random article - but which endeavors to make it be an "interesting" article (and yes, I'm aware of the difficulties with the definition of that word!).

I know that a lot of people who work in the WP:RD's do so as a means to broaden their minds - as a source of serendipity to provoke them into learning new stuff that they wouldn't have bothered with otherwise.

It's evident that in the top half dozen Google hits for "Wikipedia random article" that many, many people hit "Random article" in an effort to broaden their minds, and to find something serendipious to read. Sadly, as Wikipedia has grown, we have more and more "database" articles about things like freeways, Japanese Railway stations, Pokemon cards, episodes of "The Simpsons" - that really don't fill their need - and which mask articles like Coconut crab that people tend to find fascinating (world's largest land-arthropod, kept by children as pets!)

Anyway - if you have suggestions - or wish to help, please join the conversation at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Random_interesting_article.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not going elsewhere, but the first thing that comes to mind is limiting the selection to anything that has been a featured article, or a "did you know". --LarryMac | Talk 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WickWack problem

As others may have noticed, WickWack was given an inch on the Science desk this morning, and, predictably, has taken a mile. I've hatted the discussion between his first contribution and Nimur's last posting (diff) - some more radical but precise surgery may be appropriate, or we can just delete the whole thing, per WP:DENY. Tevildo (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think DENY is best served by leaving what you did and nothing more. I concur this is our old Australian friend returning yet again. Behavioral evidence became clear after a few posts. Good one. --Jayron 32 18:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thibk its possible that Wick wack and Light current are in fact the same person. They seem very clever at changing their ips.--178.110.28.209 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]