Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Brushing teeth with bleach? 2 Were the Nazis inhuman? 3 Gr 4 When has the standard become to remove others' questions and answers? 5 removed this 6 whose rule is this? 7 Is this a known troll? 8 65.173.etc.etc 9 GFDL violation - solved 10 New proposal 11 how do i become taller? 12 SineBot on Spring Break? 13 GFDL 14 Obsolete subpages of this page 15 Removal 16 Removal of crap poem 17 Persistent troll 18 Mulatto - White and Black perspectives 18.1 Another section deleted 19 Closing of the European Reading Room at the Library of Congress 20 l3 cache 21 Cap Ref Desk 22 "Gayelle" 23 Move "Skip to the bottom" link? 24 Should this be restored? 25 Knee pain 26 Skip to bottom

[edit] Brushing teeth with bleach?

I’ve removed WP:RD/S#Brushing teeth with bleach?[1] This question was obviously very dangerous and people should have known better than to answer it as they did. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The question does not ask for legal or professional advice, nor does it request medical diagnosis or prognosis. I am reinstating my question. HYENASTE 02:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not replace your question until it has been decided here whether it constitutes a request for medical advice. Thank you, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you removed the question without first forming a consensus that it should be removed, they are perfectly correct to reinstate it until you can form such a consensus. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable removal. We don't give advice on how to provide cosmetic dental procedures in one's own home. Commercial whitening products usually come with a package insert as long as your arm, full of warnings and cautions—and those products don't rely on home-brewed concoctions made from household cleaning products under poorly-controlled conditions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing it based on claiming it is medical advice is a bit much. The question asked what would happen if you brushed your teeth with bleach. The answers were on two topics. First, there were answers stating what household products are safe to use. Second, there were answers stating that bleach is unsafe. I did not see an answer stating medical advice or a request for medical advice. Therefore, I believe that removing it should be done so with the proper reasoning: Someone thinks that it is necessary to censor stupid questions to protect everyone from their own stupidity. Who gets to wear the "stupid police" hats? Can we have nominations soon? -- kainaw™ 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The question started with the statement “My teeth aren't super filthy” then goes on to ask about the possibility of using household bleach as a tooth whitener. Although the questioner does not refer to him/herself directly again it can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the questioner is referring to themselves. In fact some replies included handy proscriptions like “If you want a home solution, try diluted hydrogen peroxide.”[2] Since bleach is potentially lethal we should consider the safety of the OP paramount here. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the OP and I am not going to brush my teeth with bleach. Nowhere in my question did I suggest this. The conclusion you reached about me referring to myself is false. I am irritated that you continued to hide my question even after I assured that I was not seeking medical advice.

I have been using the reference desks for nearly 2 years. I do not need you to remove my questions "for my safety" and I especially do not need you to make assumptions about my purposes for asking questions. HYENASTE 04:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn’t necessarily just about your safety, Hyenaste. We revert medical advice for the safety of everybody who reads these pages. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous- you're way out of line calling this a request for medical advice. Also it's troubling to see something this obviously not medical advice being removed. The guideline was a slippery slope to begin with, but I thought we were trusting in good faith in its enforcement to keep us from sliding anywhere.. take a step back and try to see what you're doing here. Doesn't removing questions like this cause more damage than the very dubious defense of some hypothetical overtrusting internet reader? Wikipedia's not an authority on anything- we literally have nothing to lose. People aren't going to see "swishing with mouthwash is fine" and look up at the Wikipedia logo and decide to go do it any more than they would blindly obey stupid advice elsewhere on the internet.. and that's not our problem. :D\=< (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if consensus is against a removal the question is returned to the desk. Your little rant here seems quite uncalled-for to me. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The removals pile up and something has to be said some time :D\=< (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I’ve said it before, but this time I think I’ll propose it at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines Discussed questions, if they are returned to the desk should be replaces at the bottom of the page. That way the OP has just as much chance of getting answers as they would have had their question not been removed. Perhaps this would address some of your concern, Froth. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. My concern, though, is that (I'm not picking on you) people are even thinking that questions like this should be removed. This goes way beyond "we're not licensed to practice medicine so we can't / won't give you a medical consultation". :D\=< (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The first answer shows why the question can't remain up there. We're under no obligation to leave everything up that we possibly can, but we are under an obligation to protect the public, ourselves, Wikipedia, and the reputation of the Reference Desks. Can I snort Ajax? Sure, in moderation. Give me a break. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot more questions that we have to remove. I saw one about using infrared raman spectroscopy. We can't have people hurting themselves with an overdose of infrared radiation in their home. I saw another one about eating eggs. We can't have people eating eggs and getting high cholesterol. There was another one asking for the identification of a plant. What if he plans to eat or smoke the plant? We can't have that. I find it amazing that these questions are still on the RD. Surely some people are stupid enough to read those questions and cause themselves harm. I strongly suggest that the entire reference desk be removed for the protection of the public. Children could be reading it. Please, think of the children!

The preceding is just a note for those who still don't understand the concept of a slippery slope argument. -- kainaw™ 13:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope? That would mean that we dare not tread one inch out onto it, or we'll slide all the way down to wherever it is we'll be, and that would be Bad. I can't agree with that assessment of the situation. There is no slope, there is a level surface that extends to infinity in all directions. We are free at all times to behave in keeping with good common sense on a case-by-case basis, and we incur no danger in doing so. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The slippery slope is that a year or two ago people were leaving the RD indefinitely because they were furious at the idea of medical questions being censored. Today we're without a second thought removing any questions that could concievably be harmful to someone fantastically stupid. Where are we going here? :D\=< (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think there is a momentum to these things. If people want to storm out in a huff, that is their right. The ones who stay will make policy. This seems unavoidable, neither good nor bad. I can only speak for myself, but I want to hear everybody's point of view about what questions should be allowed on the Desks. I suppose that our, all of us, ideal of what the Desks should look like is different, and if any one of us is 100% happy, then something is wrong. I'm not 100% happy with the way things go around here, by the way, but that's OK, because not everybody here is 100% happy with me. Also, you can't really say "without a second thought" as long as we're discussing like this right here. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing, but is anything happening? I've only seen one deleted question added back. I'm the one who undid the deletion - which is why it was added back. I've seen countless incidents where a question was removed. A couple people felt it was medical advice. Many more disagreed. The conversation got heated. Then it got old. Then it was over and the question remained deleted. Is there such thing as discussion designed to lead to a consensus or just a continual repetition of the same old argument? -- kainaw™ 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What Milkbreath said. "How much poison is good for me?". Give us a break. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are many things which are poisonous in large doses and good for you in small doses. Vitamin A comes to mind, for example. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This dramamongering is not useful. We don't have people abandoning the ref desks in droves, and we didn't have it a couple years ago either, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Anyone getting overly offended by the removal of questions is not likely to be a useful contributor here anyway. Friday (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dramamongering or not, it is perhaps the case that the measure of what constitutes a removable medical advice question needs to be better codified so that borderline cases aren't so controversial. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I know this is a big question and one that goes well beyond this deletion. However I want to say a couple of thing. For one thing I don’t believe medical/legal advice reversions are a slippery slope. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time on this talk page will remember that I have often argued against the removal of trolling and debate questions. I believe there are lines here we shouldn’t cross. However when I weigh the minor inconvenient of having a question debated on the talk page against the possibility of someone getting hurt in real life there is no contest for me. A little bit more discussion never hurt anybody. Finally I don’t see the argument that we’ve lost several editors recently as relevant. Its part of Wikipedia and it’s their right. Maybe they are unhappy with some new guideline here or maybe they’re having problems in real life. Regrettably there’s nothing we can do about it. If anybody wants to try to define medical advice better in the guidelines then the more power to them. We should always value common sense over guidelines when the two conflict however. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to better define medical advice in the guidelines. Nobody appears willing to discuss the topic. I bring up a topic and the response is that everything is medical advice. I would greatly appreciate it if people would participate in this discussion on the guideline talk page instead of repeating the same argument over and over on this talk page. -- kainaw™ 00:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Does no medical advice apply to WP:IAR? I wonder about S.dedalus's mention of "someone getting hurt in real life." That might be a good measure of the kind of medical questions we can and can't allow. I recall recently asking a question about viruses that, if I applied the answer to my life, would have made the difference between avoiding or not avoiding a friend who'd gotten sick from me. I had to word it strategically so as to not get it removed. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you make too much of real-life consequences. Ideals like free speech are worth far more than the inconsequential lives of individual people... :D\=< (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you being serious? Free speech doesn't come at the exclusion of protecting "individual people" from possibly harming themselves after getting boneheaded advice from strangers on the internet. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Free speech doesn't mean anarchy. If you want to go around telling people they should use bleach on their teeth, you are welcome to do so elsewhere. But not on wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest not answering when someone teases in this manner... Skittle (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What, I was serious.. even if you don't agree with me you can see where I'm coming from. Should thousands of wikipedians agree to give up our freedom to talk about bleach just to protect people's safety? How much is off-limits.. I'd say the line is at Nothing. The value of a freedom like speech is more than the value of a life.. just ask your military. Of course, this is more off topic than appropriate since a reasonable ban on harmful advice falls more on the "unfortunately necessary" side than the "viva la revolution" side, but no I wasn't joking :D\=< (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, no one is saying you can't talk about bleach simply that they didn't agree with you talking about it here. What wikipedians do in other places is none of our business and they are fully entitled to free speech in other places. However wikipedia can and does set limits on what is discussed in wikipedia. I don't really agree with the deletion but I find your suggestion that this is an attack on free speech ridiculous, it is not and it is ludicrious to claim that just because there are limitations on what you can discuss on an encylopaedia means that you don't have freedom of speech. BTW, I wouldn't trust the military of most countries as far as I can throw them (which isn't very far, I am not that fit) and definitely wouldn't trust them to defend freedom of speech, some of them may really think they are doing it but most of the time they are not and sadly, many of them don't seem to know the difference (and while their commanders may be smarter, they rarely share the noble goals). And I disagree that defending freedom of speech is necessarily more important then the value of a human life, or that it is necessary in most cases to destroy human life to achieve the goal, but that is a discussion for other places Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that free speech means no rules, but a rule against talking about medical advice is exactly what the idea of free speech is trying to protect against. Wikipedia does have free speech with rules, but these recent removals go way beyond free speech with rules and into restricted speech. Let me rephrase that to make the point more clearly.. You can have "free" speech with rules like we're used to in western society, but a rule such as "you can't talk about X" is so fundamentally at odds with Free that it can't possibly be one of the rules in free speech with rules. I'm not suggesting that X is bleach, I am suggesting that X has become anything related to medicine (see kainaw's comment's a few sections down). I'm also saying this IS a free speech issue.. you give up your rights too easily, you should cringe every time another rule is layed down and ask why is this necessary? There are a few reasonable rules on wikipedia relating to what you can and can't say.. I've cringed at reading them and ultimately decided that they work well enough to justify their means. But an outright ban on Medicine-Speech is not a reasonable rule. I know nobody's suggesting one, but people are enforcing one. :D\=< (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that there has been a smidge too much question-removing lately. My own take on the consensus we seem to have formed is that we were going to remove questions that were explicitly asking for advice, but that we were not going to go in for "expansionist" readings of no-medical-advice dictum which would end up removing any question which could be possibly contorted into a request for such.

In particular:

• Just because an ill-advised responder volunteers medical advice does not mean that the questioner asked for it.
• If we suspect that the questioner might be seeking advice, but if the question has been carefully crafted as a request for information or as a hypothetical question, we can answer it on its face, and not get paranoid about possible ulterior motives.

—Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That consensus has been reached multiple times. However, this is a situation where it only takes a few people to remove questions and refuse to reinstate them regardless of the amount of opposition to the removal. They alter the question in their argument to prove their point. For example, this question asked if it is safe at all to use household bleach on your teeth. All of the answers were "No." Over the course of this discussion, those supporting the removal have stated that the question was "Please tell me to use bleach on my teeth" and all of the answers were "Sure thing. I use bleach on my teeth all the time. It is great!" It makes it very hard for me to respect the opinions for the removal when they are arguing about removing questions and answers that did not exist. -- kainaw™ 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The original question ("My teeth aren't super filthy, I've just always wondered if you could bleach your teeth white at home. How dangerous would it be to brush one's teeth with household sodium hypochlorite bleach? It would have to be super-dilute of course, but even then would it be safe?") is here. The first answer was "Safe yes, if diltued to say the amount you put in a swimming pool or homemade cleaning solution or load of laundry...actually maybe not that last one. But effective...no. I think this is dangerous and stupid and suggest you don't do it." It was this answer I was referring to above. The original question was a request for medical advice, pure and simple. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were pure and simple, we wouldn't have had all this discussion. On template:RD-deleted it explicitly states [no] medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations, and neither the question nor any of the given answers involved these. HYENASTE 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree that the reality of the situation has any bearing on the presence or absence of discussion on any Wikipedia talk page. Your claim that "neither the question nor any of the given answers involved these" I find mystifying, because they both, well, do. The OP's medical condition was less-white-than-his-ideal teeth. This is a cosmetic medical condition. The answer was "Safe, yes", in answer to "would it be safe" "to brush one's teeth with household sodium hypochlorite bleach?" This is a treatment recommendation. Note that the question was posted twice, and here we're seeing the first one. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought the consensus was. :D\=< (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so long ago I added a bit of text to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice#What does this guideline apply to?, which I commend to your attention:

[added text begins here] Here is a test that can help to distinguish between what is and what is not acceptable. If the answer to the question is given in a Wikipedia article, not needing any interpretation of the condition of any actual person, it is generally acceptable to answer the question. In contrast, suppose the following question is asked:

I have a persistent cough. Can that be caused by heartburn? Tussitor 23:59, 31 December 2000 (UTC)

Although we can learn from the articles Cough and Heartburn that in some patients heartburn is a causative factor, there is no article in Wikipedia that states that specifically this questioner's cough may be caused by heartburn. The question is therefore off limits. Similarly, questions whether some condition is normal (it may be normal for some people and abnormal for others), or whether some treatment offers relief, are typically questions for which a qualified answer requires examining the patient and their anamnesis, and must therefore not be answered. [added text ends here]

The fact that a question is such that a bad answer to the question might cause harm, does not by itself appear to be a usable criterion and should not be used for deciding whether to remove the question. Irresponsible answers that actually may cause harm should be removed instead.  --Lambiam 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Were the Nazis inhuman?

And if so, why is the "Humanities" desk always full of questions about them? It really is most tedious. Here we are with the sum total of human knowledge to discuss, and all anybody wants to know about is bloody Hitler.

I propose that we set up a new Reference Desk solely dedicated to questions about World War II, so that the Humanities desk doesn't get so clogged up with this stuff. We could call it the Nazism Desk, or – given the similarity in emphasis – the Discovery Channel Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

They were obviously humans, so their actions reveal something horrible about the human condition.. maybe that's what so many people are morbidly curious about. :D\=< (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely inhumane, but still human. Remember what Terence said: Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto" ("I am human, nothing that is human is alien to me.") -- JackofOz (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. My heading was more in the vein of a parody of the kind of loaded question these dullards post: "Were the Nazis inhuman? And if so..." Do they seek information, or merely confirmation?

Think of it as a Howl of despair. I saw the greatest minds of my generation grown conch-like in their obsession with the Third Reich... Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of Gerhard Schröder's complaint that the British national curriculum was too World War-focussed. Perhaps WW2's prominent place in schools is a major reason for its prominence here. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Tudors. Nazis and the tudors, world wars and the tudors. Very little else. Not just in history, but in English and RS. When the German exchange students arrived, we always had to run a sweep of the history department at the least, taking down posters. It is, indeed, to be expected that such students have little other history to ask about. Skittle (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Very little else than the Nazis, the Tudors, and the World Wars, Skittle? Well, this was certainly not my experience; but I suppose I have to confess that I did not go through the state school sector, where I assume this kind of thing must be prevalent, presumably for lack of time or, more likely, lack of imagination! Clio the Muse (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to public school up to 8th grade and private school after that (in America). We barely covered the world wars at all in either school system; the attitude I sense is that America is very annoyed with the unrealistic disillusionment between the world wars and embarassed at our military and economic incompetence.. everyone has a good knowledge of what actually happened (from independent research, war movies, Band of Brothers, etc) but nobody wants to talk about it because it's such a tired subject :D\=< (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

State sector indeed. I think there are a lot of reasons the curriculum is so limited: teachers and departments tend to choose topics for which there is lots of material available and which they think their students will be interested in. Also, as many students already know a lot about these subjects, it is easier to teach in more depth. When our history teacher gave us a choice between the Russian Revolution and some WWI module at GCSE, we almost unanimously voted for the revolution, simply because it was something we hadn't done 5 times before. It was harder to find resources for our level on that module, but it was much more interesting. There is a general assumption that people are interested in the Tudors and the world wars, and indeed I have met people for which this is true to the exclusion of other history. In our history lessons, it was as if nothing happened between Elizabeth I taking the throne and the shooting of Franz Ferdinand. Skittle (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Learning modules? What are you, borg? :D\=< (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

*failure to think of amusing comeback, combined with not finding much reference to educational modules in the 'pedia except in A levels, nor a generic description online* Skittle (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm XIV, I do not think it is good form to refer to our questioners as 'dullards' simply because you do not happen to approve of the subject of their inquiry. If you do not like some of the questions asked then why not do as I do- ignore them! Hitler and National Socialism are matters of abiding historical interest, and for very good reasons. Indeed, the questions raised yesterday, relating to the Nazi system of justice, are of particular interest, not deserving of your snobbish condescension. Anyway, I now propose to answer them, with a conch-like trumpet, and all the skill I can muster! Clio the Muse (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reference Desk just reflects the world it's part of. When I turn on The History Channel UK, which has some of the least awful programmes on British tv, I share your vexation, Malcolm, as material about the Second World War is a huge proportion of the channel's output, far too big a proportion. But we have to face up to the huge popular interest in the period. Also, if you'll forgive me for saying so, despite all the overkill (film, television, under-resourced school history departments, boys' comics, etc.) the history of Germany from 1918 to 1945 is still an exceptionally interesting area of 20th century history. Xn4 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I symphathise, 'Hitler','Nazis', also 'what jews think/do' turn up far too often, also questions about the 'speed of light','wave particle duality' turn up far too often on the science desk. It is tedious - a bit like every ancient history program on TV is about the pyramids - egyptians:1000 tv documentaries and counting - sumerians 0. Why does none ever ask a question about boron???87.102.47.176 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But what if you lowered a rope into a black hole? ;) :D\=< (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And what if there were no hypothetical and rhetorical questions? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect an answer for that? ;-) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect an answer for that? ;-) :D\=< (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gr

Lately I've enjoyed free reign on the Computing desk, consistently giving both invaluable answers and bitter sarcasm, but today that freedom was violated. This diff. Your thoughts? Before you roll your eyes and answer "And Nothing Of Value Was Lost", consider how many technically-off-topic-but-who-really-cares comments you yourself have made. Also consider how the parent was just. so. asking. for it.. the beauty of computing, all the way back to Babbage's conceptual machines, is the programmability and openness of a computer, and the infamous locked-down nature of macs is a prime target for lovers of the hacker ethic such as myself. So when the parent said...

The beauty of the G4 macs is the ability to open them up.

...you can see where I'm coming from with that comment Friday removed.

I don't want the comment restored (don't care) but I couldn't just let it slide either.. so since the removal of offtopic comments used to be an explosive issue, I'm dutifully reporting one. --:D\=< (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, as a lover of the hacker ethic and a Mac user, who as it happens has swapped disk drives in G4 Powermacs many times, I have to say I do pretty much agree with the deletion. (Yes, the occasional caustic diatribe is sometimes excusable, and the deity knows I've indulged in any number of them myself, but I'm sorry, "Apple is truly leading the way with innovative new ideas" is really pretty leaden as witty zingers go.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the help desk is "not for diatribes or debates" a two sentence zinger is not something to delete. If User:Friday feels that User:Froth has a chronic zinger problem, there are user talk pages to make warnings. Deleting like this, in my opinion, shows an assumption of bad faith. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, the solution with people posting messages like this is to talk to them. However when this has been tried already and it didn't work.. it didn't seem sensible to me to try it again. Froth, if you're concerned that your "freedom was violated" (a ridiculously over-the-top concern, in all honesty) try exercising your freedom on your own website. Here, it's a collaborative project, and yes, this means you don't always get everything exactly your way. Friday (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was saying that with tongue in my cheek. Sorry it couldn't have been more witty. "If I had my life over again, I'd have written" Hey, cool, you can open them up? I have GOT to check out macs! :D\=< (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Friday. I posted that without investigating. I see that you have indeed requested that Froth "tone it down" a little in his talk page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts ? The deletion was unnecessary, but not a big deal. From experience I have found that the best way to deal with Friday in such situations is to ignore him/her. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, shouldn't have been deleted, or whatever, but seeing as everyone who buys a mac gets a free blowjob, it's stupid to complain. Once you've had your brains sucked out of the end of your dick by one of the mac operatives, you tend to feel 'sensitive' about anyone, ever, suggesting that the extra 1000 you paid for the machine was not for 'industrial design', or 'it just works' features but in fact paid for the sex.87.102.47.176 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to preemtively defend this anon's post against deletion and assure you all that I will flip out on the guy who removes it. This is a talk page and it's inviolate. Now commence userpage warning and blockification :D\=< (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are not immune to standard wiki editing. Why bother getting worked up over defending drivel? It doesn't improve the project. Friday (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are.. as long as it doesn't actually disrupt the formatting of the page, you can't just selectively remove comments. It's a talk page, everyone has a right to talk. And when a page gets too long, it's carefully archived in its entirety. We don't refactor talk pages anymore. Also see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall :D\=< (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get this idea? Removing off-topic stuff from talk pages is not uncommon. Most commonly we see this when people start using the talk page to discuss the subject rather than the article. Friday (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe where you come from, but IMO it's completely unacceptable to remove comments from a talk page. :D\=< (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your perception may not be generally shared. A quotation from the Talk page guidelines:

Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• [...]
• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages).

Also, you state that "We don't refactor talk pages anymore". Unless you mean the majestic plural, have a look at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. You forgot to inform the rest of the project that we don't do that anymore. If the practice has fallen somewhat into disuse, the reason may be that the gain is often so little and fleering.  --Lambiam 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially since 2006, the Wikipedia community has more and more preferred wholesale archival of talk page discussions instead of large-scale summarizing, as archival preserves a fuller record of discussion, does not lead to accidental (or disruptive) misrepresentation of other editors' opinions, and does not inadvertently remove material that may turn out to be needed later. There is this but.. well I disagree with it so I didn't mention it :D\=< (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternate sarcastic response could have been "What ? You can open an Apple up ? I was afraid applesauce would drizzle out if I did that !". StuRat (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When has the standard become to remove others' questions and answers?

Also see above "Gr" topic, by User:Froth. Today on the Science desk I saw that TenOfAllTrades actually removed a question, and replacing it with the standard {{rd-deleted}}, deeming it a request for medical advice. Now, I haven't been around for a few months, but I find it astouding that one would go as far as to delete the original question. It seems both impolite, and not to "assume good faith," as normally the only case in which you would completely remove a comment is if it were a WP:troll or WP:Vandalism. Mac Davis (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it's standard? It's something that happens occasionally. No single editor owns the reference desk or has a right to have their content in there. See Wikipedia:Ownership. Friday (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens occasionally? Question deletions? A cursory look shows that about 25 of the current 48 sections on this page pertain to removal of questions/comments. I wouldn't shrug it off as an occasional thing if it occupies about 50% of our discussions. HYENASTE 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, people do complain unduly about it sometimes. Heck, above we even have someone starting a talk page section to complain about a removal that he doesn't even think should be put back. This is not helpful in any way at all- it's just a dramatic time-waster. If we save the discussion for things of practical importance, this may cut down on some of it. Friday (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, WP is not paper so what's wrong with a long talk page? Secondly, there clearly are several contributors who are unhappy with much of the deletionism going on here so why not debate?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Length should not be a concern. The reason we discourage off-topic stuff on talk pages is that it's not useful. We don't encourage debate for the sake of debate- regardless of the size of any particular page. Friday (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but you surely can't think that this debate has no purpose. There are two sides and no consensus so we have to debate.Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of specific questions and responses that have been removed from the RDs is, of course, very much on-topic for this talk page. WP:TALK says "The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale". For a wider meta-discussion about RD guidelines, there are the guideline talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We have come a long way in the last few months with letting removals slide.. maybe we should put on the heat a little and let people know that a lot of others are going to be looking closely at any removals that aren't clear violations of wikipedia policy-- and our guidelines don't really count, I don't think it's fair for people to have to go through our long project-specific guidelines to post.. our guidelines just cover RD-volunteer behavior and at most should result in a friendly referral to the guidelines page, not an outright removal :D\=< (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also a section should definitely be added to WT:RD every time a question is removed, so that it can get maximum exposure and review. We've been doing a pretty good job posting a diff so that we can all read the original question and decide for ourselves, but that should really be posted to the talk page also/instead :D\=< (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the problem is understood. We have a few people who are highly sensitive to questions that they feel are asking for medical advice. They delete questions and fight against the consensus to ensure that the questions are never reverted regardless of how many people disagree with them. We can post a diff here. We can discuss it over and over. We can rehash the same arguments again and again. It solves nothing. All it takes is one person to label a question as a request for medical advice and the question is guaranteed to be deleted and never reverted even if every other person in Wikipedia disagrees with the deletion. In other areas, we like to claim that Wikipedia is not censored. In this case, Wikipedia is heavily censored. We are not allowed to discuss anything remotely related the medical field even if we doing nothing more than quoting studies found in the AMA journal or reports by the NIH. Medical science is not authorized as science in Wikipedia and has been banned by a very small minority of overly sensitive users. Complaining fixes nothing. My suggestion is to delete the reference desk all together. I can rationalize just as well as anyone else. Give me any question from the reference desk and I can guarantee that I can create just as an absurd rationalization that answering the question could cause an extremely stupid person harm. Therefore, no questions are safe. No questions should be allowed. They should all be deleted. -- kainaw™ 12:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there's no cabal, but I agree it only takes 1 to remove and even a WP:SNOWBALL doesn't guarantee its restoration-- something is broken :D\=< (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we got templates or similar for 'medical advice', 'legal advice', 'do not..' etc - I can't see anyone being upset if the question is left (unanswered) on the page with the disclaimer below it. Removing a question may enrage an innocent poster - who simply didn't understand the rules. Give them an answer - even if it's "we won't tell you".

Further to this perhaps someone could remind me what those templates are - the space below is intentionally left blank for your answers.83.100.183.180 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there are no such templates, but this Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines#When_removing_or_redacting_a_posting suggests that you leave a 'diff' behind, and I suppose the title should remain. There's a guidline everyone could follow.83.100.183.180 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, how many people agree with Kainaw's summary above (dated 12:18, 19 March 2008)? I think I'm inclined to. If there really are one or two oversensitive editors deleting questions against consensus, then the questions should be restored, and the editors informed in no uncertain terms that they're going too far. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

mmmmmmmmmm -(ಠ_ಠ)_ yah :D\=< (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but not with the idea of deleting the Ref Desk entirely. We should use the three revert rule, instead. If an editor removes a question without first getting a consensus here, that's the first revert of the OP's post. We should put it back twice. When they remove it the third time, block them for violating 3RR. If nobody else wants to risk putting it back twice, I will, just contact me on my home page. StuRat (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that TenOfAllTrades has taken it upon himself to be the complete arbiter of what should and what should not be visible on the Rds. Watch this post be removed by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenTimesLoser (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot to say:If other people respond to this post in anything other than a totally negative manner, the discussion will be quickly archived by TOAT stifling further comments. Also, why has this talk page been semi protected (again by TOAT)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenTimesLoser (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=199615815&oldid=199611915

reason -OP possibly took offence, poster seemed to have made no effort to help.83.100.183.180 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, actually that type of removal is the very "slippery slope" addressed in the above sections. BUT . . . I kind of agree that the two responses were not at all helpful and should never have been placed there to begin with. I'm a little surprised at Bellum for doing that, the anon IP editor I've been keeping my eye on anyway. I believe our recommended practice here is to leave the offending responses, answer the question as best you can, and perhaps suggest (via talk page) to the other editor(s) that the offensive response be struck-out or removed. --LarryMac | Talk 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally found it funny, and I'm certain Bellum intended it to be more humorous than insulting. HYENASTE 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a nerd in my view. :) Mac Davis (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal is justified per WP:NPA. Don’t make fun of the OP. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Typically we remind them on their use talk page, and in the thread to be nice to newbies, and leave the post there. I've been encouraged to redact my own statements before, and have done so. It's certainly not an automatic NPA -> Removal as your comment seems to suggest.. :D\=< (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments says “Remove offensive comments on talk pages.” --S.dedalus (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of NPA is it's generally advised you don't remove personal attacks against yourself (except on your talk page), however it's fine to remove personal attacks on other people particularly when you feel the person subjected to the attack is likely to take offence. Personally I'm more to explain to the subject that they shouldn't take offense and request the offender why their comment was wrong but I don't object if people do remove personal attacks. BTW I use the terms losely I don't mean to imply all personal attacks are meant that way Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No harm done no doubt, and I support peoples right to take the piss fully in the context of an answer. It's the absence of any attempt at giving an answer that 'hurts' I think.83.100.183.180 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have notified User:Bellum et Pax at his talk page. On his talk page there is an earlier request that he behave to which he agreed. If his comment was in poor form, he ought to be told. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That’s true. I think it’s a case of everybody assuming someone else already thought of it. This is Wikipedia after all, where living person tags are removed from articles even before the subject’s relatives have been informed. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes even before the subject himself knows. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] whose rule is this?

User talk:87.102.16.238 "Cyber-nigger" is not an acceptable term for casual use on Wikipedia. Consider yourself warned. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing&diff=prev&oldid=199809829

Why is the useless link left in place then? how come I'm the bad guy here.

More importantly - can someone explain what User:Kushal was talking about, it's gone past my head - I can't work out what the link was about?87.102.16.238 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the bad guy here because you chose to refer to the person responsible for the website as a 'cyber-nigger'. I think that is quite clear and unambiguous. Skittle (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So what did the website have to do with an answer?87.102.16.238 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't aware (though it boggles my mind that someone in Great Britain could be so ignorant), but nigger is a highly derogatory term in the United States (and the United Kingdom). The problem has nothing to do with the website. If you want to ask what the website has to do with the question, feel free to do so, but don't use that term. That's the only aspect about your response that anyone cares about. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do yes - what's the answer?87.102.16.238 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You do what? The answer to what? You're wearing down my patience. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you want to ask what the website has to do with the question, feel free to do so"

"More importantly - can someone explain what User:Kushal was talking about, it's gone past my head - I can't work out what the link was about?"

That answer.87.102.16.238 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for that discussion. You can either wait patienlty for an answer on the Desk where you've already posted the question, or perhaps politely ask on Kushal's talk page. --LarryMac | Talk 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse if this isn;t it, but the c-n mentioned above seems to be a website and that hacker (or persona) is all over the net as per google[3] so maybe (just maybe) the term wasn't an "ignorant" description but a category and a self-described title which 87.102 was using in good faith. Fwitw. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about why the useless link is left in place.. it doesn't seem to be advertising, and it's not malicious, so there's no reason to remove it. If kushal starts posting random links all over the place (he has not) then someone will bring it up on his talk page or this one.. but there's no RD police evaluating every comment for usefulness and deleting it if they don't get it. (..not yet anyway!) :D\=< (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I of course object to this censorship.. like Captain said it was used casually, not in an attacking fashion, and that word is no worse than other words that are thrown around from time to time. Also if people want to be offended then it's their problem, this isn't kindergarten you don't have to go removing comments just to be sure nobody is offended. How stupid is that. :D\=< (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We remove trolling as a matter of course. The use of the n-word in a casual fashion should be considered trolling by any definition. The claim that "it's their problem" for people to be offended by the casual use of highly-charged racial epithets is an ignorant statement. Surely you are smart enough to see that. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Froth, I think you’re going overboard with that. It’s not and shouldn’t be acceptable to use racism on the desk when a less inflammatory word will do. The subject matter of this string was not about the word “nigger,” that word was totally uncalled for. Per WP:PROFANITY:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader.

“Cyber-nigger” was not used to add any “informative, relevant and accurate” information to the post, therefore User:Captain Ref Desk was entirely right to remove it. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with civility. I’m just saying, if you want fewer reverts on the desks, I think you have to pick your battles. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it wouldn't be such an issue if captain ref desk didn't mount so delightfully his high moral horse, whilst taking a superior tone, and then pushing the boundaries of politeness himself eg "consider yourself warned", "That's the only aspect about your response that anyone cares about." No better than me..87.102.16.238 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moral horse? Not I. I think my message was straightforward about the policy issue. The use of the n-word in causal posting is most certainly prohibited here and I was both informing you of this and attempting to emphasize the severity of this violation. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Does anyone realise this guy was not calling someone the n-word, he was referring to someone calling themselves this cyber-n thing? Or has this point been missed entirely. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that point was missed entirely.

We realize that he didn't. The person in the video did not in any way refer to herself as a "cyber-nigger", that was entirely 87's choice of words. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway. I've changed my post from 'cyber-nigger' to 'useless' (which actually is more attacky but probably wont upset the self appointed censors). Did anyone actually sit through that video.? ie http://www.storyofstuff.com/ 87.102.16.238 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry looks like I went a bit far with that last paragraph, problem is once you have knowledge of sarcasm it can be irressistable to use it. Sorry. Last post by me - promise.87.102.16.238 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Useless" is not a profanity, it is just an opinion (which in this case happens to be wrong). I replied there. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And if by "cyber-nigger" you meant "useless", then I again reiterate that this is not appropriate terminology for this website. The n-word is not an appropriate term for use here; it is a term of ignorance and hate, and at best any usage of it casually will be considered trolling. If you think "useless" is more "attacky" than the other term then you really need to get out of the house a little more often. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

yawn antilulz :D\=< (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a known troll?

Nope, sorry to disappoint but I am not a troll. I am also not Jewish or Black which seems to be a Wikipedia and Wikipedia reference desk prerequisite which I am happy to expose on a continuous basis to warn Americans that the Wikipedia is not allegiant to their cause but rather the cause of International domination. Labeling, treating or otherwise regarding me as a troll, however, will help to expose your agenda. ROFL... Feel free to carry on. 71.100.0.134 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Black_allegiance --Milkbreath (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Raven (71.143.3.182) or the other? I was going to ask about CR myself. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

71.100.0.235 and every other IP address beginning with 71.100 is a known banned user and old nuisance. who's been befouling the reference desk for over a year now. His inflammatory comments - posing as questions or answers - should be either completely ignored or removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I hid the discussion now. diff ---Sluzzelin talk 12:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a pathetic censor. 71.100.0.134 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an address of that description posting all over the desks now. I don't have the experience it takes to feel comfortable removing every one I see. I hope somebody will do it. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So long as the Wikipedia can be viewed by the public it needs to be subject to government scrutiny since you are obviously quite incapable of following the mandates which apply in America, namely free speech. Hope I never come face to face with you. 71.100.0.134 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of his posts are alright by standards normally applied to reference desk posts. In the interest of harmonious editing, I suggest only removing the disruptive ones (i.e. questions based on false and offensive premises and other comments with nasty implications). Even if you remove a potentially harmless post, I won't be the one complaining. So far I haven't seen anyone speak for the usefulness of 71.100's contributions, and their disruptive effect is documented. Once someone has responded, I tend not to remove threads, but that's just my personal philosophy. In this special case, I'll support any removal of his posts. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? up to date they've done nothing wrong - I remember 'barringa' who wound many people up, I'd be suprised if it was the same person, if it is they have changed a bit. So far I've found their contributions 'humourfull' and quite helpful and interesting.87.102.16.238 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing things in a more objective light and for expressing a bit of reason. Others remind me of a woman the police had to remove from a bus because she proclaimed her right to tell the bus driver what to do solely on the grounds that she was a Jehovah's Witness. 71.100.0.134 (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately picking sensitive and burdened themes, and then asking strings of questions based on prejudiced sweeping premises or anecdotal evidence unfavorable to groups of people with a recent history of violent discrimination, weaving provocative hints and inflammatory implications into questions and comments is bad for the desks, in my opinion. If we ignored and didn't react, it might be more acceptable (though still insulting), but editors do react. The problem isn't the single comment, but the persistent needling.

Barringa did this, and caused enough disruption for these threads at administrator's noticeboards: 1) and 2) and a block. Shortly afterwards, 71.100 appears at the desk with the same modus operandi, he sometimes signed with other names. link to noticeboard

More recently his comments raised questions and words of warnings on this talk page here and here. The very thread that caused this thread was just the newest example. In that thread, I find little evidence of humor or usefulness in his comments. Interesting? Perhaps, if you're studying online behavior. Yeah, perhaps I'm over-reacting, and he's changed his MO a bit, but the insulting and provocative posts should stop. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the same person Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Cost_of_electricity_.(UK.) Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#speed_of_an_ant Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hitler's "compassion"

You linked to problems in the past. eg Barringa. You clealy think it's the same person.

Why go on a witch hunt when the new 71.xxxxx seems no worse than the average. Surely if you start harrasing them, this will create a problem that might not exist at present.?

I've only considered what's happened over the last week. 87.102.16.238 (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am harassing anyone. Diatribes have been removed before, but I'm not raising this anywhere else anymore or asking for a block. If you don't find the thread on "Black allegiance" problematic, don't see the relation to Barringa's style, but do find that criticizing this very behavior with explanations constitutes harassment, then I will shut up now. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you want readers to believe the information provided by the Wikipedia articles and by the Wikipedia reference desks are valid without challenge. When you delete and when you block your actions merely indicated that Wikipedia articles and responses from the reference desk are completely invalid. I would rather your meet the challenge and prove the Wikipedia worthy of intellectual respect but you refuse. Instead your resort to harassment, deletion and blocking. A very sad commentary on the validity of whatever you have to say. 71.100.0.134 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't accussing you of harrassment, just suggesting that deletions independent of context would be bad. Also I speak from experience being 'the victim' of one such 'witch hunt' - as I do/used to share an ISP (Karoo) with a blocked user and edit anonymously I was blocked (no warning) basically for nothing by an over-enthusiastic admin. The details are probably lost in the sands of time. (though can be found starting at User_talk:SCZenz/Archive9 should you wish to read the sordid details)

OOPS double sorry I misread (or didn't notice) "I suggest only removing the disruptive ones" - sorry I thought someone was suggeting ALL posts should be removed, curse that hair trigger.

Sorry,Sorry,Sorry.87.102.16.238 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Harrass"? "Witch hunt"? That's like saying that California is harrassing Charles Manson, or that Eliot Ness was on a witch hunt. I'm only weighing in here because I started this thread. The refdesk pages are not a vacant lot for grafitti, refuse, and loudmouthed loiterers to accumulate in. There are plenty of places on the Web where troublemakers can go to amuse themselves. This place is for civilized people to get help using Wikipedia for research. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

--Milkbreath you are the chief architect of harassment. 71.100.0.134 (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does happen, and happened to me. as detailed in part in my above post. The problem was sorted out after a few days. Basically imagine if you were suddenly blocked because someone had decided that you were a sockpuppet - over enthusiastic is what I call it. I believe that some of the younger, less mature admins might view blocks and anti-vandal activity as some sort of badge of honour, or heroic activity eg see here http://picasaweb.google.com/johnmarchan/McArthurAirportVeteranSDay/photo#5025763016129068610 Please laugh.87.102.16.238 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Aardvark is no laughing matter. Conceived as an interceptor, it mutated into the scariest attack plane of its day. Supersonic and ground-hugging throughout the terminal phase of attack, with the range of a bomber, it had the maneuverability and, as you know, armament to defend itself like a Tomcat. Who needs stealth when you can just kill everything? And when it came time to leave, you needed a Foxbat to catch it. Its namesake animal is no slouch, either. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

General Dynamics F-111 and of course aardvark.87.102.16.238 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, occasionally users do see their relationship to administrators as that of the Ant and the Aardvark, and occasionally admins view themselves as this super-aardvark fighting POV-pushers, trolls and vandals, but the admins hanging out at the desks tend to be rational and careful with the block button. They haven't range-blocked in other cases in the past, for the very reason you unfortunately experienced. You weren't completely off in your first reading, by the way. Though I suggested only removing the disruptive posts, I also did say I'd support the removal of anything posted by the dynamic IP address in question. I'll rephrase that: if the post is a genuinely helpful answer to someone else's question, it should remain. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be way more afraid of a plane named after a gull :D\=< (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 65.173.etc.etc

Should we do anything about the IP editing from 65.173.x.x? 65.173.105.141 (talk · contribs) for example...he seems to have something to do with Uncyclopedia, and does nothing but ask questions about UFOs and any bizarre "breaking news" on Fox News. He's clearly not editing sincerely. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He's having a laugh, for sure. Having a sincere word on his talk page will probably be met with more insincere fun. If we ignore, it might go away. I see he also vandalizes articles which is where the fun stops I guess. Unlike the guy from the thread above, this one is more of a puerile prankster than a malicious flamebaiter, but I certainly wouldn't cry over him being blocked. The question is will it help or will he just be back with another dynamic thingy? I believe that ignorance can be bliss at the reference desk, but not everyone will ever ignore, so I really don't know. Keeping an eye on the vandalizing behavior though. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL violation - solved

Hi, the following images are being used in the RD header:

• Image:P computing.svg
• Image:P physics.svg
• Image:P mathematics.svg
• Image:P question.svg
• Image:P art.png
• Image:P literature.svg
• Image:P music.png
• Image:P archive.svg

They are all under a dual GFDL/by-sa license, both of which require attribution to the authors. The normal method of attribution at Wikipedia is to provide links to the image description pages. However, the images have been linked with the use of an imagemap, without any links or attribution. This is against the GFDL and the CC by-sa license, and can be considered a copyright violation.

We have some choices:

1. Get the original authors to relicense the work as LGPL, then use them in image maps
   • This might not be feasible, and if the SVG images are derived works of PNG images, the PNG images would need to be relicensed as well.
2. Create new images that can be used without attribution
3. Stop using the imagemaps, using links to image description pages
   • This might not be desirable from a usability perspective

WP:SIGNPOST chose number #2; The "featured star" icon was mistakenly relicensed as GFDL, and was reverted back to LGPL; in other words, we have precedents with imagemaps and GFDL images. I hope someone acts quickly to fix the current situation. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from WT:Reference desk/RD header#GFDL_violation--VectorPotential^Talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Cough, get rid of the inconsistent front page altogether like I've been saying for over a year. It's bound to be confusing to new users who are presented with a whole new navigation once they pass the RD "splash page". The header is even still configured from the time I tried replacing it without consensus.. I set up a preview page here so you can see exactly how it appears when called with the front page parameter. Different new question box, no highlighted nav tabs, "Wikipedia reference desk" instead of computing/science/etc reference desk.. :D\=< (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how "quickly" this needs to be resolved. There is not exactly much of a legal threat here, this is just a matter of self-consistency, and even that is based on the decidedly ad-hoc interpretation that the difficulty of finding the image description page because of the imagemap makes it fall outside of the attribution notice (it might be plausible, but let's not pretend this is self-evident).

Personally I've always thought the images were a little ugly. I'm not a fan of the version froth linked to (it doesn't make clear what sorts of questions are valid for each desk—as such it presupposes a lot of knowledge about the desk itself), but I'm not really a fan of the image buttons as they currently stand. They are a little cheesy and not very well designed (Entertainment faces the wrong direction, some are black-and-white and some are grayscale gradients, the "atom" has an unusual number of electrons for the standard icon). At the very least I think most of them should be re-drawn with a more consistent visual scheme. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you said Captain Ref Desk, but “Entertainment faces the wrong direction”—what? The musical note is correct although leaning a bit. . . Actually we should have a different symbol for the entertainment desk altogether since musical questions aren’t answered there. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The major axes of the shaded background blobs have positive slope in all of the icons except Entertainment :D\=< (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. :) --Kjoonlee 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You fixed the SVG, which isn't being used, and updated the PNG render with the old version :D\=< (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by old version, but I exported the fixed SVG to get the new PNG. --Kjoonlee 09:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Compare:

• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/P_music.png
• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/55/20080324043211%21P_music.png

Then fix. :D\=< (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Image:P music.svg perfectly matches Image:P music.png on my screen, and I exported the edited SVG to get the new PNG. --Kjoonlee 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying, but if you still see problems after bypassing your cache, please let me know. I carefully purged the page cache of the images when I uploaded the new SVG and PNG so things should be OK IMHO. --Kjoonlee 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cache -_-;; yeah you're fine I just had to control f5 and everything's good now :[ :D\=< (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The attribution requirements also require that the GFDL dedication ("I hereby release this material under the GFDL") be visible as well. I went with a fourth option, namely, linking to the image description pages directly. --Kjoonlee 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

Lets agree to let Froth (if he is willing) fix this. He has shown the wisdom and determination to address crap like this to our benefit before and I'm sure that his fix will be comprehensive. --hydnjo talk 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that fixing this problem by committee (us) could be done, I just don't think that that's the best way to deal with it. A single individual with an understanding of the problem and the wherewithal to address the problem is IMHO the best course. Personally, I like this idea. With that fix the visitors are fronted with a consistent format as they venture from desk to desk. This has come up personally and the change of format has caused confusion. --hydnjo talk 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<3 :D\=< (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell does less than three mean? ;-) --hydnjo talk 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

gmail uses some clever background-offsetting javascript to animate this but you get the idea http://mail.google.com/mail/im/emotisprites/heart.png :D\=< (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --hydnjo talk 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For months I thought that was a pair of buttocks wearing a dunce cap. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was reading it "bollocks". --Milkbreath (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No way, I strongly oppose this. Captain Ref Desk is right. The way things are now is already too confusing for newcomers, and getting rid of the descriptions for the desks would be ridiculous. How exactly are people supposed to know where to put their questions? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It says choose a topic: computing, science, math, humanities, language, entertainment, misc. They're titled to be as self-explanatory as possible; at worst we'd have to move a few questions from entertainment to humanities.. come on nobody is so stupid that they can't look at those topics and decide where to ask. :D\=< (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have tons of questions which are placed on the wrong desks. Do you think removing the descriptions will make this better? Without the descriptions how are you supposed to now that music goes under Humanities and not Entertainment? How are you supposed to know that for film it’s the other way round? How are you supposed to know that questions about great books go under Humanities not Language? It would be a complete mess. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tons of questions on the wrong desk? Well then, we must be doing something wrong, no? --hydnjo talk 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Too wrongs does not necessarily make a right in this case. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm arguing for a consistent format. The descriptions that you describe can be placed in that format and not lost. I'm just saying that the user (especially the new ones) ought to see the same thing every time that they are faced with a decision. --hydnjo talk 03:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would defiantly be more supportive of the idea if we’re talking about keeping those descriptions. How do you propose doing that with Froth’s design though? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Froth? --hydnjo talk 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the name on :D\=<’s talk page. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 :-) --hydnjo talk 04:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Froth, when you get around to it could you please respond as to whether sub-descriptors could be added to your "stark" header? Like Computing, information technology, software, and hardware Biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, geology, psychology, and technology Mathematics, geometry, probability, and statistics Subjects that don't fit in any of the other categories and stuff like that?--hydnjo talk 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

exdent: Froth, under Computing could you sub-text "Computing, information technology, software, and hardware" or under Science could you sub-text "Biology, chemistry, physics, medicine, geology, psychology, and technology" etc? --hydnjo talk 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you suppose they got here in the first place? Things may be confusing just because of our variable format. Every header ought to be the same be it the "pretty picture" one or the "stark labeled" one. The header shouldn't shift, look into the Captains eyes if you know what I mean. --hydnjo talk 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, these kinds of fine tuning discussions can and do go on and on and on. So, putting my bold chin forward, is anyone absolutely opposed to a trial period (lets fight about how long) just to see if confusion reigns or not? --hydnjo talk 02:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember the last time someone was bold with the reference desks and just wanted us to "wait though the trial period"? It was the biggest meltdown I’ve ever seen here. Let’s not have a repeat of the “History Desk” fiasco. Bold is not always good when dealing with navigation pages. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This proposal isn't like that! --hydnjo talk 03:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was neither the last nor the most disastrous time "someone" was bold when dealing with navigation (._.') :D\=< (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Look. All some of us (well, me) are saying is give the consistent format a chance. I'm sure (right Froth?) that descriptors can be added as required (right Froth?) so as to minimize any initial confusion as to what is what. Given that, what is the problem? Usually, the "pretty picture" goes away pretty quickly only to be replaced with the other format, that shouldn't stand. The "choice" panel ought to be consistent (the same) whenever the user gets there, whether it's the first or the whateverth time. Right? --hydnjo talk 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

err it's not really possible to squeeze text in to that right column. But I could put a little grid like we have at WP:RD right now but in the dashed-line box in the left column of the RD header instead of that "To ask a question, choose a topic..." text that's there right now. Kind of weird, but a whole lot cleaner than cramming text into my pixel-perfect (in firefox) nav column :D\=< (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Show us if you can. You and some of us have had concerns with the existing dual formats. This has come up before but this time for a different reason. If descriptors can't be "crammed" in well then so be it. That seems to be the strongest argument against at this time. --hydnjo talk 05:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm driving back to school tomorrow so it'll be a few days. Besides it would look really bad to just have a big table of descriptions with no pictures.. we need to find free icons. :D\=< (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer of change but note that our current front page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_Desk has more info than the proposed replacement - note the links to village pump, resolving disputes etc etc. The 'splash' page also lets new users know that they are somewhere - eg not just some unihabited planet in the far flung reaches of wiki-space.

One change I suggest is that the 'splash' page has order Computing Science Mathematics Miscellaneous

"Computing,Science,Mathematics,Humanities,Miscellaneous,Humanities,Language,Entertainment,Archives"

whereas the inner pages have

"Computing,Science,Mathematics,Humanities,Language,Entertainment,Miscellaneous,Archives"

I'd like this changed. Otherwise I think it's pointless work for froth, maybe we should give him some proper hard homework, otherwise I suggest go play bubble bobble.87.102.16.238 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and whatever happens no changee first please! ie don't change he page proper until a 100% decision has been made.87.102.16.238 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

CHANGE EVERYTHING FIRST ROGER WILCO MR ANON SIR :D\=< (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, at least someone listens to me. (sound of sobbing).87.102.16.238 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh! As when this came up before, can I remind people that the current 'splash' front page is aimed at new, inexperienced users, not people like us who filter out most of what we see on a Wikipedia page and already know where to look on refdesk pages. Try and follow a route from the main page to the reference desks, then maybe you'll see the benefit of a simple, image-heavy page which promises that in just a few clicks you really will be able to talk to someone. The 'splash' page lets you know you've got somewhere, as said above. By all means change orders of desks, make things more consistent, but please don't make the refdesk 'front page' less friendly. Skittle (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LESS FRIENDLY ROGER YES SIR WILL COMPLY :D\=< (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how do i become taller?

Question moved to WP:RD/S:how do i become taller

[edit] SineBot on Spring Break?

It looks like the last time SineBot signed anything on a ref desk page is around 19 March. It is still toiling away throughout the rest of WP, so the question arises - what changed around here on that date? --LarryMac | Talk 14:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? --LarryMac | Talk 13:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've pointed the owner at this discussion (and will not sign this post, just to see if sinebot is back yet...) - tagishsimon

I hope that Sinebot hasn't become sentient and this isn't a sign of the coming Apocalypse. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Sinebot is not sentient. In fact, I'm beginning to think he's about as non-sentient as can be. I wish I knew what to fix - I tried to find changes to anything on the pages or headers that corresponded to the last Sinebot signing, but found nothing. I'm going to have to study up on how to use the unsigned templates and start doing so :-( --LarryMac | Talk 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But User:Slakr is (well, sometimes ;) and still active. I'm hoping he merely overlooked my note to him on his talk page. I've given him another poke. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --LarryMac | Talk 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed – Someone decided to break backward compatibility in api.php so that list=categorymembers uses "cmtitle" now (instead of "cmcategory") and now requires "Category:" to be prepended to the category. *eyeroll*. --slakr^\ talk / 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If that impressive string of signifiers means it's back, then Yay! Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages should be subpages of their namespaces.. like Wikipedia/Reference_desk and talk pages shouldn't have their own namespaces: Wikipedia/Reference_desk/Talk. It doesn't need its own delimiter :::: :D\=< (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

People's text contributions are licensed under the gnu fdl, but you can't just click the text and get attribution.. you have to go the the page history and find the revision. So.... Someone can always dig through the splash header history to find the Image page links, which is what they would have to do anyway for the rest of the GFDL material wikipedia uses. So there's no problem, right? :D\=< (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL dedication needs to be available as well. The images are separate from wikinodes and thus need their own dedications. And it's possible to mirror any wiki without mirroring source code.. --Kjoonlee 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not add a small unobtrusive note at the bottom of the splash page showing the licensing information for the images? Nevermind, I see that is already being done. --VectorPotential^Talk 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've separated it out into its own subpage to allow for greater customizability. Would it be satisfactory to just link to the subpage, rather than transcluding it? After all, the image documentation isn't visible on images, it requires that you click on a link to take you to the licensing info, the same should be acceptable for the reference desk, shouldn't it? --VectorPotential^Talk 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Would something like this work?--VectorPotential^Talk 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of what I was thinking, but instead of sticking a link in the page, stick a link in the page history or the discussion page. Because people's text contributions require you to click History and find the diff through the long list, there shouldn't be a problem with null-editing a link to the [[:Image:]] in the history and parading that diff around to anyone suing on behalf of the GFDL 65.161.73.245 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

History and discussion might not be mirrored. We must assume that someone somewhere mirrors Wikipedia commercially, and be ready for it. Thus, the talk pages and the history are not valid options. --Kjoonlee 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete subpages of this page

Anyone else think it's time to permanently archive the two subpages of this page that users are theoretically directed to from the top of this page? They seem to have only been sporadically used, and the traffic here has never been so severe (AFAIR) that a segregation was necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get rid of /guidelines, it has a lot of history and a lot of talk page discussion to develop it :D\=< (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines, that is not a talk page and not meant to be "archived" (which would just mean you move it from one subpage to a differently named subpage). I don't know what you mean by "sporadically used"; there are links to the guidelines all over the place, including three from discussion threads currently on this page, and also from the live pages of each of the RD sections. As to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice, that is a talk page. If you feel an urge to archive that talk page – there appear to be no active threads at the moment – please do so, but make sure you don't remove the boxes at the top.  --Lambiam 11:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he means retire them permanently. :D\=< (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring only two the two talk-subpages that have barely been used, and not at all this year. And yes, I was specifically suggesting we permanently remove the lower two boxes from the top of this page, as they seem to have been ignored completely for months without issue (of course leave a link to the archives somewhere on this page, and when I say "this page" in this context, I'm referring to this page). And no, I was never suggesting we retire the guidelines...Someguy1221 (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which pages exactly do you mean by "the two talk-subpages"? Can you give the page names?  --Lambiam 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice. Although theoretically the first is actually the talk page for the guidelines, even though, as with the second, threads that should be there have been placed here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant the pages :D\=< (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it's helpful to have a place to move off topic conversations and bickering. If anything we should add a new one and just call it Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/arguments that come up every few days that I'm tired of looking at, or not.--VectorPotential^Talk 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I've removed a trolling non-question, here. I did so after the troll removed my "don't feed" warning, here. So crucify me. Or not. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There were like 5 responses to his valid if biased question.. what are you playing at? Revenge? He removes your post so you remove his? :D\=< (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a little, I guess. But it was a troll, right? Or am I wrong? Are we supposed to leave disgusting innuendo there for all to see as if we approve? Silence implies consent. Tell me what the right thing to do is, I'm out of ideas. Was I supposed to repost my warning every time he removed it? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

“So crucify me.” lol

Reverting the trolling “question” was possibly justified. Reverting the other responses was probably not necessary though. Actually in this case an on page archive would have been the ideal solution. (I would have called this question “racist” not biased.) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not really doing any harm (as a medical advice question might do, I mean) and is generating legitimate discussion so I see no compelling reason to remove it. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is not supposed to be discussion on the refdesks. If it is generating discussion at all it is harmful. Read the guidelines. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on a reference desk about the topic at hand is the point of the reference desks. And exactly when did racism become trolling? A lot of people are racists and it's concievable that one of them might as a real question about it. 65.161.73.245 (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your first sentence. "Discussion on a reference desk about the topic at hand" is not the point of the reference desks. The point is to answer questions and refer to articles, external links, books, and other sources with more information. Discussion about the topic at hand can be an interesting fringe benefit, but only when the discussion is informed, not when it becomes a sweeping debate and clash of world-views.

As for your question when racism became trolling, that is not the issue, as Milkbreath pointed out himself in the thread he removed. The issue is posting questions and comments loaded with implications that will provoke other editors into these useless and repetitive debates. Yes, it would be better if they were ignored, but as a lot of editors seem to lack that capacity, I see no problems in removing the diatribes when they keep popping up on the same theme over and over again. No problem whatsoever. This is not about freedom of speech or PC-paranoia, it's about perverting the reference desk into a "Well-this-is-what-I-think-about-socially-sensitive-topic-X" forum. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is how we develop a complete answer to questions, it's not merely a fringe benefit. :D\=< (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(I put your comment here, because I prefer keeping my post in one piece.). As you know, Froth, I'm all for intelligent discussions at the desks, especially when they're conducted between people who know what they are talking about and possibly even backed up with references. And yes, it is how we sometimes develop complete answers, dialectics and all. Asking questions about "blacks I know are doing such and such" and "I see it this way, now discuss" are more likely to receive angry and accusatory answers than induce intelligent discussion, no matter whether they are asked under the pretense of "I am looking for data in order to improve the article on racism." (Give me a break). These aren't even discussions, they are the beginning of flamefests. We don't want flamefests. Or am I wrong? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that it is back - looks like the OP re-added it using an IP account. I'm easy about whether it stays or goes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of crap poem

I removed a poem. It was crap. Diff --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK ok ok he's a troll. Remove away. Good for some luls though; he seems to have a problem with the fact that thousands of years ago europeans developed the most advanced civilizations and conquered the rest of afro-eurasia.. :D\=< (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm...an unusual take on the history of civilisation. Were the pyramids built by simple barbarians then ? And when exactly did "europeans" conquer China and Japan ? (or am I missing some subtle level of sarcasm ?) Gandalf61 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just simplifying massively to criticise his senseless angst against the titanic forces of history :D\=< (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a poem by Marcus Garvey.[4]  --Lambiam 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He was well advised not to give up the day jobs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for that, I was somewhat concerned that the poster was so upset with their treatement here that they had resorted to writing a 60 verse epic poem...

Haven't heard anyone mention Marcus Garvey for about 20 years.87.102.16.238 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Had he provided a link instead of posting the poem and asked a valid question, like for a critical review of the poem, that would be OK. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent troll

Removed trolling, here. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we're being played, and raising the issue here (myself included, of course) seems only to have encouraged the gaming. I'll withdraw from this discussion now. All I ask from the editors reading this page, is to consider whether it might not be better to simply not respond to these questions which are being posted by one and the same person. Sorry for having fed the nuisance via this talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah don't give them attention on the desk itself, but great job reporting your deletions here, it makes me feel a lot less paranoid about being on the lookout for insomething deletions :D\=< (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Inwarranted? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unwarranted. :D\=< (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from humanities refdesk. )

So long as the Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit you have no business or right to call anyone a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.5.57 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mulatto - White and Black perspectives

Removed trolling. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This post is not that of a troll and you know it Milkbreath. You need to stop harassing me and committing vandalism as well. Multimillionaire (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The OP was definitely a troll. The IP that posted it has been repeatedly posting rants under the very thin guise of "polls" trying to imply that Sen. Obama is some sort of race war instigator, or something to that effect.

Thanks for responding to my "poll." However, the implication is only that since Obama has told us how he feels about Blacks and Whites we are now somewhat naturally curious as to how Blacks and Whites feel about Mulattoes.

He tried to claim that his "polls" are for the betterment of Wikipedia, but there's no evidence that he's ever contributed in article space. APL (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia reference desk is only for betterment of Wikipedia and not to obtain information directly by readers of the Wikipedia articles? Thanks for clarifying that. Multimillionaire (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably APL was referring to your injunction "The purpose of this question is to gather data for making improvement to several Wikipedia articles, namely the Wikipedia article on Racism". In so far as these were your words, the sarcasm in your most recent response falls somewhat flat and makes you appear a little dishonest to a disinterested reader. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That comment does not appear in or apply to this inquiry. You fokes seem to have a bad habit of trying to make everything connect when in fact there is no connection. Not everyone has time to post questions on the reference desk nor availability of a computer. Questions therefore may come from many sources which your effort to make a connection then wrongfully distorts. Multimillionaire (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not seriously asking us to make no link between your "Unreasonable and outdated dissatisfactions" question and your "Mulatto - White and Black perspectives" question and your "What is the Black and White perspective on the "Obama Mulatto solution"?" question, and your ridiculous comments in "Changing fortunes of the Nazi Party"? You're having a laugh, and will not be taken seriously here, as we do not find stereotypical racism amusing, however thinly disguised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion about a now non-existent question, it should be conducted on the talk page. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion should only be moved to the talk page when the question is restored. Multimillionaire (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. APL (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed yet another Multimillionaire "question" (entitled What is the Black and White perspective on the "Obama Mulatto solution"?). FiggyBee (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

...which he then reposted here. FiggyBee (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are truly a pathetic censor. How much of history have the likes of you people modified to your own liking or erased? If for only that reason you merit the Holocaust. Multimillionaire (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yes. Totally offensive post, no great surprise. Sincerely, Multimillionaire, I pity you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone post something somewhere?! I AM BORED ~.~ v_v' :D\=< (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted one of those earlier as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Multimillionaire... Go to your local library and check out a copy of the movie Birth of a Nation. I hear that people with your mindset find it to a very accurate documentary on the White-Black-Mulatto relations in the United States since the end of the Civil War. -- kainaw™ 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was totally having flashbacks to BoaN reading Mm's posts. Incidentally, subject matter aside, it is a truly pioneering piece of cinema and well worth anyone's watching if you haven't seen it. FiggyBee (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that MultiMillionaire is a back in the form of user:Mimus polyglottos. Notice how he [5] edits posts by 71.100]. APL (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another section deleted

I just removed this section from the Humanities desk. It's a non-question but from a different IP range, so I left a note on the IP's talk page in case the user was genuine. FiggyBee (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed some more trolling by 71.100.0.46 (talk · contribs) this morning and then he blanked my userpage and talk page, so I blocked him. I'm sure he will be back with another address though. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. There was a short discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Determined_trolling_of_Refdesks, if anyone wants to add something before it gets archived. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there was the core of a decent question there: "Did the Holocaust cause many Jews to lose faith in God ?". It wasn't stated as such, but we could have answered it as if it had been. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closing of the European Reading Room at the Library of Congress

Removed: [6].—eric 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah abuse of the desks, but so many people had replied ;_; :D\=< (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I like this removal. The question itself was an obvious ploy to garner support for an agenda, but I found myself wanting to know more about the future of the Reading Room. I'm not going to get worked up about it either way, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I defiantly appose this removal. It seems quite arbitrary and unnecessary. Exactly what harm was this question doing? --S.dedalus (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the poster of the original question (I am not signed in right now) -- I admit that it was a bit of a "ploy" but I phrased it in the form of a question (!) because that was the best way I could think of to get the word out to the types of people who might actually *care* about the issue -- historians who, like me, are often here on the humanities desk answering questions. It was my attempt at a Teleological suspension of the ethical, alas. 70.143.85.241 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Ref Desks are not intended to be a noticeboard, and the fact that you had to "bend" your announcement into a series of rhetorical questions should have told you that this was not the appropriate place for your post. If you want to get the attention of the Wikipedia historians community, there is a talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History and an announcements page at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Announcements. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting it was a ploy. I've deleted it again [7]. The RD is not a stone on which to grind your axe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the truth is that it was 75% ploy and 25% actual question, because I really don't know if it is true! I wrote to the LoC and no one wrote me back. I find things on blogs and I got that note from a History list-serve. So 75% of me thought it might be true and wanted to warn people and 25% of me wasn't sure if it was true and wanted to find out if it was some early April Fools thing.. But since the way I phrased it upset so many people I guess I will just let it go. 70.143.85.241 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to This story, the LoC has issued a statement denying this. Apparently it's just an internet rumor. However, I was not able to find an online copy of the actual statement from the LoC. Hope this helps. APL (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a site dedicated to the issue: Save the European Reading Room at the LC!.  --Lambiam 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don’t agree with using any part of Wikipedia as a notice board, but I have a great deal more respect for an OP who can quote Kierkegaard! Then again Kierkegaard had a bit of an ax to grind himself didn’t he. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] l3 cache

I asked a question about L3 cache on the computing desk - and now it's gone. Doesn't even show up on the hisory page. What happened. Was it so offensive that some uber-administrator completely erased all record of it?87.102.16.238 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC) It came back. good.87.102.16.238 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cap Ref Desk

He seems to have appeard suddenly form nowhere. Did he used to be someone else perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.215.122 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To the last question: possibly. But for every editor, there was a time before which they'd never edited the Ref Desk, and after which they had. Some start out slowly, one or 2 edits a week. Others make their presence felt more quickly. No editor comes "from nowhere". What are you getting at? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on, he's obviously one of us, editing under a pseudo-pseudonym. Who is he? You were pretty quick to come to his defense.. is he YOU? :D\=< (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else is wondering too if you see his talk page under Traffic. As for me I'm a mary (blind spot thing, dammit) not spotting a title like his. (am tired) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty quick to come to his defense: Well, having happened to chance upon this post when it came up on my watchlist, what was I supposed to do - hang around for three hours, or deliberately go and spend time elsewhere and only come back here later? Come on. And no, I'm not him or her, and have no idea who he or she is. And don't care. As long as they play by the rules, that's all I care about. Is there any particular reason why we're discussing our colleague, by the way, as if he/she were not able to read this discussion? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was preemptively turning it into a witch hunt while it was still absurd, to defuse the situation. Witch hunts can get out of hand fast! (at least they do on TV!) Too subtle? :D\=< (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, afraid so. Subtlety is often lost in these parts. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Get it? Subtle? LOST? Does this look shopped? nah mspaint :D\=< (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that the editor who started this thread is probably a banned user and troll. If Catain Ref Desk continues to do good work, I see no reason to bother him. There's nothing to see here, folks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe cap IS "this" editor trying to figure out if anyone's on to him! :D\=< (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wondering why anyone would think CRD is not able to read this discussion? It's all very circular... Julia Rossi (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just so charming when the character chimes in with "hel-lo, I can hear you" that I guess I just set up for it subconsciously :D\=< (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What a funny thread to find. But yes: I have not truly appeared from no-where (nor have I ever claimed that). I was here before. For a long time. I am old in Wikipedia-years. I have, over time, made many more edits than all of you except for JackofOz, who must be some sort of Aussie robot.

But here are the facts, if you believe me: I have never been banned or suffered any administrative recriminations on Wikipedia, you will never find this account being used in conjunction with any other accounts (it is not a sock puppet by the pejorative definitions), I have never been the subject of anything more than standard Wikipedia controversy and dispute (e.g. not a member of any cabal or anything unpleasant), and I have never made a big fuss about storming away from Wikipedia (or anything) on my other account(s). I just like to cycle identities every once in awhile to keep the internet fresh. At some point I'll cycle out of this one as well, and someone new will be here. (And no, I never lie about myself. I just omit.)

For the record, I'm not one of you editing under a pseudonym. I very rarely use my other account(s) anymore, and never for nefarious deeds. But anyway. I'm not here to play games, no. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

oooooh so exciting! A life on the run... from yourself! What a thrill! You should make a movie :D\=< (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be a television series with a theme song. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so confused at that link o_o :D\=< (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That link made a lot of sense to me and *sigh* set me off on another trail... Isn't that (in a sense) what you did when you went from Froth boy to wildly laughing boy with AK? Thing about CRD is his writing voice does stay the same. (IMHO of course) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wildly laughing with an AK? What, like a kalashnikov? I made this face ಠ_ಠ :D\=< (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Har. Did you see the sailor with the ak74? ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I can definitely smell footwear (not shoes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.208.103 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy: If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper. My bolding —Preceding unsigned comment added by NineOfNoIdea (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

He can if he wants ten.. apparently nobody even knew he was reincarnate until this thread, and as long as he doesn't have a "negative track record" (or use them for sockpuppetry) he can register as many alternate accounts as mediawiki will let him. :D\=< (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that as far as I'm aware, it's not generally consider acceptable, even if you're a perfect angel from now on, to create a new unconnected account if you've been indefinitely (or are otherwise currently) blocked for bad behaviour (as it could be considered block evasion). You should at least discuss it with an admin first (most likely the admin will simply say yes, unless your behaviour was particularly bad in which case they may ask you reveal your new account to them or some other person to let them monitor you). Of course if you are a perfect angel, even more so if it's been a while since your account was blocked, no one is going to track you down but if you really want to start afresh, I think it best if you don't do so under a cloud. This probably doesn't apply if you're old account was simply blocked as a vandalism only account. Also, as should be obvious, if you abandon an account because you nearly reached the communities patience, coming back with an unconnected account and continuoing that bad behaviour would be considered abusive. And just to be clear, I'm not saying any of this applies to Cap Ref Desk, simply pointing it out since the subject of coming back under a new account came up Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking it a step further I'd say that none of that applies to CRD given AGF and all of his statements about the matter. --hydnjo talk 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is very magnanimous of you Hydnjo, but have you considered that CRD might be a very clever SP (like Lc and others) and also he has admitted that he wil change identity from time to time. This is claerly against WP policy. Do you not agree) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NineOfNoIdea (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have (considered) and I don't (agree). --hydnjo talk 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with hydnjo except that robots don't have opinions.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gayelle"

Removed duplicate posting on the Humanities Desk. It's also on the Language Desk. Don't know how to link to it, sorry. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move "Skip to the bottom" link?

Would any editors mind if I moved the "Skip to the bottom" link to the top right of the page (as on WP:HD) on each of the sub pages instead of where it is currently placed? For users with a screen res of 1024x768 or lower, they still have to scroll down a bit to get to it. If it was placed as in WP:HD, this would not be an issue for any screen resolution. I wanted to bring it up here first before posting at WP:RFC. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved it up, but not to the spot where it is on the HD. Looks quite good IMO and the code isn't kludgey, though it's such a high-level change that all that formatting markup slops up my minimalist /header code. As usual I have no idea what the heck internet explorer thinks it's doing.. anybody with more care for redesigning code around making broken browsers fail elegantly, you're welcome to mutilate away.. if IE wants to be ridiculous and ignore what it's supposed to do, I'm not responsible :D\=< (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This just in it works perfectly in IE8 :D\=< (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that actually looks quite nice, as you say, and solves the problem I stated. Thanks for making the switch! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah no problem :D\=< (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a skip to the bottom button? And here I thought my keyboard's "End" button wasn't pointless :( Good decision to move it though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Skip" is an excellent idea so I'm just going on record to say that the current implementation has problems in the "Classic" skin. Fix or ignore, I don't care, mostly all new users start with and thus prefer "MonoBook" anyway. The minor inconveniences aren't worth arguing about but perhaps some future fixitguy might want to check out what his genius fix looks like to others (I know, what a prob) in other skins. Oh well, check it or not, at least I think I've said enough. --hydnjo talk 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh.. looks OK to me. It just covers up what categories the page is in. If I had implemented Katalaveno's original suggestion it would have disastrously covered up the entire search box.. :D\=< (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - by itself it's not a big deal. However, the skip box and the shortcut link combined makes the UR corner a bit funky in Classic. --hydnjo talk 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be restored?

Under Judaica (30 March 7.2), this was removed by the op.:

Because he's a troll we've been trying to ignore :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it go back? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's metadiscussion but it would have taken as many words to say "go to the talk page for the reason" as it would to say "because he's a known troll" :D\=< (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know it was on talk page. Got it. (see why some people don't notice headers for months?) : } Julia Rossi (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knee pain

Pain in the neck, too. Diff here. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call I think, particularly looking at the beginning of the second answer... Skittle (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an obvious one. He specifically asked how to remedy his problem. He was not vague about it in any way. -- kainaw™ 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the answers seemed quite helpful, and not medical advice, either. It was Captain Ref Desk's advice to run on dirt instead of concrete. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skip to bottom

I just noticed this link on RD/C. I think it is a good idea. Thanks Kushal 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How are people just noticing it? o_O It's been there in the header for months! :D\=< (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But we always immediately skip to the bottom, so how would we see it? :) If you're using Firefox, there is also an add-on called "Back to Top", which gives you the functionality to skip to the bottom or top on all pages.  --Lambiam 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I have that- Home and End buttons. I used to never take my hand off the mouse when browsing wikipedia and it annoyed me to have to scroll down (that's why I put that link there in the first place) but now I always use pgup/pgdown/home/end to scroll around. Friday you finally win :[ :D\=< (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)