Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 125
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 120 | ← | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | → | Archive 130 |
Getting the Nazi troll to go away forever
| this discussion passed the "usefulness" stage about three days ago. --Jayron32 01:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Has anyone figured other effective ways to get him/her to walk away from the refdesks forever without having to semiprotect?71.231.237.213 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
But how can they possibly find out where to send him such a letter, given that the troll may be using open proxies?71.231.237.213 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Not meaning to be blunt, but does the troll ever get laid? Maybe what he needs is to find himself a girlfriend. It's certainly more pleasurable and exciting than trying to troll the Refdesk.Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
No-one else seems to have noticed, or at least mentioned, that I reverted him seven times in the space of four minutes yesterday morning on Humanities. --Viennese Waltz 07:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Wpheys dto JBrexwitsh bjaudnkiecrs daelny trhee hvolioheciawgu This is going to annoy him more than he annoys us. 79.73.133.142 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A potentially resolvable questionAlthough I don't have any hope of our reaching consensus on the wider issue, can I try and get some guidance on one specific point, which I've been getting conflicting messages on? If a banned user's posts have good-faith replies, should the person who deletes the original posting also delete the replies? Tevildo (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
"His Nazi garbage must not be allowed to stand unchallenged"This isn't just feeding the troll. It is feeding the troll lobster tails slowly poached in butter, herb-crusted rack of lamb with rosemary roasted potatoes and a side dish of golden imperial osetra caviar, all topped off with a glass of 1998 veuve clicquot la grande dame Champagne. Until certain editors realize that they created the trolling problem by feeding the trolls, the trolling problem will never be solved. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A Restatement of the IssueUser:Guy Macon – You ask why Report Delete Revdel Semi isn’t tried here, although it works everywhere else in Wikipedia. I basically agree, and think that is the appropriate answer, but will explain again why some editors disagree. The sticking point is Semi. As I have said previously, there is a school of thought concerning the Reference Desks, which I call idealists, that the Reference Desks are special and that their purpose is outreach to the population of unregistered editors who must be allowed not only to read but to write. Everywhere else, we agree that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be read, both by registered and by unregistered editors, and that a secondary purpose is to improve the readable content, which involves the ability of editors to write. Therefore everywhere else, we agree that semi-protection is a small price to pay to stop trolling. However, on the Reference Desks, some editors consider semi-protection to be wrong’ a violation of the special mission of outreach to unregistered editors who wish to post questions. The idea that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected prevents solving the problem, and the idea that semi-protection of the Reference Desks should be complained about encourages complaining about semi-protection, which is a form of troll-feeding. User:Guy Macon – You asked why RDRS isn’t tried here. The answer because idealists consider Semi-Protection, which is part of the formula, to be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I happen to agree with the comment that reporting the troll to ANI is a bad idea, but that is because trolls should be reported to AIV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
|
Medical advice
@SemanticMantis: @Wnt: - A discussion about my recent removal (diff) of a question which I interpreted as a request for medical advice (indeed, the OP is explicitly asking for a diagnosis and a treatment recommendation) seems indicated. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- SemanticMantis' comments from my talk page:
Hi Tevildo, Regarding this [1] removal: is there a reason why you are acting against our published guidelines? They clearly state:
| “ | Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions. The purpose is to minimise disruption: editors disagree over whether a question is seeking medical advice, and removing the whole question is discouraging for new contributors. Therefore, most of the time, the responsibility lies with responders not to give medical advice, regardless of the question. | ” |
[2] emphasis mine.
Is this you being WP:BOLD and applying WP:NORULES? I'm curious, because I have repeatedly pointed out on the talk page that we are encouraged to remove responses that give medical advice, rather than censor questions. I was tempted to revert your removal, but decided to ask about it instead. In my opinion there are many scholary references we could point the OP to, without giving any sort of medical advice, even broadly construed. I think ToE and User:Wnt's responses were perfectly professional and well within our scope. If you feel this needs more input, feel free to copy over to the talk page. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)- Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since my response (a mention of our no medical advice rule and a link to our article on the subject the OP brought up) was part of what was removed, I though I should chime in here to say that I have no dog in this race. Best of luck to those who are working to develop a consensus policy on handling these questions. Cheers! -- ToE 19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's worth pinging User:Bruce Washington as he was the one most affected by this action. I think that when there are nutritional issues that anyone concerned about graying hair can look at, it isn't an individualized diagnosis or treatment. Oddly enough, I was just thinking of trying to harvest and cook some he shou wu myself (though with a certain degree of Japanese polygonum hybridization, I think); in the odd chance I actually get out the spade and take down some invasive plants I ought to let folks here know if they do anything. But this is more experiment than recommendation since I have no idea if they will. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're assuming that the cause of the graying hair is nutritional deficiencies. It could be, but it could also be something much more serious. You don't know. That's the whole reason behind not giving medical advice. We're not experts, and it's dangerous if you tell someone, "It's probably X" and they believe you when it's something else. I think removing the question was the right call. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wnt does this kind of thing all the time. He's got the idea that all doctors are crooks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, Wnt suggested a wikipedia article. Even if Wnt did give medical advice, that is what should have been removed, not the question. That is the the point that is spelled out clearly in our guidelines, yet few people follow. That is what I would like to discuss. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're assuming that the cause of the graying hair is nutritional deficiencies. It could be, but it could also be something much more serious. You don't know. That's the whole reason behind not giving medical advice. We're not experts, and it's dangerous if you tell someone, "It's probably X" and they believe you when it's something else. I think removing the question was the right call. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Tevildo: you still have not answered my question. Why did you remove the question instead of following our guideline? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- In case my objection is not clear: I have no problem with removal of medical advice. I see removal of questions as disruptive, and against our guidelines. Since the question is removed, I cannot share references on this topic, and the function of the reference desk has been impaired. I am merely suggesting that we start following our guidelines. For illustrative purpose, I would have responded to the title of the question, and given scholarly references that address it. I can freely ignore any requests for medical advice, while also helping OP and other curious people, e.g.:
- "Hair graying is the most obvious sign of aging in humans, yet its mechanism is largely unknown" [3]. Here is a freely accessible article that suggests a "free-radical theory of graying" [4]. Our article on Hair color also has sections on grey/white hair, as well as conditions affecting hair color.
- There is nothing wrong with my that response it contains no medical advice, and several relevant references. I think it could help OP and others. The removal of the entire question disallows me from using the reference desk for its intended purpose, and that is why I object. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- The current guidelines do not contain any criteria for deciding if a question should be deleted. It's "discouraged", true, but not prohibited, and I believe that this question, being an unambiguous request for medical advice, is inappropriate for the reference desk. I would support reverting WP:RD/G/M to the previous, unambiguous version, which had been stable for several years - I would not describe the discussion (here) which led to the current version as showing a clear consensus. However, no recent discussions regarding the reference desk have led to a consensus of any sort, so I doubt if it'll be productive to develop this point further. If anyone wants to restore the question and ToE's answer, I won't object (although I still don't think it should be done) - I would object to the restoration of Wnt's answer, and the posting of any further answers along those lines. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't want to turn this specific case into a big issue. If you agree that removal of posts is discouraged, then I encourage you to remove responses in the future, in a accordance with our suggestions. And if I happen to restore a question you've removed in the future, know that it is because I think there are valuable references to be shared on the topic without going astray of our guidelines. Again, I return to the analogy of a real-life, brick and mortar reference desk at a public or academic library. This user would not have been asked to leave, this user would have been pointed to relevant literature, likely with a caveat of "we cannot provide medical advice". SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this might be a useful case to consider if we do intend a re-discussion of the guideline, but that isn't a discussion I have much enthusiasm for initiating at the moment. I would hope that none of us would object to our contributions being reverted in this sort of situation, and certainly would not take exception to any such action on your (or anyone else's) part. On a practical note, would there be any mileage in developing a standard message to replace deleted answers that give professional advice, as we currently have for deleted questions? Tevildo (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure! If a template will help encourage our users to remove answers rather than questions, I'm all for it. As a starter how about:
- Well, this might be a useful case to consider if we do intend a re-discussion of the guideline, but that isn't a discussion I have much enthusiasm for initiating at the moment. I would hope that none of us would object to our contributions being reverted in this sort of situation, and certainly would not take exception to any such action on your (or anyone else's) part. On a practical note, would there be any mileage in developing a standard message to replace deleted answers that give professional advice, as we currently have for deleted questions? Tevildo (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't want to turn this specific case into a big issue. If you agree that removal of posts is discouraged, then I encourage you to remove responses in the future, in a accordance with our suggestions. And if I happen to restore a question you've removed in the future, know that it is because I think there are valuable references to be shared on the topic without going astray of our guidelines. Again, I return to the analogy of a real-life, brick and mortar reference desk at a public or academic library. This user would not have been asked to leave, this user would have been pointed to relevant literature, likely with a caveat of "we cannot provide medical advice". SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- The current guidelines do not contain any criteria for deciding if a question should be deleted. It's "discouraged", true, but not prohibited, and I believe that this question, being an unambiguous request for medical advice, is inappropriate for the reference desk. I would support reverting WP:RD/G/M to the previous, unambiguous version, which had been stable for several years - I would not describe the discussion (here) which led to the current version as showing a clear consensus. However, no recent discussions regarding the reference desk have led to a consensus of any sort, so I doubt if it'll be productive to develop this point further. If anyone wants to restore the question and ToE's answer, I won't object (although I still don't think it should be done) - I would object to the restoration of Wnt's answer, and the posting of any further answers along those lines. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
| “ | Response redacted in accordance with our guidelines against providing medical advice [5]. Responses that contain only references will not be construed as medical advice. If you feel this redaction was made in error, please seek consensus at the talk page before restoring this response. | ” |
- To me, it's not necessary to change the guideline, I would simply prefer we start collectively following it. I have never yet seen a response removed, but plenty of questions, many of which I felt could be served by references. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I should note there was a big news story about the claim that PC-KUS could cure grey hair, based on [6], but this seems overblown. [7] Some of the discussion of he shou wu goes the same way. But proof that there is something you can use and stop the grey is notably lacking, apart from avoiding B12 deficiency. I imagine that stopping grey hair forever would be a tricky thing to do, since melanocytes are so prone to go the other way, so even if a new drug comes out I'd look at it with great suspicion. The only question for me now is if anything old has some small effect that's been flying under the radar. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Count Iblis: Thanks for drawing my attention to this! This is an interesting substance said to prevent melanocyte stem cell senescence [8] and to protect from hearing loss from loud sounds [9] though oddly to reduce exercise performance by 35% at less than one-third this dosage [10]. Still, I'm a bit concerned that one company is controlling and marketing this rather aggressively. It is said to be a "form of vitamin B3" present at "trace amounts in some foods", but unfortunately I cannot immediately access the review articles saying this. My first thought is that if it is present in sufficient amounts to be have such effects, we should learn what foods they are, but if this is only a technical pretext to classify it as a supplement ... then this is something very different from the usual vitamin supplementation because it has dramatic effects. If this is conceptually a stem cell treatment, well, we know that other stem cell therapies are fraught with cancer issues. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is an example of why we shouldn't be playing doctor here. You've already made a diagnosis and now you're discussing treatment... without ever having examined the patient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I'm discussing some interesting research results and whether NMN has useful potential in general. Surely you see that these papers, which aren't even really about gray hair, have little direct relevance to this particular case. Any of us might pick up this supplement - it won't be prescribed, it's not a drug, and the physician won't mention it for us, and since a doctor doesn't really care whether a cat is black or white as long as it schedules its next appointment, I dare say he will know little about it. Nonetheless, we could update the article about gray hair with some data about it ... if we had more reason to say it is relevant, that is, than I've found so far. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- You have revealed, yet again, why you should never comment on anything here that's even remotely of a medical nature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bugs, it's not that hard, we're not talking about any patient, so we can't be giving any diagnoses. I intended this to be a discussion of policy, but if Wnt and Iblis want to talk about melanocyte senescence, that's fine and fully permissible as well. I will be the first to remove Wnt's posts if he makes any diagnoses or treatments to posters. Also, if you're going to be critical of others, you might check the log in your own eye with respect to post quality. That is not what this discussion is about, so please don't insist on making this personal. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Giving medical advice is against the rules. Wnt knows that, but doesn't agree with it, and often tries to weasel around the rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- The question ought to have been channeled toward an existing article, like this: "We can't give you medical advice. You may wish to read our article Human hair color#Gray and white hair for more information." loupgarous (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Medical questions of the type asked should not be routed to articles, because Wikipedia is officially not considered a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The question ought to have been channeled toward an existing article, like this: "We can't give you medical advice. You may wish to read our article Human hair color#Gray and white hair for more information." loupgarous (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Giving medical advice is against the rules. Wnt knows that, but doesn't agree with it, and often tries to weasel around the rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bugs, it's not that hard, we're not talking about any patient, so we can't be giving any diagnoses. I intended this to be a discussion of policy, but if Wnt and Iblis want to talk about melanocyte senescence, that's fine and fully permissible as well. I will be the first to remove Wnt's posts if he makes any diagnoses or treatments to posters. Also, if you're going to be critical of others, you might check the log in your own eye with respect to post quality. That is not what this discussion is about, so please don't insist on making this personal. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- You have revealed, yet again, why you should never comment on anything here that's even remotely of a medical nature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I'm discussing some interesting research results and whether NMN has useful potential in general. Surely you see that these papers, which aren't even really about gray hair, have little direct relevance to this particular case. Any of us might pick up this supplement - it won't be prescribed, it's not a drug, and the physician won't mention it for us, and since a doctor doesn't really care whether a cat is black or white as long as it schedules its next appointment, I dare say he will know little about it. Nonetheless, we could update the article about gray hair with some data about it ... if we had more reason to say it is relevant, that is, than I've found so far. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is an example of why we shouldn't be playing doctor here. You've already made a diagnosis and now you're discussing treatment... without ever having examined the patient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Count Iblis: Thanks for drawing my attention to this! This is an interesting substance said to prevent melanocyte stem cell senescence [8] and to protect from hearing loss from loud sounds [9] though oddly to reduce exercise performance by 35% at less than one-third this dosage [10]. Still, I'm a bit concerned that one company is controlling and marketing this rather aggressively. It is said to be a "form of vitamin B3" present at "trace amounts in some foods", but unfortunately I cannot immediately access the review articles saying this. My first thought is that if it is present in sufficient amounts to be have such effects, we should learn what foods they are, but if this is only a technical pretext to classify it as a supplement ... then this is something very different from the usual vitamin supplementation because it has dramatic effects. If this is conceptually a stem cell treatment, well, we know that other stem cell therapies are fraught with cancer issues. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
This edit has been identified as unconstructive
When I typed in black magic, I got an error saying that the edit was potentially unconstructive. When I put in dark magic though, everything was okay. Is there some sort word filter?AndrewAngel1024 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- We get a lot of spambots that try to advertise black magic, astrology, feng shui, and other stuff. Brand new accounts are prevented from trying to type in those words. You were legitimately trying to ask a question, though, so you're not in any trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A post at WP/S[11] amounts to an opinion piece that contradicts the accepted rôle of the electron as the mobile charge carrier in metals. The poster resists my hatting[12] of their claim "the electron does not move" and has deleted links I gave to the articles Electric current and Charge carrier that state our mainstream understanding. The "righting a great misconception" tone and scathing reference to Lie to children is ominous. Following WP:BRD procedure the poster's peculiar claim should be dealt with if possible on this page rather than engaging them in yet another ugly argument on the Ref. Desk. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I never once disagreed with any part of that, and my post does not either. It merely notes that the incorrect model of an electron as a discrete, individually identifiable and trackable solid particle is false. Every single word I said is 100% compatible with the notion of an electron as a charge carrier, and if you think that electrons are tiny little moving billiard balls, your belief is in direct contradiction of all of science of the past century. But you keep going with that false belief, in the mean time, I'll stick with what every meaningful physicist ever has had to say on the nature of electrons. As in, I never once said that electrons aren't charge carriers. You can't box it up for false pretense because you don't understand or believe like, everything quantum mechanics has to say about the nature of current models of electron behavior. --Jayron32 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your post[13] declared there are misunderstandings "here", understood to mean in the responses to "How long would electrons take to stop accelerating if homes used DC?". Kindly specify who of those who responded viz. Sagittarian Milky Way, Dragons flight, Trovatore, Vespine, Tevildo, Tigraan, myself or Wnt has misunderstood. Kindly provide diffs if you want to debate against what you think any of us believes. One can suspect that you have an issue with my belief already expressed in "The Drift velocity of electrons in wires is typically 1570 km/s (related to the Fermi energy concept in quantum mechanics)." because you pointedly avoid echoing that the electron is a mobile charge carrier, so please clarify that perception. Avoid misspelled grandiosities such as "you're[sic] belief is in direct contradiction of all of science of the past century" and understanding you will be easier. AllBestFaith (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The laughable irony of this entire discussion, which I consider to be futile enough that this will be my last comment on the matter, is that my response is written in complete support of your post. I agreed 100% with everything you wrote regarding the matter, especially the note about "It's probable that the majority of electrons in a switch when it left the factory never move out of it throughout the life of the switch." I thought it useful for further readers to elaborate on the issue by noting the problems with classical physics understanding of the behavior and nature of electrons as "discrete particles" and of models based on such understanding. For you to then box up my elaboration of your excellent initial points was beyond confusing, which is why I reached the only conclusion that you either did not understand, or flat out refused to believe quantum mechanics. So, considering I considered everything you wrote to be correct and excellent and worth elaborating on, your response to my reminder that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality and obey the Heisenberg principle and that we need to remember those concept when describing their behavior, is to box it up and say that they don't and that I was wrong. Do you see where I got confused? I say "electrons are not localizable little balls" and you say "no, you're wrong" and box up my explanation as such. So, above my question is "what part of quantum mechanics do you not believe in?" is a result of that. I apologize for speaking in too many absolutes in my answer. I also deeply apologize for my mischaracterization of you. When I said "you don't understand or believe..." that was very rude of me. It was inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for it. I have no expectation of forgiveness for it, and only offer my apology to you because it is the right thing to do, not because it obliges you to forgive me in any way. I am deeply sorry, and publicly apologize for that rudeness. It was inexcusable. --Jayron32 01:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is the text that you deleted: "The article Electric current explains the rôle of electrons as the charge carriers in metals." Why did you do that?
- This is a new claim that I challenge because it is a lie: "your response to my reminder that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality and obey the Heisenberg principle and that we need to remember those concept when describing their behavior, is to box it up and say that they don't and that I was wrong."
- Kindly address your own actions above. Your last 5-6 sentences are irrelevant ad hominem drama. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I was still wrong, you were still 100% correct, and I was still rude, and I still apologize. You don't become less right, nor do I become less wrong, because you wish to continue the discussion. I will not, at any point, change my stance that I was in the wrong here, nor will I, at any point, be saying that you ever said or did anything wrong. My apologies again to you. I still deeply regret my actions here. --Jayron32 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32:, I don't wish you to stagnate in error, I wish us to find consensus on what is correct. The alternative is doing disservice to readers at the Ref. Desk with prolonged dispute. It will be necessary for you to digest properly the article Electric current. That article is the consensus result of many Wikipedia editors who incidentally include Spinningspark who often joins us on the Ref. Desk, and I have no personal stake in its writing. You will find that it contradicts your still defended claim that "the electron does not move". More pointedly, you should by now have found out that the article says your claim is wrong, and that should have happened when I hatted your post with no condemnatory comment except "The article Electric current explains the rôle of electrons as the charge carriers in metals." However I cannot predict the thought processes of a Wikipedian who ignores Wikipedia articles, or who clings to a non-specialist excitement at the surprises for which Werner Heisenberg is worthily prized and it appears that you found yourself, maybe still find yourself, rebuffed or marginalized. But it is of no benefit to anyone, least of all yourself, that you indulge as an escape from these issues in the self mortification of continual apologies. Frankly speaking, these apologies come across as manipulative and tacky, but that is when I take into account your use of taunting and obscenity in other posts. Keeping to rational discussion might find us agreeing on the summary below.
- I was still wrong, you were still 100% correct, and I was still rude, and I still apologize. You don't become less right, nor do I become less wrong, because you wish to continue the discussion. I will not, at any point, change my stance that I was in the wrong here, nor will I, at any point, be saying that you ever said or did anything wrong. My apologies again to you. I still deeply regret my actions here. --Jayron32 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The laughable irony of this entire discussion, which I consider to be futile enough that this will be my last comment on the matter, is that my response is written in complete support of your post. I agreed 100% with everything you wrote regarding the matter, especially the note about "It's probable that the majority of electrons in a switch when it left the factory never move out of it throughout the life of the switch." I thought it useful for further readers to elaborate on the issue by noting the problems with classical physics understanding of the behavior and nature of electrons as "discrete particles" and of models based on such understanding. For you to then box up my elaboration of your excellent initial points was beyond confusing, which is why I reached the only conclusion that you either did not understand, or flat out refused to believe quantum mechanics. So, considering I considered everything you wrote to be correct and excellent and worth elaborating on, your response to my reminder that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality and obey the Heisenberg principle and that we need to remember those concept when describing their behavior, is to box it up and say that they don't and that I was wrong. Do you see where I got confused? I say "electrons are not localizable little balls" and you say "no, you're wrong" and box up my explanation as such. So, above my question is "what part of quantum mechanics do you not believe in?" is a result of that. I apologize for speaking in too many absolutes in my answer. I also deeply apologize for my mischaracterization of you. When I said "you don't understand or believe..." that was very rude of me. It was inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for it. I have no expectation of forgiveness for it, and only offer my apology to you because it is the right thing to do, not because it obliges you to forgive me in any way. I am deeply sorry, and publicly apologize for that rudeness. It was inexcusable. --Jayron32 01:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your post[13] declared there are misunderstandings "here", understood to mean in the responses to "How long would electrons take to stop accelerating if homes used DC?". Kindly specify who of those who responded viz. Sagittarian Milky Way, Dragons flight, Trovatore, Vespine, Tevildo, Tigraan, myself or Wnt has misunderstood. Kindly provide diffs if you want to debate against what you think any of us believes. One can suspect that you have an issue with my belief already expressed in "The Drift velocity of electrons in wires is typically 1570 km/s (related to the Fermi energy concept in quantum mechanics)." because you pointedly avoid echoing that the electron is a mobile charge carrier, so please clarify that perception. Avoid misspelled grandiosities such as "you're[sic] belief is in direct contradiction of all of science of the past century" and understanding you will be easier. AllBestFaith (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Electric power can flow through 3 media
| What carries electric charge? | |
|---|---|
| Vacuum | Alternating electric field causes Maxwellian displacement currents. DC cannot flow continuously. |
| Insulator | Electrons. Individual electrons have indeterminate locations but are bound to their atoms so there is no nett travel. Alternating electric field causes Maxwellian displacement currents. DC cannot flow continuously. |
| Metal | Electrons are found in 2 categories:
1. Inner (filled band) electrons have indeterminate locations but are bound to their atoms so there is no nett travel. 2. Outer conduction electrons are free to move through the metal lattice. DC can flow continuously and corresponds to nett travel of these electrons. |
Power delivery through insulators occurs on a small scale in electronic capacitors. Utility power distribution to homes by AC through insulators is a theoretical exercise but would be very impractical. Metal cables are universally used and giving a lecture about electrons that don't move in insulators is inappropriate for that case.
Fun facts about the electron
If it were not a discrete charged particle, Millikan would not have found its elementary charge difference between oil drops in 1911. But he did.
If the electron were not mobile, Thomson would not have been able to control their trajectories by electric and magnetic fields in his cathode ray tubes. But he did.
If an electron is not a trackable individual particle, Wilson would not have tracked individual electrons from decay events in his Cloud chamber. But he did.
The above short list of scientists who I think are all worthy Nobel laureates will suffice to answer your claim that "all of science of the past century" rejects the model of an electron as a discrete, individually identifiable and trackable particle. In view of the electron's Wave–particle duality I choose not to be drawn into a debate with you about whether the electron can be called solid. They certainly have measurable mass and are in continual random motion and collisions. Anyone who may have rashly sworn never ever ever to find fault with my writing, I do hereby graciously release from that onerous commitment. Pax vobiscum. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above contains multiple glaring errors. You claim "[in a] Vacuum [...] DC cannot flow continuously" yet cathode rays exist. You claim "utility power distribution to homes by AC through insulators is a theoretical exercise but would be very impractical" but utility transformers with galvanic isolation exist. And I find your treatment of Jayron32 to be abusive and disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you I value your comments. By Vacuum I meant utter vacuum devoid of any charge carrier, leaving only Maxwell's displacement form of current as a possibility. I should reconsider mentioning electric arcs and plasma in the table, and I alluded to cathode rays in the "Fun facts". Transformers do not pass alternating current through their winding insulations, the power transfer is through the shared changing magnetic field. What I call impractical is utility power distribution through insulators instead of through wires. That is what we might be reduced to if the knowledge of electric current by mobile electrons in metal were suppressed and forgotten. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do not understand why you persist in this discussion. I have already told you you were correct. I have already told you I was wrong. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing to lecture me on material and concepts 1) I already understand just fine, TYVM and 2) that I've already told you I understood and 3) That I already told you I knew I got wrong when I wrote the first time, and 4) That I already apologized for writing the wrong thing and for being rude to you when you corrected it. Can you explain what you hope to gain? --Jayron32 23:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes.
- --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: I answer you by number. 1) Actions such as deletions have spoken louder than words, but this is encouraging to hear. 2) You have told every reader at the Ref Desk what you think you understand, and indeed that they need to think the same. 3) I know, and 4) I don't gain anything from your apologies and would like them to stop. I put some effort into framing what I hope to achieve by bringing the issue of your deletions to this page rather than exposing it unnecessarily on the Ref. Desk. That is why you see no correction by me of your croquet-video-based "explanation" on the Ref. Desk. Do you plan to react or hold resentment if I reinstate my post "The article Electric current explains the rôle of electrons as the charge carriers in metals." among the responses? AllBestFaith (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC) See [14] AllBestFaith (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do not understand why you persist in this discussion. I have already told you you were correct. I have already told you I was wrong. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing to lecture me on material and concepts 1) I already understand just fine, TYVM and 2) that I've already told you I understood and 3) That I already told you I knew I got wrong when I wrote the first time, and 4) That I already apologized for writing the wrong thing and for being rude to you when you corrected it. Can you explain what you hope to gain? --Jayron32 23:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you I value your comments. By Vacuum I meant utter vacuum devoid of any charge carrier, leaving only Maxwell's displacement form of current as a possibility. I should reconsider mentioning electric arcs and plasma in the table, and I alluded to cathode rays in the "Fun facts". Transformers do not pass alternating current through their winding insulations, the power transfer is through the shared changing magnetic field. What I call impractical is utility power distribution through insulators instead of through wires. That is what we might be reduced to if the knowledge of electric current by mobile electrons in metal were suppressed and forgotten. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Article about reference desks
"For over 40 years, AskNYPL has been answering people's questions by looking things up in a variety of texts, recordings and other resources. And these people are expert researchers, so they know where to look for information, which is key in providing a really good, quality answer [...] — even if the question has multiple parts, and even if you're missing some key information. That's the benefit of a human over a computer algorithm. Plus, you might learn something unexpected from talking with a researcher — and if you need some recommended reading, they've got that covered too."
Source: [ http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/years-before-Google-existed-new-york-public-library-offered-human-google ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Great stuff, thanks! I think many of us could learn quite a bit by asking some questions at a professionally staffed ref desk. This also highlights why "google it" is almost never helpful here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- As it turns out, I visited the New York Public Library during my vacation to Manhattan - and I even visited their reference desk. The New York Public Library has a unique-in-the-world archive of paper prints of historical aeronautical charts - a personal interest! - and the maps librarians were awesome. The resources I sought were exceptionally esoteric - and I can tell you, I have searched for them, far and wide, in some of the greatest digital- and brick-and-mortar- maps libraries in our nation. The New York Public Library's maps and cartography staff had to pull out multiple layers of indirection - a paper catalog index into a microfiche archive, which pointed to another paper catalog index, which pointed to an archive shelf, ... and so on... but after over an hour of their efforts, I managed to get my hands on some very unique, real historical artifacts: actual paper aeronautical navigation charts from as far back as 1924.
- I'll have to do a write-up on that experience at some point.
- I would like to emphatically remind our volunteers here: we have an obligation to spend our efforts at providing excellent quality encyclopedic reference service. We are trying to construct a digital archive, and at our disposal we have the greatest repository of free, free human information ever constructed. The bar is very high. Let's do right by it.
- Nimur (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Chicken or Egg came first
What came first? – What do Scientists think, and what do Wikipedians think?
103.230.107.23 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- See Chicken or the egg for a full discussion of the issue. --Jayron32 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dinos had eggs, but there where no chickens around. So the egg was first. --JMS (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, but then, birds are dinosaurs. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also a good point, but then again not all birds are chickens. Since chickens have not existed as long as eggs have, that solves that problem. --Jayron32 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
wiki server issues?
Anybody know if there've been any problems with (or changes to) the Wikimedia servers lately? The RD archiving bot has been complaining about strange errors for the past two nights, as if edited pages are coming back empty, or something. I haven't yet dug in to figure out if they're real or spurious.—Steve Summit (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#503 errors/possible Twinkle issues [15] but a simple 503 error doesn't seem fit with what you're experiencing. Also I believe the bot still doesn't use the API? Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's very strange. No, the archiving bot does not use the API. But just now, at least, although it can edit the Science and Computing desks just fine, every attempt to submit edits to Miscellaneous results in a blank page, and no edits actually submitted. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to have fixed itself. (Still not sure what the actual problem was.) Normal archiving resumes. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- This bot edit on the Language desk seems to have gone wrong, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The content that was deleted in that edit is now available at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 October 20. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- The first edit left several posts that should have been archived, and no date headers. This edit from last night seems to have fixed things, though. Tevildo (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. The content that was deleted in that edit is now available at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 October 20. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- This bot edit on the Language desk seems to have gone wrong, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016
 | This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm unable to find a wrap speed animated wallpaper that starts from a normal motion to the wrap speed motion.
103.230.105.8 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016
| This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Slavery
During the transatlantic slave trade, were women also shackled and chained during the middle passage? --Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Done
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016
| This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone move the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#human to the Science ref desk? Obviously that question is in the wrong place.
47.138.165.200 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
a modest proposal (with a lot to be modest about)
Sometimes a reader asks a question and we fail to provide an answer; I'd like us to do better. Let me be more precise:
- a reader: often an anonymous one, and thus for all we know making their first attempt to engage with the refdesks
- asks a reasonable question: one that is fully within our remit and which a reference library certainly ought to be able to handle
- and we fail: specifically in the sense that no answer at all is forthcoming.
The example that causes me to write this is [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#First_US_State_Dinner The first US State Dinner]. It is not the only one.
I'll head off digressions by saying at once that no answer may be better than a wrong one, unsourced speculation to fill a void is not helpful, and there is no obligation on any of us volunteers to research any query that does not pique our interest. However, doesn't the querent deserve better than nothing? Being ignored can be a very odd feeling - exacerbated electronically.
Has anyone previously proposed something along the lines of a response template that could be manually deployed after three or four days of silence? "Thank you for your question. Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but .... [something about the limitations of volunteer editors]. You may find an answer by ... [something about reference libraries, which not everyone knows about]. Please feel free to ask another question in the future, and again, our apologies for not being able to help you this time."
Thoughts? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Splendid idea. Can't be that hard. Why not? Britmax (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are assuming that a first-time user will be able to find the response. Where I work, we cannot access Wikipedia from our office. We must use the public computer in the library. I've shown the RD to other employees here and I know they've asked questions because they've come back to me and asked how they get the answers. I show them and they find it far too difficult and likely never try again. Therefore, I feel that the benefit from the effort will be too small to justify the effort. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I like the template idea, and I'd help revise a prototype. I'd also add that questions that do not get satisfactory references may be re-asked here at a future time. I usually recommend waiting about a week before re-asking a same or similar question. Another benefit is that we'd then be able to use instances of the template to generate a list of unanswered questions, which anyone could peruse and work on in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Or maybe more to the point, to ask after it has been archived, to avoid having the same question twice in the active ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your responses. Where should we draft the wording of the proposed template, and the protocol around its use? Would it be correct to create something like Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Sorry? I'd like to know if there's anything similar, in form or function, that I can look at for inspiration. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Carbon Caryatid: your talk page is fine for drafting. I think your suggested placement would be fine for a final home, but that doesn't really matter as it is instantiated into the thread at each use. I am not aware of any template with similar function. You might find better guidance at the village pump, or by posting again here when you have the first draft ready. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I've created a draft in my sandbox: User:Carbon Caryatid/RefDeskSorry. Let's move the discussion of protocol and wording over there. Ping especially to User:SemanticMantis and User:Britmax. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Carbon Caryatid: your talk page is fine for drafting. I think your suggested placement would be fine for a final home, but that doesn't really matter as it is instantiated into the thread at each use. I am not aware of any template with similar function. You might find better guidance at the village pump, or by posting again here when you have the first draft ready. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment, about the legitimacy of deleting another editor's legitimate question from the Ref Desk.
| DFTT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Additionally, can Wikipedia suggest me a reasonable way to ask our editors - a question continuously deleted from the Ref desk by two editors - who mistakenly think my question is not genuine? Today, I asked a question at the reference desk (for details about the question, see the last section below, in small letters). Unfortunately, two editors who - instead of assuming a good faith - thought my question was not genuine, deleted it from the Ref desk, while adding a comment - on the summary edit - that there was no way to answer my question. However, I think that - instead of their deleting a (legitimate) question from the Ref desk - they should have written their (unnecessarily correct) comment on the Ref desk, and should have let other editors try to answer my (legitimate) question. Actually, what happened was the following: Today I noticed, that some people had used the connection between the word Trump and the word trumpet, e.g. in this paper, so I wanted to know whether anybody before me has also noticed the connection between Trump's name and Trump's rival's husband's expertise in playing trumpet. I innocently asked about that - at the reference desk, but unfortunately my question was deleted (instead of assuming a good faith). HOTmag (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
RfC closed. The question at issue was flawed for all the multiple reasons given, and was appropriately removed. This matter does not warrant further discussion, and certainly not an RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016
| This edit request to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Which non-free adobe softwares are meant for students. If I am looking for time pass, not professional or business works.
1.39.39.187 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can't you people see that the page is semi-protected and IPs can't edit Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. And semi-protected edit request is being redirected here. --1.39.39.187 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's still not clear what exactly you want done. As stated, please make your request as "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are you and JTP not familiar with our problems associated with semi-protection and IP posting of questions? I interpret this as a straightforward request to post this question to the computing desk, which I have done. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's still not clear what exactly you want done. As stated, please make your request as "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can't you people see that the page is semi-protected and IPs can't edit Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. And semi-protected edit request is being redirected here. --1.39.39.187 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @SemanticMantis: Thanks for your assistance. As this was formatted as an edit request without explanation as to what was desired, it wasn't clear to me that it was just someone asking a question, I thought they wanted something on this page changed. If the user had stated "I want to post this question on the page but I can't", it would have been clearer. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that neither 331dot nor JTP appear to be regulars at the RD. I think the confusion over what was intended is understandable for the reasons outlined above. Note also there are multiple desks but only one talk page and the question didn't specify which one. Remember that the template puts pages into a category and it's intended that people can check them out to help who have no experience with the page, that's why the various help pages say you should specify exactly what you want to do (although since they're generic they don't specify that you should mention which desk exactly). Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- All good points, that's why I tried to briefly explain our ongoing problem, but I did not fully understand how these might attract attention from elsewhere. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that neither 331dot nor JTP appear to be regulars at the RD. I think the confusion over what was intended is understandable for the reasons outlined above. Note also there are multiple desks but only one talk page and the question didn't specify which one. Remember that the template puts pages into a category and it's intended that people can check them out to help who have no experience with the page, that's why the various help pages say you should specify exactly what you want to do (although since they're generic they don't specify that you should mention which desk exactly). Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- @SemanticMantis: Thanks for your assistance. As this was formatted as an edit request without explanation as to what was desired, it wasn't clear to me that it was just someone asking a question, I thought they wanted something on this page changed. If the user had stated "I want to post this question on the page but I can't", it would have been clearer. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Done
the sorry template is ready
I think my "modest proposal" above is about to fall off the edge of this page, so I'll start a new section. I mooted the creation of a form of words to deploy on questions that remain unanswered after a few days. It is now ready for anyone to use, or not. I'm calling it the Sorry template. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry! - I don't know what I'm doing. I tried to make this invokable by copying the text to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Template:sorry , but due to namespace precedence or some other reason, {{sorry}} just calls that apology template at the start of this comment. Maybe a rename would work, or it needs to be put in another place? Thanks for any help. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there's already a template at
{{sorry}}. To call this one, you'd have to type{{Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Template:sorry}}(see WP:TEMPLATE and WP:TRANS for more info), but it'd probably be easier to move it to the template namespace with a different name, like Template:refdesk-sorry (so it could be invoked using{{refdesk-sorry}}). clpo13(talk) 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks! I did the move you proposed, so
{{refdesk-sorry}}, should now work, and look like this:
- Ok, thanks! I did the move you proposed, so
Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.
You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".
Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time.
- I don't really like this template because it gives the impression we've given up when someone still might answer. It reminds me of the "resolved" template, which is very seldom added to a question, but when it is, you can rest assured that the most interesting answers will follow it. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- The idea is not to post the template unless a query has gone several days without any (or any decent) replies. At that point, in my experience, that round of volunteers usually has given up. It does happen, but a good post to a five day old question is fairly rare in my estimation. Reposting later is also invited, so I really don't think it will discourage good responses in practice. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- My impression is that the "resolved" template is usually added only when it is clear that the question has been fully and correctly answered. In which case, no-one has any business posting anything afterwards, but you can be sure that the usual suspects will pop up with some lame "joke" or other (usually in small type, as though that excuses it). --Viennese Waltz 05:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, you Brits and your inside-the-box thinking. When I've asked a question and it's been answered I will typically post the "resolved" template. But that doesn't mean there isn't more information available about the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but it means the thread is over and should not receive any new posts. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is that a rule, or just your personal opinion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- My opinion, backed up by commonsense and good posting etiquette. Not that Americans know much about etiquette. --Viennese Waltz 15:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nor do Brits, evidently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- My opinion, backed up by commonsense and good posting etiquette. Not that Americans know much about etiquette. --Viennese Waltz 15:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Even if both the questioner and the answerer "think" the thread is over, it's possible they are both wrong. Think outside the box, son. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is that a rule, or just your personal opinion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but it means the thread is over and should not receive any new posts. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, you Brits and your inside-the-box thinking. When I've asked a question and it's been answered I will typically post the "resolved" template. But that doesn't mean there isn't more information available about the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- My impression is that the "resolved" template is usually added only when it is clear that the question has been fully and correctly answered. In which case, no-one has any business posting anything afterwards, but you can be sure that the usual suspects will pop up with some lame "joke" or other (usually in small type, as though that excuses it). --Viennese Waltz 05:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- In my experience the "resolved" template is often (perhaps usually) added by the OP to indicate that the query has been answered to his or her satisfaction. Deor (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- The idea is not to post the template unless a query has gone several days without any (or any decent) replies. At that point, in my experience, that round of volunteers usually has given up. It does happen, but a good post to a five day old question is fairly rare in my estimation. Reposting later is also invited, so I really don't think it will discourage good responses in practice. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for making a template: refdesk-sorry is easy enough to remember. Further to this and this discussion, the intention is to use this template:
- a) if you want to
- b) after three days
- c) in which a question has attracted no answer.
- If anyone wants to create something similar-but-different, for questions that have attracted responses deemed insufficient, please go ahead. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Banned user
[17] Future Perfect at Sunrise How do we know this is a banned user? Is it Vote X? --Viennese Waltz 08:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Vote X, yes, of course. Known IP range, known location, was restoring material previously deleted as being from another Vote sock; was referencing another Vote X episode in their posting on ANI too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- What about these? Looks like the same IP range again, but I'm too inexperienced in these matters to revert on sight. --Viennese Waltz 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, almost certainly them again, recognizable by the way their contributions are always narrowly off-topic and never address the actual issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- The troll's attempt to insert his junk into the archive is an example of why the archives should be permanently protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Bugs, is your "attempt to insert his junk" a reference to this edit from the Special:Contributions link given by Viennese Waltz above? If so, then this appears to be a good faith effort to archive a section which scsbot was unable to handle as it was a hatted discussion which lacked a section header. They incorrectly archived it in the monthly index, but I have corrected that, creating the appropriate daily archive page and fixing the monthly index.
- More generally, I disagree that protection of the Reference Desk archives is desirable. Prompted by concerns expressed by Medeis last year, I have, since the beginning of this year, been regularly monitoring our archives via a Special:RecentChangesLinked link. There are usually only a handful of such edits each week. Many are general housekeeping edits (such as fixing improper template usage), some are vandalism, and a few are genuinely useful additions of information. Since the number is as small as it is, I am able to examine each edit in order to identify and revert vandalism and spam as well as add signatures to or correct the formatting of good faith but poorly edited additions. Until now I have not been monitoring the monthly indexes, but I will add them in. I also have a low priority project of scanning non-bot edits from previous years to root out past vandalism. -- ToE 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- ToE, I had no idea you were doing all that. Thank you! (On behalf of all of us, I suspect!) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The troll's attempt to insert his junk into the archive is an example of why the archives should be permanently protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, almost certainly them again, recognizable by the way their contributions are always narrowly off-topic and never address the actual issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- What about these? Looks like the same IP range again, but I'm too inexperienced in these matters to revert on sight. --Viennese Waltz 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- As long as you're keeping a watchful eye, that could be good enough. That could be termed "manual" protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Question deleted as trolling
Why was my question deleted as trolling?24.90.72.195 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The editor who had deleted your question has reverted themself. HOTmag (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
RD regulars that have become employees
Have there been any RD regulars that have become employees of the Wikimedia foundation?Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Possible, but not likely. There are only about 200 employees of WMF, see Wikimedia_Foundation#Employees. Mostly they seem to be grant writers, accountants, and others skilled at administration of non-profit organizations. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is quite probable; while there are about 200 employees of the WMF, there has been considerable organizational turnover over the past 4-5 years or so. I probably know more ex-employees of the Foundation than current ones; it would probably take some digging, but I do not doubt that some current or former employees have also contributed to the ref desks at some point. None comes to mind immediately, but I would guarantee {WMF employees} ∩ {contributors to the Ref Desks} =/= {}. --Jayron32 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, your last claim is reasonable, though we still have no direct evidence of its truth. But that's a different question from what Uncle Dan asked. Whilst the definition of "regular" is subjective, I've been seeing mostly the same few dozen names here for the past six years. Also we have the fact that most truly regular readers of the ref desks will have seen this post by now, and none of them have chimed in to say they work for WMF. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Or maybe they just don't want to admit it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, that's a possibility too. Maybe you are on this list of WMF staff, or maybe I am! Joking aside, until we have at least one candidate and some sort of confirmation, we really can't be sure. If Uncle Dan is interested, he could perhaps contact WMF and ask them directly via their "Answers" page [18]. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is quite probable; while there are about 200 employees of the WMF, there has been considerable organizational turnover over the past 4-5 years or so. I probably know more ex-employees of the Foundation than current ones; it would probably take some digging, but I do not doubt that some current or former employees have also contributed to the ref desks at some point. None comes to mind immediately, but I would guarantee {WMF employees} ∩ {contributors to the Ref Desks} =/= {}. --Jayron32 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Starting debates at the wikiversity help desk
Where do I go if I want to start a debate there? All of the past debates are from years ago. What if I want to start a new one? The Rd guidelines directed me to there if I want to have debates97.94.201.18 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt our guidelines have ever directed people to any specific site to have a debate. There are zillions of places one could go to. I know next to nothing about wikiversity, but I'd suggest its help desk is for seeking help about using wikiversity, not for having any kind of debate. But what do I know? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- The RD guidelines state that the Wikiversity help desk allows debates. I checked the history, and that line has been there forever it seems. That said, since this is not the Wikiversity help desk, no one here can help you with that. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to start a debate, here are some options that I think will be better than wikiversity. Debate.org and OnlineDebate.net are two of the more famous online debate clubs, there are many others that can be found with a google search for online debate club. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Astronomical Optical Interferometry
I just "fixed" one of the issues on the page Astronomical Optical Interferometry, and removed the issue saying the lead was too long. Is it okay now to remove it? If so, how do I change the "Multiple issues" to just one issue?
Checks Facts (Talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Never mind about the Multiple issues problem, I found that out.
Checks Facts (Talk) 22:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)- @Checks Facts: This sort of question should be asked at the Help Desk, for your future reference. Tevildo (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Tevildo: Okay, Thank you.Checks Facts (Talk) 14:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Checks Facts: This sort of question should be asked at the Help Desk, for your future reference. Tevildo (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Question deleted
My question was deleted.
I know it might seem like it, but I'm not trolling.
Perhaps, could I have worded it better?
Please, help me ask my question, don't keep deleting me...
Benjamin (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder: Revdel is an option
Just a reminder that it's a lot harder to revert to a revision after it's been revdelled (and before you argue, remember WP:BEANS). It also seems to discourage a certain someone who has said that he wants page protection and whose edits are valid under WP:RD3. We should probably be going "Block, revert, revdel, ignore" instead of revert, block, ignore. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's certainly more convenient to get them blocked first, before attempting a revert. And the increasing use of the revdel seems to be beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Policy against opinions predictions and debates not being applied consistently
One thing I've noticed about the Refdesk is that the policy against predictions,opinions,and debate doesn't seem to be applied consistently. Sometimes I see question s which clearly fall into any of those three,yet they never get hatred. Now I admit, some of my questions fall into those three,but at one time I saw someone asking a question at the computing desk about which was the best something to buy. I forget what it was exactly,but the OP said that he had done a Google search,and wanted to know where to find out about buying something. The question was hatted even though he made it clear he was trying to research about buying something, probably because he phrased it as which is the best something to buy. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- The way around the problem is to ask for references rather than for editors' opinions. For example, at the computer desk they could have asked, "What are some good source for evaluating PC's?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Asking for a list of states where gambling is illegal
Could someone help me out? I'm trying to ask for a list of states where gambling is illegal, but it says that my edit is unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.79.72 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on what type of gambling you mean—see the chart in Gambling in the United States#Legal issues. Deor (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Deor (or other admins, who can view what's been revdelledl) might you take a look at it and decide whether the question and your (Deor's) answer might be moved back to the Humanities desk. It could have been a casualty of dealing with an undesired question immediately before the OP's edit. I can't see it (and/or any admin who has already reviewed and decided it's not worth restoring, please raise an eyebrow or something, thanks!) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- "How does the glorification of Allies and the demonization of Germany during World War 2 help to serve an antiwhite agenda?" was the question asked. I can't see any mention of gambling there, 24.107.79.72. Have a nice block.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy. But the puzzlement is why he would think that the allies were non-white. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. all looked pretty much white. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- It would appear to me that WP:REVDEL may not have been appropriate in this case, under the third clause of WP:CRD. (By which I mean, "Oh, f@ck, I blocked the wrong guy. I'd better cover my sorry ass by quoting policy.") Is there a WP:LTA case page for the Nazi ref desk troll? Pete "lack of attention to detail" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Soft skin. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 24 hasn't been blocked. Let's WP:AGF and assume (s)he is telling the truth. BB's claim that "It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy" is typical of his prejudice against IP editors. Note that BB cannot view hidden content, the post was made at 21:11 and hidden at 22:58 and Bugs was offline throughout the window of visibility and three hours either side. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Experience, not prejudice. Also, I did see it before it was rev-del'd, though I didn't happen to edit anything. That's how I knew 24 was the one who answered it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 24 was blocked and then quickly unblocked, with a note in the log saying it was a mistake. His edit has to be hidden because it still contained the offending comment. That's how revdel works, sadly - you have to hide every revision between when offending content was added and when it was removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 24 also told the troll where to go, literally, in quite a non-troll way. Instead the problem here is that 24 hit the edit filter. There doesn't seem much point transferring the question, as it seems to have been answered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 24 hasn't been blocked. Let's WP:AGF and assume (s)he is telling the truth. BB's claim that "It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy" is typical of his prejudice against IP editors. Note that BB cannot view hidden content, the post was made at 21:11 and hidden at 22:58 and Bugs was offline throughout the window of visibility and three hours either side. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Soft skin. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- It would appear to me that WP:REVDEL may not have been appropriate in this case, under the third clause of WP:CRD. (By which I mean, "Oh, f@ck, I blocked the wrong guy. I'd better cover my sorry ass by quoting policy.") Is there a WP:LTA case page for the Nazi ref desk troll? Pete "lack of attention to detail" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy. But the puzzlement is why he would think that the allies were non-white. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. all looked pretty much white. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- "How does the glorification of Allies and the demonization of Germany during World War 2 help to serve an antiwhite agenda?" was the question asked. I can't see any mention of gambling there, 24.107.79.72. Have a nice block.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Downsizing display of a jokey response
...on the Miscellaneous RD - and in this case, not my own but another User's response appearing under my good-faith one. I know we're not supposed to edit another's comments, but I waited a good half-day and got tired of seeing what I suggest is a form of abuse: of the OP, of the good-faith respondents, and of the countless lurking readers - many of whom may not have a full command of English nor the contributor's cultural matrix - who hope to glean information from the RDs. I don't consider the Miscellaneous desk a playground and think the RD rules should apply here too, one of which is to surround a purely humorous remark with a pair of "small" HTML tags. Kindly clarify this, for me as well. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- No problems. Personally I would've hatted. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. If you'd asked when you saw it I would've downsized it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagittarian Milky Way: when I saw it (as above), I posted the matter here on the RD Talk page: the venue for clarifying participants' behavior on the Reference Desks. You're a veteran RD respondent and I had enough reason to believe that you quite deliberately left this response formatted as though it were genuine. This merits the attention of a forum of our peers, in hopes of eliciting discussion or perhaps even a consensus. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think SMW's failure to downsize his text on this occasion is mitigated by the very high likelihood that the OP was joking/trolling in the first place. (I noticed that the first respondant referred to this, and the OP failed to assert GF.) The second respondant was obviously playing along with the joke (in normal-sized text). Your own response, Deborahjay, linked to the same Facebook page that the OP had already linked in his query, so overall you seemed not to have picked up the thrust of the conversation. However, I do agree that to avoid bamboozling EFL readers and native English speakers who have problems with nuance (such as a friend I'm going to be meeting in the pub later today) we should all observe the 'smallification of humorous text convention' more strictly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're probably right the OP is joking but the page was not provided by the OP. The signature was modified by Deborahjay here [19] I'm guessing due to an accident when composing their reply. I have returned [20] the signature to the original state [21]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You have indeed guessed correctly, @Nil Einne: - the intruded URL for that Facebook page was indeed a wild paste during my edit that I failed to catch, let alone realize my being responsible and taking care of the defective content. (Lately my fairly new Asus Zenbook has been unpredictably putting the insertion point wherever the I-bar appears on the screen - anyone have a remedy to suggest or is it back to Customer Service for me?) Kudos and thanks for your savvy intervention! -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're probably right the OP is joking but the page was not provided by the OP. The signature was modified by Deborahjay here [19] I'm guessing due to an accident when composing their reply. I have returned [20] the signature to the original state [21]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think SMW's failure to downsize his text on this occasion is mitigated by the very high likelihood that the OP was joking/trolling in the first place. (I noticed that the first respondant referred to this, and the OP failed to assert GF.) The second respondant was obviously playing along with the joke (in normal-sized text). Your own response, Deborahjay, linked to the same Facebook page that the OP had already linked in his query, so overall you seemed not to have picked up the thrust of the conversation. However, I do agree that to avoid bamboozling EFL readers and native English speakers who have problems with nuance (such as a friend I'm going to be meeting in the pub later today) we should all observe the 'smallification of humorous text convention' more strictly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagittarian Milky Way: when I saw it (as above), I posted the matter here on the RD Talk page: the venue for clarifying participants' behavior on the Reference Desks. You're a veteran RD respondent and I had enough reason to believe that you quite deliberately left this response formatted as though it were genuine. This merits the attention of a forum of our peers, in hopes of eliciting discussion or perhaps even a consensus. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I see it, downsizing is a courtesy, not a requirement. But I'd also say that downsizing others' jokes is acceptable - strictly, it does not change the text, merely puts a wrapper around it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is also permissible to collapse off-topic digressions, including unreferenced material and jokes. I favor the {{cot}} /{{cob}} because it does not ask for no further comments to be made. Let people joke all they want, but let's not let it interfere with providing references to our users. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Protection-template spacing
At the top of each ref-desk is some logic that adds the visible protection tag automatically whenever the page is protected:
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=no}}}}
followed by a blank line with the comment "Please do not delete the following blank line, the protection template interferes with the TOC otherwise". Indeed, when protection is on and there is no blank line, the prot box overlaps the "skip to bottom" (upper right) part of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/header boxes. But when protection is off, that blank line leaves whitespace at the top of the page. I can't figure out a way to get the blank line to be part of the #ifeq block:( I assume the browser can't cope with the header using:
position:relative; top:-30px; zoom:1
to move the right part of the headers further up than expected. Not sure a cleaner solution yet. Maybe the right part of the headers should be re-designed not to have a dangling-up item? DMacks (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why is the prot template not part of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/header code? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good question! Wouldn't affect this situation, but would certainly centralize the code (and eventual changes to it). DMacks (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Did it. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good question! Wouldn't affect this situation, but would certainly centralize the code (and eventual changes to it). DMacks (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Protection message twice
At the top of WP:RDH there are two boxes regarding how the page is semi-protected. I looked at the page source, but I couldn't determine why the box is showing twice. Can someone explain why it like that and how to fix it? RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's because this edit was made (see above} without also making this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Quick history link
Although I have found how to access the archives, I fail to see a quick link to the immediately-previous one (once there, they link eachother for convenience). I'm not sure if this is a bug, or intentional. I personally believe that such a link at the top would be very useful, but I understand that it probably cannot be a static link, and may need to automatically be updated by the archiving bot if there is no dynamic template for this... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- It might be useful, but it only takes 4 clicks to get to the most recent one. It's also possible no one has asked for this before. (To find out, though, you'd have to search the archives, and the search mechanism is clumsy). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
A few days?
I noticed the page description includes: We'll answer here within a few days -- c'mon, "a few minutes" would be closer ... "a few hours" at the most. 
-- 2606:a000:4c0c:e200:c03a:9d20:31ef:82f7 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or sometimes never, if the question is too obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- We don't want to raise expectations too high. Some questioners get impatient if they don't get an answer within 24 hours. As BB says, the response time depends on the question, and to some extent on how busy the regulars are. On topics where I have little knowledge or interest, I often wait a day for someone better qualified to reply before I start doing any research. Dbfirs 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of the rule is that people should not expect private replies. Questions asked publicly are answered publicly. The time frame in which this is done varies widely, from almost immediately, to a day or two, to never. Saying "We'll answer here within a few days" is a promise that an answer will always be provided - but that's not a promise we can or should be making.
- Maybe we could say instead, "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Maybe the "few days" bit was also meant to convey that there is a point when the question will be archived and no more answers forthcoming. That might also be explained with something like "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here, so make sure you come back to check the replies before the question gets archived within X days" (don't understand the current archiving pattern well enough to know what to put in there for 'X'. And I trust someone else could phrase this more convincingly, if people even want that info there). Anyway, I think Jack's suggestion is clearer than the current text. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've made the change. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- 'A few days' gives those of us who don't check in every day (but may know where in wikipedia or on the Net to point a questioner for an answer) to respond. This might take a day or so, depending on answerers' workload outside wikipedia for us to answer a question responsively. Not every good answer will be at someone here's fingertips. loupgarous (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
notification of request for comment on mandatory tagging of all refdesk pages and some refdesk questions
discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A few days?
I noticed the page description includes: We'll answer here within a few days -- c'mon, "a few minutes" would be closer ... "a few hours" at the most. -- 2606:a000:4c0c:e200:c03a:9d20:31ef:82f7 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or sometimes never, if the question is too obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- We don't want to raise expectations too high. Some questioners get impatient if they don't get an answer within 24 hours. As BB says, the response time depends on the question, and to some extent on how busy the regulars are. On topics where I have little knowledge or interest, I often wait a day for someone better qualified to reply before I start doing any research. Dbfirs 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- The point of the rule is that people should not expect private replies. Questions asked publicly are answered publicly. The time frame in which this is done varies widely, from almost immediately, to a day or two, to never. Saying "We'll answer here within a few days" is a promise that an answer will always be provided - but that's not a promise we can or should be making.
- Maybe we could say instead, "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Maybe the "few days" bit was also meant to convey that there is a point when the question will be archived and no more answers forthcoming. That might also be explained with something like "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here, so make sure you come back to check the replies before the question gets archived within X days" (don't understand the current archiving pattern well enough to know what to put in there for 'X'. And I trust someone else could phrase this more convincingly, if people even want that info there). Anyway, I think Jack's suggestion is clearer than the current text. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've made the change. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- 'A few days' gives those of us who don't check in every day (but may know where in wikipedia or on the Net to point a questioner for an answer) to respond. This might take a day or so, depending on answerers' workload outside wikipedia for us to answer a question responsively. Not every good answer will be at someone here's fingertips. loupgarous (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
notification of request for comment on mandatory tagging of all refdesk pages and some refdesk questions
discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Questions about rapid transit
On which desk should I ask general questions about the history and/or operating characteristics of various rapid transit systems (by "general" I mean questions other than ones like "What's the best way to get from Station A to Station B?" or "Would I get a good view of Building X from elevated line Y?")? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- If uncertain, post it on "Miscellaneous". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you're interested in the engineering features of rail links might I suggest the Science desk? 86.151.49.189 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, and if it's about, say, how government funding and social support affects transit, humanities may be more appropriate. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you're interested in the engineering features of rail links might I suggest the Science desk? 86.151.49.189 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)