Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 86

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 80

←

Archive 84

→

Deleted troll question (2)

Here. --Jayron32 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(added a distinguishing number, there's already a "Deleted troll question" section). --LarryMac | Talk 18:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed a section called Killing the President: previous assassination attempts, whose topic was asking for advice on how to perform an assassination. That sort of thing does not belong on the Ref Desks. Looie496 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Good removal. I am not sure the reference desks were a better place when it wasn't deleted. I am quite certain someone will return it to the reference desks using giant capital AGFs in their edit summary, but I, for one, support this being gone; though I don't expect it will stay gone, I give my likely minority opinion that you did the right thing. --Jayron32 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

100% fully endorse deletion; would recommend again A+++.... 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The most obvious advice for a would-be assassin is: (1) acquire a good firearm; (2) study how to use it; (3) practice on yourself until you get the technique perfected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't you post a reference to the edit history or something similar?[1] It's a little hard to discuss the merits of your action if you hide the evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that would make it far easier for us. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly approve the removal, especially since the post at the reference desk was one of the (many) issues that led to the poster's block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Ryan) Here's the Link. Looie496 should have notified those whose comments he removed - I have done what he did not [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Buddy432 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The question as originally stated could be a violation of federal law, and you're quibbling about notifications??? The OP's lucky the FBI wasn't notified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe the FBI, CIA, MOSSAD, MI5, ASIO and all the rest aren't watching the Wikipedia Ref Desks all the time? Of course they are. Hi there, guys and gals. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG. What if one of us was an FBI mole, here to gather intelligence on terrorist activity on Wikipedia. What if it's you Jack?!? What if its ME! Oh dear dear... --Jayron32 23:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment on that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good removal; I was uneasy about the question, then figured that as originally stated it was an obvious removal; but I got distracted and forgot all about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

But blowing up the Popemobile is a valid question? μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time we've been accused of terrorism. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:38, 5 Av 5771 / 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this one since we really don't have any special insight to contribute beyond pointing a reader to presidential assassination attempts - though with some topics it's a common indulgence, racking our brains for half-baked ideas isn't really proper Refdesking, and at least we ought to wait until there's a Republican in office. :) I should however emphasize that this is simply a matter of what we have knowledge about, and should not be taken as some kind of "moral" choice or precedent; I think it does more to prevent such attacks to discuss them publicly than to suppress discussion, assuming occasionally a Secret Service looks for ideas here. Wnt (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Before someone decides to try an assassination, they should read about the assassination attempt on President Andrew Jackson, which was such a miserable failure that Jackson's own bodyguards had to rescue the would-be assassin from Jackson himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the DIY and gore video questions...

Von1235 seems to have an editing pattern very similar to a recurrent editor whose multiple accounts were blocked a few months ago for unexplained deletions and general timewasting. He's recently started removing material from the articlespace again without explanation. Worth taking to AN yet or ignoring for the time being? Just wondered because I'm looking to increase my knowledge in the field of how to deal with users like this. Brammers (talk/c) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by user "Jayron"

I've now deleted for the 5th. time the personal attack by the user "Jayron" in the question "Unchartered territory?" on the Humanities desk. Could he be stopped from replacing it please? Thanks. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How about you just ignore it or maybe provide evidence rebutting his statement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack there. You seem to be asking leading and rhetorical questions as an opener for putting forward your own point of view. As Jayron says, that is soapboxing, and is not what the Wikipedia Reference Desks are for. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing personal in his attack; it was directed solely at the content. If you choose to take it personally, that's up to you, but Jayron can't be held accountable for your choices. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, it was 92.28.254.151 who made a personal attack, to which Jayron's reply appropriately brought the focus back to the content. Wikiant (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My only comment is to note that the OP's post here contains an incorrect implication. He first states that it has been deleted 5 times (I haven't yet checked if that is the case or it isn't). The second part of his statement, where he says "Could he be stopped from replacing it please?" implies that I was responsible for more than one of those 5 times. I was not. I replaced it only the first time he deleted it, here. Looking at the page history, the other 4 times the comments were returned to the page by other people. I was actually unaware that the comment had been deleted and then reinstated 5 times, or even at all since I had reinstated it the first time. I should note that the OP has admitted to going over the bright-line of WP:3RR, by their own admission. However, I would also ask that the OP not be blocked over this, it would be unnecessary at this point. Consider this the formal warning on the matter. Given the multiple people who have reverted you, and the comments by additional people here, it appears that there is no agreement that my statements constituted an attack of any sort. --Jayron32 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In future scenarios, I would suggest that the OP be more specific about terms that seem vague to the general population. Disambiguation exercise: technological singularity, accelerating change, movable singularity, etc. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the main text: "If you want honest answers to questions, 92.24.191.250, it helps not to speak in hyperbolic metaphors. The term "singularity point" has no meaning in economics, as already mentioned. Yeah, we get that you are trying to political point about the state of the economy but Wikipedia isn't the place to make those points or draw people into debates. If you have a question where we can link a Wikipedia article for you, let us know. If you are looking for a place to do what you appear to want to do here, there are blogs and forums in the rest of the internet."

I cannot believe that anyone with sense could believe that it is not a personal attack. In fact its narrowband trolling directed at the OP, rather than people in general. Firstly, its personal. Secondly, it adds on, attributes, and implies, many derogatory things to the questioner which are neither true nor justified but invented. Its full of derogatory implication - I suggest you read the innuendo article. Its packed full of insinuations and slurs.

Personal: both "you" and the fully written out ISP number are used. Informality used in "Yeah". Written in the third person rather than in an objective or neutral style.

Desparaging innuendo number 1: "If you want honest answers to questions..." Implying I'm dishonest, and that I don't want an honest answer(s). An invention.

Desparaging innuendo 2: It is asserted that I "speak in hyperbolic metaphors" - not true - another invention. I have to describe things as best I can. I don't know what a "hyperbolic metaphor" is. I used the analogy of a singularity point - that is entirely proper. If this refers to the iceberg and the Titanic, then I apologise for not writing out in full that that was a joking remark. But I do not believe that you really require to have written "(Warning! Start of lighthearted joking remark here ==>) Iceberg, Titanic, blah. (<== End of lighthearted joking remark)."

Desparaging innuendo 3: "The term "singularity point" has no meaning in economics, as already mentioned." Why bother to repeat it. Implying that I'm so stupid, I have to have things repeated. In any case, its an analogy.

Desparagement 4: "Yeah" - rude, sarcastic.

Desparaging innuendo 5: "we get that you are trying to political point about the state of the economy" - completely untrue. I'm not making any political point at all. Another invention.

Desparaging innuendo 6: "If you have a question where we can link a Wikipedia article for you, let us know." Its obvious that very few questions can be answered by a bare list of links to articles. Its silly and patronising to imply that only such questions are legitimate. Its not my fault that Wikipedia does not appear to have articles relavant to my question(s).

Desparaging innuendo 7: "If you are looking for a place to do what you appear to want to do here...". What do I "appear to want to do here"? Implying that I "appear to want to do" something bad, but that is completely untrue. Another invention.

My questions were requests for statistics, with some background context added that included an analogy, as I believe we are encouraged to do. There was no reason to suppose a lot of other nonsense that was not in the questions.

Update: I see that end bit which I did not quote above says something about "soapboxing", but there is none of that. So that's desparaging innuendo number 8. 92.28.244.21 (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Different IP address? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Blame my ISP. 92.28.244.21 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no personal attack here. Please drop the stick. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus is that there is absolutely no personal attack anywhere in anything EXCEPT within the comments written by the original questioner. Removal of another person's comments is grounds for having your account blocked. Yes - even an IP address can be blocked. Further attempts to rationalize that there was some sort of personal attack simply makes the argument appear childish. -- kainaw ™ 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm another person who sees nothing wrong with what Jayron said and I believe you're reading too much into this. If anything, it can be said that you fired the first shot with "With attitudes like that, its easy to see why we're in such a mess." Dismas|^(talk) 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Escalated to WP:ANEW. The OP has just reverted for the 6th time in 24 hours. He was given a warning above, and had the opportunity to back down, and made the deliberate choice to ignore that warning. --Jayron32 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:92.28.244.21 has been blocked. Further blocks may be needed if IP changes again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jayron32 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugly header

What's with this ugly header which now appears above everything else on the main RD page?

Ugh! The leading differs between top and bottom, the two lines of text are ungainly-ly split, there's an unnecessary word wrap in the middle of an item, I don't like the ugly 14 point font of the first line, and what the hell is the red question mark button to the right? Why is this box on our reference desk? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That header was added by User:The Transhumanist (AWB) at 19:29, 2 March 2007.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but at the time it wasn't as conpspicuous and didn't bother anyone. It was changed into a box during the past month or so, see the history of Template:Help pages header. It used to look like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia, which anyone can edit.

Help index: Ask questions · Learn wikicode · View FAQ · Read Glossary · Live help via web chat · Help desk · Reference desk · Tutorial

This should probably be discussed at Template talk:Help pages header. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a line break to that box just now. I was thinking it would be nicer to have a symbol with a Wikipedia logo ball and a magnifying glass, but lost motivation to fool with it. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't do dreams?

this edit was entered with the edit summary We don't do dreams. Is that true? If so, why? We could certainly refer questioners to references on dream interpretation. Those references might be nonsense, or not, I don't know, but either way it's not really the point.

I suspect Bielle may have thought that the question was trolling, given the content of the dream, and that's possible, but I'm not convinced; a sincere inquiry about such a dream would look pretty much like the actual question. --Trovatore (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning was that we don`t do dreams for the same reason we don`t do psychoanalysis. As one of the master interpreters claimed, and as set out in our article Dream Interpretation (My keyboard has just now started failing with respect to quotation marks and square brackets and to inserting é when the key says it should be a backslash. Anyone know what has suddenly gone wrong?), so forgive the lack of mark up.):

Jung cautioned against blindly ascribing meaning to dream symbols without a clear understanding of the client's personal situation.

So, as we don`t know anything about the OP`s personal situation, we would be unwise, careless, even perhaps bordering on medical advice, to respond to a personal request for a specific interpretation. If the OP were looking to learn about interpretations in general, then we could point him or her to readings and or articles. However, leaving the question encourages responses that no one here is qualified to make.

I also believe the question to be trolling, but I don`t feel so strongly about either position that I would revert a second time. I do wonder, though, why, as a group, we are so very, very eager to answer what we have neither formal qualification nor sufficient information to deal with. --Bielle (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think the "don't give advice" shibboleth has gone way way way too far. Protecting the Foundation from lawsuits, fine. Once that's not really a consideration, it's reasonable to give pointers to what people have said about what is inquired about, and it's up to the questioner to decide how much weight to put on it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All else aside, the more we move away from factual matters, into advice and opinion, the more we become Yahoo Answers.com. Personally, I would not waste my time in that kind of forum. YMMV. --Bielle (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"The tea leaves at the bottom of my tea cup this morning looked like a bicycle. Does this mean anything?" I would expect that question to be treated as nonsense, and removed. So should anything similar about dreams, astrology, fortune telling, and any other crackpot science. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, someone would remove it saying The reference desk cannot answer questions related to signs or omens. If you have any concerns, you should speak to a professional tea-leaf reader. In all seriousness though, I think a question about omen or dream interpretation are perfectly acceptable for the miscellaneous reference desk. Like it or not, there is a long history of both dream interpretation and tea-leaf reading, and it is well within our purpose to point people to references that pretend to do just that. Buddy432 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing the question is unnecessary. But it should be noted that the purpose here is to answer questions, not to produce creative works. "Would someone write a 500-word short story for me?" wouldn't really be something that should expect an answer, and neither should a dream interpretation. Asking whether people dreaming about a second penis is a known dream motif, though - that's fair game. (Evolutionary throwback? I wonder if it was spined... no, seriously, mammals don't descend from Squamata) So a person answering should just set that limit and answer if he has the knowledge. Wnt (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between (a) giving "advice and opinion" (Bielle) about these matters, which I agree is not what we're here for (even if there were anybody on Earth who could claim widely accepted expertise in dream interpretation, which there isn't), and (b) giving references to what published authors have said about these matters, which we certainly can and should do. We are, after all, a Reference Desk; providing references is what we do. It is not an opinion but a fact that Author A has written Book B about Subject C. We can provide that factual detail to our clients without ever commenting on the substance of Book B. The original question should not have been answered in the way they asked for, but equally we could have googled some reference to dreaming or fantasising about double penises and given them that link, which would not have involved us getting into advice or interpretation at all. Removing it was inappropriately according it the same treatment as a question from a troll or a banned user. Just because we choose not to answer a question exactly as asked does not mean the OP has broken any rule by asking it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantasizing about having two penises is quite different from dreaming about it. If Author A had written Book B about Subject "Interpretation of Dreams of Having Two Penises", I'd have given the reference. While I make no claims for mastery of Google or even for possession of exception Google-fu, when nothing show up on my initial search except for repeated versions of the questions and, as the OP has confirmed in the question, silly answers, I made a WAG that it was not a well-known theme or even possibly a known theme. This confirmed my initial thought that personal dream interpretation is not a sensible fit for the Ref Desk. If any of those suggesting we refer the questioner to the available literature on this theme have actually found some, please feel free to revert and respond. If you feel that this was not the question of a troll, you are also free to revert and respond. That I disagree still on both counts is merely my opinion, given the information I found. Bielle (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that personal dream interpretation is not our role, Bielle. The question then is: What's the best response to such a question? Removal is the most extreme of all the options, but justified in certain cases. If they'd asked about growing a third arm or third eye or second nose, would you feel this is trollish? I'm sure the OP is not the first person in the history of the world to imagine a second penis. It's definitely a known condition - see diphallia, although that's being born with two rather than growing a second one later in life. We can't immediately find anything written about thoughts of growing a new one, but so what? There are many questions asked here for which there are no external refs, but that lack does not make the questions trollish. Heck, I've asked questions here and got no reply at all. Am I a troll? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because you can't answer a question doesn't mean it's improper, especially if the depth of your knowledge is measured by a Google search. It might be a psychiatrist can think of some interpretation. Actually, on recollection, I recall reading some work of pop fiction in which the Devil was supposed to have two penises for some reason I can't recall. I suppose a psychiatrist could cook a decent casserole out of that... Wnt (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines and could find no stated criteria there that would exclude questions about dream interpretation. I think such questions are fairly silly, but that really isn't a good reason to delete questions — it's a good reason for me to either not bother with that question (the same I would a question about something I know nothing about), or to post an erudite and well-referenced answer that points out that dream interpretation is silly. The danger seems not to be the question, but the answers — I can imagine lots of probable answers that would violate the guidelines and would end up just being pointless speculations. The problem is, we don't delete the answers, do we? Which puts us in a tough spot, perhaps. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point in human history, dream interpretation is little more than creative writing, so I think that we should hat dream interpretation questions with a statement saying we don't interpret dreams here for this reason. By the way, why do I see so many RD answerers quoting Jung or treating his theories like they have any validity? Jung never even attempted to test any of his theories, which puts him way outside of the scientific method and relegates his theories to being nice stories he made up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As if Jung gave a tinker's cuss for the scientific method. As if the scientific method is the be-all-and-end-all of all knowledge. But I take your point: we should not be proffering interpretations at all, no matter whose they are. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A clinician such as Carl Jung is not free to make laboratory experiments on people. Here is a practitioner of scientific method if you want scientific method unhindered by Primum non nocere. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, so basically the only way Jung could have tried to empirically verify his interpretations was by committing atrocities? Come on now, grow up... --Mr.98 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Jung couldn't and wouldn't have tried because what makes a conscious individual is not just someone's interpretation to be empirically verified, see Individuation. If someone thinks scientific method is the be-all-and-end-all of all knowledge then ethics just get in their way of research. You may like Euclid for presenting a scientifically verifiable system of geometry better than you like Jung's legacy, but inanimate geometry pales beside Jung's insight into the human psyche that led him to pioneering concepts such as the Archetype, the Collective Unconscious, the Complex, and synchronicity. These have an enduring influence in psychotherapy and culture. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the type of dream. I've asked at least two dream-related questions here and both received some helpful input: [7][8] . ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 16:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good AH1 but your examples did not ask for dream interpretation, instead you just reported questions about organic chemistry that you say arose in dreams. The dream should not affect the answers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

An enduring influence? Yes, so far. Bloodletting had an enduring influence on European medicine until that influence got stamped out, largely because of the scientific method. I hope I live to see the day when Jung's enduring influence is similarly stamped out. Or verified; I don't actually care which. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Remorselessly soapboxing[9] about your antipathy to Jung's work now just looks petty. You have the wrong target anyway because it is Jung's muse Sigmund Freud [[10]] who merits your stamping spat with his publication of Die Traumdeuting (1900). A course of regular phlebotomies (bloodletting) is routine treatment for hemochromatosis and a doctor who doesn't know that puts their patient at risk of developing Hepatocellular carcinoma. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fanatic questioners

Is it just me or do we seem to get one... interesting (for lack of a better word)... fanatic questioner right around the time that the last stops coming 'round? The last one I remember was the guy who was fascinated by dot matrix printers in police stations as well as what completely average office buildings looked like.

The latest questioner that I'd add to the list would be an Entertainment desk loiterer who has been asking about coming of age films, fanmail addresses, and silent film soundtracks.

I'm sure there have been more but these two come immediately to mind. Well, actually, one more comes to mind who asked very specific questions about Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers episodes. The answers to which could easily be found by picking the keywords out of the question and putting them into Google. But then I see that he has edited as recently as last week.

So, am I being paranoid? Has anyone else seen a pattern? Have I wasted time and brain cells in thinking too much about this? Dismas|^(talk) 06:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the Nintendo ratings guy. Mingmingla (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CheckUser can help establish whether it's one bored kid, or several bored kids. I honestly don't see whether that makes any difference. Nimur (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that people have different interests. While these topics may bore you, the topics you are interested in may bore others, who think of you as a fanatic for always bringing them up. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The "why can't X be a word in X language" guy seems to be back too. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The right answer to a question like that (in lieu of deletion) would be, "OK, we give up - tell us." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most of these (except the obvious two, LC and WP:RDTROLL) are all different people. We get hundreds of questions here, and we try to be helpful to most; if we're helpful answering the first question, perhaps people genuinely think we can help with the others. Yeah, its pretty esoteric stuff, and it gets annoying when people ask the same questions they could figure out on their own (I mean, the age rating of video games is usually printed on the cover!) but that doesn't mean its a grand trolling conspiracy or anything else in bad faith. People can be annoying in good faith as well... --Jayron32 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say I wasn't complaining, just venting. I do it at work too, but I still like my job. (My real life job is also a ref desk). Mingmingla (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the questions has been declining. A way to fix that would be for the regulars to ask difficult but interesting questions that keep the other regulars busy. Then, if anyone else is asking a question here and expects an answer, he/she better make sure it is interesting enough. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

School's back soon, so things should get interesting again then. Mingmingla (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that asking about the printers in police stations is unreasonable (though as noted in that discussion, some more specific term might be appropriate, which might or might not have been given). This is a useful sound effect to track down for purposes of filmmaking, for example. Wnt (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which cities in (random country) have immigrants from (other random country)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Any one else starting to grow weary of these questions? I first thought that these represented some genuine good faith questions about Arabic immigration, but the latest one (regarding Belgium and central Africa) seems so randomly unconnected that I am starting to believe that someone is trying to play games with us. Any thoughts? --Jayron32 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On the surface, it looks like the OP is asking about the aftermath of empires. The Belgians did run a small but bloody empire in Central Africa until the 1960s, iirc. (See Belgian_Congo) I suspect one will turn up regarding India/Canada/(remainder of 25% of Earth's land area) and cities in Britain soon enough, or one about Vietnamese in France. Sounds like they just want people trawling through major cities articles, though, which they could do for themselves. Another option, I suppose, would be to recommend that they write to the statistics bodies of the appropriate governments (the UK has the Office for National Statistics, but I'm not sure about the rest). Brammers (talk/c) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Never mind, it isn't random, I iz teh dumb. --Jayron32 17:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This same Toronto editor has been asking these same questions for years. It's either the world's longest troll or some mental aberration. --Sean 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a website that has this information (immigration/ethnicity by country), whose URL could just be rubber-stamped anytime Mr. Toronto raises one of these obscure questions? (I wonder how many Canadians are infesting the USA, but that's another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To keep Canadians out of the US, just put up border signs that say "Keep Oot". I'm sure they're far too polite to violate the wishes expressed by the sign. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to Give me your huddled masses, Yearning to be free of the tyrannical Canadian yoke? (or something along those lines) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never agreed with that bit, in any case. I'd make it more like "Give us your peaceful, well-skilled, decent, moral, hard-working individuals, willing to integrate into our society and leave their old hatreds behind". StuRat (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Beware of mighty women bearing torches. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Idiotic post removed

Diff --Viennese Waltz 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically the same question LC has tried to post several times already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Standard LC question from a known LC IP range. Good removal. --Jayron32 23:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think these removals are actually necessary, but when they're not real questions we can give a useful answer to there's nothing actually lost by removing them, and some people here take so much pleasure in it. Then again, actually this one isn't entirely vacuous - we could refer the questioner to pegging, which gives paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence on feeding the troll is much appreciated - by the troll, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph Pegging (sexual practice)#Psychological pleasure answers the OP's question directly. If the OP's post were not censored I would not hesitate to give that reference. Do Baseball-Bugs et al. say that such Wikipedia mainspace text is "idiotic" or "trolling" or just "forbidden to ask about"? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just this question, asked by the troll who asked it. --Jayron32 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not say that. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of deleting things because it might maybe possibly not be an honest question, but if this one is pretty much the same as LC's method, and LC is banned, banned users cannot edit. No matter what. Zap it. Good delete. Even if it a perfectly reasonable or legit question. Banned user? Does not edit. Mingmingla (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. Will it be fine if I ask the question, and then C3 can post his excellent response, and then we can be done with this? Buddy432 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank Buddy432 for their kind appraisal but I am.....errh, uncomfortable with their assumption of what my gender may be, considering the subject of the question in question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. (Which may have been your point.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The same claim might be made of those deleting posts to make the point that banned users can't edit. But it would be best not to assert this in either case. Wnt (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, deleting additions (be they article edits or talk page comments) by banned users is standard practice, see WP:BAN, which explains this fully. --Jayron32 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope indeed. After all, deleting a banned user's post isn't making a point about anything. It is deleting a banned user's post. Mingmingla (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Any rule can be abused. Imagine if someone said "Nominating an article for deletion isn't making a point about anything. It is nominating an article for deletion." APL (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a comment on this particular deletion, which I'm not at all aware of, but surely enforcing a rule and being disruptive are not mutually exclusive. Usually WP:POINT violations are caused by people taking a real rule, following it to the letter, and enforcing it to some ridiculous and disruptive extreme.

If there were a hypothetical situation where deleting a post would demonstrably and predictably cause a disruption, then intentionally ignoring the context and performing the deletion "because the rules say so" would absolutely be a WP:POINT issue. (As would saying "Well, I guess that means we should unban everyone!!!! I'll go start the unbanning proceedings!!" and then actually doing so. )

I've argued in the past that if the troll is actively trying to troll you into deleting innocuous-looking threads, then doing exactly that is disruptive because it's against the spirit of DENY, but I'll concede that this notion did not get much support. APL (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the posts, which is totally within the rules, feeds the troll very little. What mostly feeds the troll is the same old arguments against enforcing that rule, which the troll is counting on the troll-enablers to do. He suckers them into it nearly every time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My fondest desire for this particular troll is for him to create a well referenced, accurate, neutral, beautifully written, FA-quality article, and then for you to edit-war to delete it. APL (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I had asked for him to be unbanned. He indicated that he doesn't want to be unbanned. Regardless, I've stopped treating him as a banned user. Like you, I would like to see him write a fine article and demonstrate his value as an editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sept 2005 Humanities Archive

I was perusing the September 2005 humanities archive and noticed that after question 364, the archive just made a second copy of the questions from that month (Question 1 was included again as question 365 etc...). Was this something done on purpose that I should leave alone, or should I delete the 2nd copy of the questions? Googlemeister (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should feel free to delete it. No doubt there was an error when the bot attempted to remove the content after moving it to the archive, resulting in a second copy being created when the bot ran again. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Question removed.

LC question removed. See [11] for the asker and [12] for the removal. All people who commented have been notified as well. --Jayron32 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I logged the comment. No gripe with the quashing. Sorry for tossing food at him. 205.215.254.210 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

China discussion (Humanities)

What often annoys me is when the first respondent to a question seeking a prediction correctly states our policy not to answer such questions but the next visitors just ignore that and give answers anyway. It appears to show a great deal of disrespect for both our own policy and the first respondent. The policy does not even say "the ref desk cannot provide accurate answers", it says unequivocally "the ref desk does not answer" - period.

If we're going to ignore the policy, it's best we change it.

Please discuss in less than 1,200 words. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they didn't read the first reply. I know I don't always read all the replies to a thread before I reply to it. 82.43.90.90 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make a very witty and pithy reply, full of subtle sarcasm, until I saw the first response, and then I stopped. I don't know how we reign in everybody though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But, Friend 82, those who reply to questions need to abide by our rules and policies, which means being aware of them. The nature of this particular question precluded any answers other than a notice that an answer will not be forthcoming, which was fully covered by the first respondent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

discussion hatted. --Jayron32 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Often we can give useful information even if we can't actually answer the question. In this case, there are plenty of people that have written at length on the subject of China becoming a superpower and we could have linked to those writings. They are all opinion pieces rather than reliable sources (since there are no reliable sources about the future!) so we wouldn't want to actually conclude anything from them, but we can tell the OP they exist. --Tango (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, and these "opinions" aren't always driven by feelings and subjective values either, but often they are educated guesses, speculative of course, but based on expert interpretation of facts. For example we have an article on human extinction (yet to happen). It's improvable, but it does include references. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago, I answered this by stating that it there is a very normal juvenile response that causes a person to respond to "Do not answer this question" with the attitude of "You can't tell me what to do." Unfortunately, nobody read my statement in whole. They only read one word: juvenile. Then, the entire discussion derailed into accusations of "assume good faith" and whatnot. I feel it is a valid point. We have many different people here. Certainly, some have the normal juvenile response, which is not limited to those of juvenile age (totally unrelated use of the word "juvenile"), and those that do will regularly respond to direct orders with blatant refusal to obey the orders. -- kainaw ™ 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I obey all orders properly given by the chain of command. Of which, no individual here is a part of. Googlemeister (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you will follow consensus if and only if Wikipedia is completely restructured to have a clear governing body that makes laws and a policing unit that enforces them. Is that not a juvenile response? -- kainaw ™ 13:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps say something along the lines of "The reference desk will not provide opinions or speculation on future events, but we may be able to refer you to other places where these topics are discussed." And put something in the advice on how to answer questions like: "The reference desk is not for personal opinion. Restrict your answers to factual information and references to other sources." Not that anyone will read it anyway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why have any guidelines, instructions, policies, rules, procedures at all? Seriously. If we have so little faith that users will read the rules, that's our problem, not theirs. The ball's in our court to do something about it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

November 2005 Humanities Archive

The November 2005 Humanities archive has a lot of text in various colors. Would it be against the ref desk archive guidelines for me to reformat that into the standard black text? The text has no rhyme or reason for the odd colors as far as I can determine. Googlemeister (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a broken signature from a single user. I see absolutely no reason not to fix a broken sig that is messing up the page - so I fixed it. -- kainaw ™ 19:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just not all that comfortable with changing things in the archive unless I am sure it wasn't done that way on purpose. Googlemeister (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The user knew about it and fixed most of it back then. His current signature doesn't have the same issues. -- kainaw ™ 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found

This appears in large red letters at the foot of a desk page, whenever anybody pastes text from an article with the <ref> tags still in it. How should I react when I notice this? Should I edit the person's post to remove the tags completely, or move the references out of the tags into normal text, so they aren't lost, or leave a nagging message requesting the person who did it fixes it, or relax and do nothing? (What would it take to allow <ref> tags to function properly on the ref desks?) Card Zero (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd put <references /> at the bottom of the thread so the refs display. Angr (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that worked (on the humanities desk at the moment). I wonder if it will work twice, though, if somebody does it again in a thread below the first one. Card Zero (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would edit the post to use specific reference groups, as described here. —Akrabbim^talk 18:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems perfect, except I wanted to pick a fairly unique identifier for the group, so I used the title of the question. I didn't realise the name I picked would then show up in the ref link, like this: ^{[how_to_uncover_spy 1]} and ^{[how_to_uncover_spy 2]} and ^{[how_to_uncover_spy 3]}. I guess that's OK. Might be seen as interrupting the flow of the post. Card Zero (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You could abbreviate it a little. How about "spy"? It only needs to be unique within the sections that are on the page at the same time as it (the archives are done by week, so if it's ok before archiving it will be ok after archiving). --Tango (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Question removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

heat exceeded light long ago here. This is not a productive discussion--Jayron32 04:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed this question[13] posted by LC. It's from LC's IP range, and it's exactly the kind of thing he posts. Red Act (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why cant you leave this type of question alone and let people answer them if they want? Some pepole would like to know the answer to this type of question (I included).I mean, who else could you ask?? BTW who is LC?.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.110.252 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Light Current is a banned user, meaning he is not permitted to edit here AT ALL. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What you call "LC's IP range" is, in fact, the entire IP range of a major UK ISP, is it not? If all you have to go on is the ISP, the fact that he posts to the ref desk and that it comes under a very long list of topics you think he's asked about before (and that are topics we do tend to get legitimate questions on from time-to-time), that's really not very convincing evidence. Even if it is from a regular troll, how do you know it is LC? That account has been blocked for years. As I understand it, what you now consider to be his IP range isn't even the range he edited from when using that account. You really have no significant evidence whatsoever that this question was posted by a banned user. --Tango (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, either because you don't pay attention or don't care, or both. The IP comment, posted 23 minutes before yours, was made by LC, being the same kind of comment that LC often posts in his own "defense"... and which is actually intended to start the debate rolling, to feed that troll - and you took the bait. I hope you're proud of yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question concerned treatment of piles. If the question had not been censored I would have responded "A Wikipedia article describes treatments for piles (hemorrhoids) and these do not include vibration." A banned user is supposed to be still allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, including searching the Ref. Desk archive, but may not post a reasonable request for a reference. The latter restriction has little to do with combatting vandalism and I would not mind it being lifted. A proper question deserves a proper answer, no matter who posts it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The rule is that a ban is absolute. I don't think the ref desk can make an exception to that and I don't think the wider community would support such a policy change. Bugs has previously tried to force these discussions into discussion about banned user policy, but I really don't think they should be. The question we need to answer is "Was this edit made by a banned user?" and unless the answer is "yes" or "almost certainly, yes" then banned user policy does not apply and it should be judged on its own merits. The only evidence I have seen presented for this being an edit by a banned user is that it was made from a particular (very large) ISP and that it's a ref desk question that involves an anus. That is nowhere near enough evidence, in my opinion. --Tango (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A traceroute of the OP's IP address[14] also shows that it came through the 62.24.255.78 router, which is the router that LC usually connects to nowadays.[15] Red Act (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that that isn't just the router that every user (or a large proportion of users) of that ISP goes through? --Tango (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To those of us who've been ~~doing battle with LC~~ reverting this nonsense for many years, it's more than obvious who this is, but it's not in the spirit of RBI to spend yet more time discussing it, so I won't. Your skepticism might be admirable in other quarters, but here I can assure you it's not helping. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't go about accusing people of being banned users based on a hunch. If you have the experience you say you have, then you should be able to explain how you know this is LC. You are the one making an accusation, so the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. Your unsubstantiated accusations are what is not helping here. --Tango (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:DUCK is relevant here. 82.43.90.90 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Physical + behavioural evidence = satisifes duck test, proof ebough. We are not going to come to accomodation with a troll so as to satisfy each and every other editor that we are being fair enough. Why are you so eager to play their game? Franamax (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This all reminds me of state secrets, particularly in wartime, where it's necessary to take on trust that one's leaders are making sane and fair (or at least pragmatic) decisions, that such-and-such a place needed to be bombed for the greater good, and that so-and-so was correctly convicted even though the evidence was secret. So, I've just compared admins (or checkusers?) to MI6 or the CIA. That situation is a bit odd. Granted, the evidence isn't secret, just tiresome, but even so, I don't know, it's not ideal. Card Zero (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Card Zero, this is not a particularly secret process, it happens all over the wiki. There are maybe 2 or 3 dozen long-term problematic users whose activity needs to be constantly monitored. You can see some of the action at WP:SPI and WP:LTA, but much of it is handled at lower levels without the bureaucracy. Some "good" editors get familiar with the pattern of behaviour and act on it, other good editors just get on with editing and don't even notice, or occasionally wonder why someone got blocked. And there are a few editors who feel it necessary to question everything. It's not secret though, if you want to spend all the hours to piece it together, read all the archives here, learn about IP address allocation, check the contribs of entire ranges - you will find yourself at the exact same conclusion. Yes, I (we) ask you to trust me (us) on that, but dude, knock yourself out if you want. But do please assemble the overall picture and recall (or learn, if you look at it all) that the aim of this particular troll is to disrupt by causing this exact same discussion to take place over and over. This thread right here is the trolling, and once again a GF editor has enabled it. But sure, see for yourself. Contact me on my talk page if you want some pointers where to start, and set aside a large part of your day. Franamax (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the intention of sanctions in Wikipedia that an editor improve their contribution, be punished, or be eliminated as a contributor?
Do watchdogs who pounce on contributions coming from a particular address care to weigh the amount of constructive edits that come from that address? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your physical evidence is that the user edits using a particular ISP and your behavioural evidence is that they asked a question on the ref desk about an anus. That is nowhere near enough to conclude who they are. Lots of people use that ISP and lots of people ask us about anuses (the Ref Desk provides a valuable service as somewhere people can get good quality information about potentially embarrassing subjects). You have, perhaps, demonstrated that it is a living thing that frequents bodies of water. You have not demonstrated that it is a duck. --Tango (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The consequences of being wrong are pretty low — some sad user who coincidentally has the same IP as LC and asks exactly the same sort of questions as LC (which are often not terribly edifying questions in my opinion) will be shut out of asking such questions on Wikipedia. I think it's pretty duckish. It strikes me as quite a huge coincidence to assume it is not LC or someone connected with him. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with Ten) Tango, pick any other major ISP range in the world and count how many anus questions originate there over, say, a 6-month period. That will give us an estimate of how many false positives may be flagged on Opal's range. Or perhaps provide epidemiological evidence presentable to the UK medical authorities that they may have a serious problem that needs looked at. Also, the other 2 edits made by the IP are positive (if post facto) confirmation. Franamax (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The desire among certain editors to assume good faith does you credit, but this is a ship which long since sailed. While Tiscali is a large ISP, it still represents a very small fraction of total internet users worldwide. We at the Ref Desk actually get relatively few edits from this ISP (or, for that matter, from any particular unique ISP). Believe it or not, the last time I checked, the majority of edits from Tiscali's IP ranges made to the Wikipedia namespace really were confidently identifiable as Light current. Now, when I say 'majority' I mean that over the course of 12 months, the Ref Desk saw maybe two or three total edits from Tiscali that weren't Light current. Even if we totally ignored the issue of edit content, we could actually soft block the entire ISP from the Ref Desk without causing much in the way of collateral damage. Any anonymous Ref Desk editor with an anal fixation who shows up from Opal Telecom/TalkTalk (formerly Tiscali) is Light current, with quite a high degree of confidence. (The connection, one might say, is tighter than a WP:DUCK's ass.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a technical clarification though, the previous Tiscali ranges have over the last few years been merged into Opal's much larger set of assigned ranges, so presumably there may be more valid questions now from the broader range. I did that same analysis on just the Tiscali ranges but over a 2-year period and at the time, yeah, we could have set up an edit filter and lost basically zero valid content from the RefDesks. The situation now is a little more complicated but the rule still applies: if the Whois report shows AS13285 as the route origin and the behavioural pattern fits, to an extremely high probability it is the same troll. Franamax (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've debated this all before and still oppose the deletions; I just don't care to dive in when I don't have a good answer to the question anyway. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We are well aware that you're a troll enabler. You need not remind us yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Necessary, Bugs? Let's talk about the issue without applying labels to editors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The troll enablers, i.e. the ones who foment these arguments against deleting troll entries, over and over and over, are largely the ones to blame for feeding the troll. It is their insistence on feeding the troll that is the actual issue here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Describing editors' behaviour ("the ones who foment these arguments against deleting troll entries ...") is fine, but once you label them as "troll enablers', you've stepped over the line into personal abuse. That's no more OK than being a troll is. It's not hard to stay on this side of the line. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of them here have said in past that they feel no need whatsoever to enforce the rules against banned users editing. If that isn't enabling, then what is it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain it one more time: Pointing your finger at what someone does/says/writes and making comments about it is acceptable. Pointing your finger at the person themself and calling them names is not acceptable. Got it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain it one more time: There are users here who actively, defiantly and proudly continue to enable the troll. If you enable the troll, then you are a troll enabler. Got it??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you. A troll can't start an argument unless he can successfully bait people on both sides of the aisle. You are the sucker you're yelling at. APL (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. If the above discussion had stopped after Jack's straightforward response to LC, that would have been it. Instead, an enabler insisted on arguing about it. It's that arguing that feeds the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The deleted question is very obviously an LC question, as anyone in this discussion who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention should know. Why don't you all just un-ban that moron and be done with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And just where is LC when we need him? This question[16] would seem to fall into his area of special interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Y'know Bugs, reading down this thread I was all ready to jump in there just above with my own opinions on what are the possible signs of "troll enablers". But then I read this last bit with the "moron" terminology and lost my enthusiasm, way to stomp all over your own point. I'll bow out now, lest I be tempted to add that I hadn't noticed any morons present until you posted. ;) Possibly lame attempt at demonstrating NPA :) Franamax (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Y'know Fran, if you think I'm going to apologize for calling LC a moron, think again. I went to bat for him to get him unbanned. He let me down. He doesn't want to get unbanned. He wants to continue jerking the other users here around - especially with the aid of those who stand up for him and pretend that it might not be him, every time an obvious entry of his gets zapped by someone who knows what he's doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Those who do battle with trolls should be careful not to become trolls themselves" -- Nietszche. Wnt (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This "so what?" mentality I see here, from you and others, is the reason I have stopped deleting LC's entries and have stopped trying to get his socks banned. But I am still going to comment from time to time on active enabling of socks, as you and others continue to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Name calling notwithstanding, I have to agree with Bugs on this one. If someone (anyone) so chooses to actively ignore the rules about banned users not being allowed to post, I think that is an issue, as it is effective allowing the banned user to post, since any follow-up posts wouldn't make sense without the context. While Bugs may or may not be over any lines I don't know, but so is any user who insists on ignoring the rules regarding banned users. Mingmingla (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And to be crystal clear, bans apply for good as well as bad. It is unambiguous. Mingmingla (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocking User:Belchman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

heat exceeded light long ago here. This is not a productive discussion--Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could the user be blocked? He is harassing people who indeed contribute to the RD, and could stop doing so if OPs like him have such a horrible attitude. See here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Mercantilism_vs_protectionism and also the last two posts in his talk page: User_talk:Belchman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs)

This is the wrong place to request that somebody be blocked, and in any case Jayron can take care of himself, I think. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not only about Jayron, BTW. Anyway, what's the appropriate place to snitch on someone? Quest09 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to request that an editor be blocked is WP:ANI. But in the current situation that's not going to happen -- a more useful response would be to open a discussion at WP:WQA. Note that in either case you would need to notify Belchman of what you are doing. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayron takes very good care of himself whenever the subject of spelling arises.^{<diff suppressed>}. A fleabite from Adam Bishop [17] can be ignored. The gross taunt using the attrocity ridden term nazi and a swastika-derived symbol by Obsidi♠n Soul [18] is unacceptable. I have received the same abuse and Belchman can count on my support in this issue. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Seriously? We have better things to do. Belchman hasn't done anything wrong except get a little rude. His rudeness reflects badly on no one else except himself; if he wants the world to think of him that way, it is his prerogative. --Jayron32 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)edit: fixed spelling mistake. --Jayron32 00:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case the topic is closed, I suppose. BTW, it's not 'prerogrative', but prerogative. Quest09 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hatted the on-desk discussion, FWIW. [19] —Steve Summit (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I adjusted the start point of the hat as it would be unreasonable to hide away the first comment by Obsidi♠n Soul which is purely factual (unlike their second outburst). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, was a diff really suppressed in C3's post, or is that some sort of commentary or something? It looks like it was there in his first post [20]. I is confused :( Buddy431 (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 once had a user subpage onsite where he carefully collected every spelling mistake that I ever committed over several months. I first tried politely asking him to take it down, he refused. I brought it up at MFD, and it got deleted. He's been sore ever since. --Jayron32 00:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence of "I brought it up at MFD" that is said above. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you know, you are correct. I guess I misremembered the sequence of events. I never asked anyone to delete it. Other people just thought it was so inappropriate, that it got deleted without any request from me to do it at all. Hm. Thanks for reminding me how little I had to do with it. --Jayron32 19:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess again, Jayron32. You have just been caught in a lie. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Buddy431 I'm sorry for the confusion. All diffs from me concerning Administrator Jayron32 are explicitly or implicitly suppressed for the moment. But to outnumber a bully only takes two persons so the diffs can wait while I and anyone else interested do some counting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, I think that if you're going to pretend that you're being unreasonably squelched, you should probably link to the relevant discussions (for example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Grammar nit-picking on discussion pages), and let other editors draw their own conclusions about the constructiveness of your persistent, unpleasant, unwelcome hounding and harrassment of other editors over minor typographical or grammatical errors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. Is someone trying to suggest that the formal Wikipedia oversight mechanism is being used here? (And is it?) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain, no. — Lomn 14:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there have been no uses of oversight; Cuddlyable3 is just engaging in some unhelpful hyperbole. User:Cuddlyable3/English was deleted in April because it was being used to archive every typo Cuddlyable3 could find on the Ref Desk (with its principle focus being another editor with whom C3 had a personal dispute) with no obvious application for improving the Ref Desk or Wikipedia as a whole. Cuddlyable3 considers himself bullied because he has been asked politely, then asked firmly, then blocked in order to discourage his ongoing harrassment of other editors; his request above is for meatpuppets to carry out trolling and nitpicking of other editors on his behalf. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Cuddlyable3 has been asked to stop his grammar nit-picking, and, in fact, in many respects he has stopped his grammar nit-picking. Which ought to be a marvelous thing, until it comes to comments like "diffs from me are being explicitly or implicitly suppressed", which both (a) demonstrate an utter lack of buy-in, and (b) confuse the heck out of people and therefore waste yet more time. Sigh. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Belch and Cuddly both need to restrict their corrections to situations where the meaning is unclear (which is almost never the case), and to users (like me) who have expressly welcomed corrections to their English mistakes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable, please don't color other people's posts. If you'd like to refer to a particular section of someone else's text, do so by quoting it in a separate post. Please change Ten's post back to black and unbold. You really are starting to come across as passive-aggressive and mean-spirited. :-( ---Sluzzelin talk 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My problem with that suggestion is that I don't care to dignify a vicious allegation by reposting it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment "to outnumber a bully only takes two persons" sounds like a request for meatpuppetry. I want to also point out that, from what I've seen, you've cut way back on your unsolicited English corrections, and I commend you for doing so. We just don't need to encourage others, such as Belchman, to start doing that same kind of unsolicited correction that you used to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Note—I've undone Cuddlyable3's unsolicited, unwarranted, and unwelcome edit of my signed comments. He should be aware that that sort of thing is grounds for a block, and I will ask for one should he do anything like that again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec):::::::::TOABOTTP is no more than a truism that bullies don't like to be widely known, let alone believed. It doesn't work with puppets. Belchman continues to have my support to which I add exquirere bonum ipsum as encouragement. (Thank you Schyler for providing that Latin motto.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades you made an accusation that my "request above is for meatpuppets to carry out trolling and nitpicking of other editors on (my) behalf". That accusation is malicious and unacceptable. WP:WHACK!

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shell (Nut Case)

I'm pretty sure this person is just playing games with us, deliberately not given all the info when asking questions. Thoughts? Mingmingla (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct. He will try to push it further, as he has many times in the past. Last time he began by asking questions easily answered by searching. Then, he said he couldn't load the pages he was being referred to. Then, he said he could load them, but couldn't read them. Then, he said he was blind and using a screen reader. Then, when told his screen reader could read them just fine, he claimed his screen reader must be an older version. Then, finally, admitted he wasn't a blind kid and was just trolling all along. -- kainaw ™ 19:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, please? Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

See here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Just_before_the_Showdown. --LarryMac | Talk 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You think this is Comet Egypt? Seems unlikely to me, the MO is completely different. --Viennese Waltz 20:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Comet Egypt, but there is something ducklike going on that I can't quite put my finger on. This seems curious. --LarryMac | Talk 20:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also see this diff. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (by me). He can be unblocked if he identifies his previous account(s) and commits to stop trolling the Ref Desk and its editors. I don't really care if it's a harlequin or a mallard; this is pretty obviously some sort of duck. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My money's on the loon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For them that are interested, see here, here, here, and here. While the MO is exactly the same as what we're seeing now, I'll note that the posters above (all anons) geolocated to different areas. That last one, for example, came from a Sprint account based in NY, while the ones from the example before it came from Kansas City. Matt Deres (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. A lot of the spammers that are signing up recently on my club message board geolocate to Kansas City. Maybe just a coincidence. Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Might it be that some such apparent location shifts are due to ISPs changing servers? I noticed that when I switched to my current ISP a couple or three years ago, certain types of online adverts (usually for, ahem, "personal sevices") seemed to think I was actually somehere a hundred or so miles away; some time later they switched to my correct (UK) location, but in the last couple of weeks they've started assuming a new locality even further away. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.202 (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Note however all belong to the same ISP. Of course it's a large ISP. But they are so close together it seems likely it was the same person. It may be that ISPs geolocation data is inaccurate, I'm sure some here would like to jump on that but the other problem is this was over 2 years ago. It may be all those IPs geolocated to the same place in August 2009 but no longer do so. I'm pretty sure ISPs do move their ranges around for a variety of reasons. (BTW according to ip2location.com 2 of them came from Overland Park, Kansas, one from New York and one from Chantilly, Virginia.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Best movie comments

About WP:RD/E#Film as allegory for life, please note these diffs: [21][22][23]. I have notified them here. —Akrabbim^talk 21:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to close that discussion down. It is not appropriate to solicit open-ended opinions from Wikipedia editors, which is all the OP's question is. He restored it. I am washing my hands of the matter. But I lodge my formal complaint here that it is inappropriate. --Jayron32 22:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not a question that can be answered by pointing to a reference. It is therefore not an RD question but a discussion forum question. Spinning Spark 12:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This diff adds to the picture. --LarryMac | Talk 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And just to confirm [24]. Incidentally, I agree it's clear the user is asking a question unsuitable for the RD and trying to pretend otherwise. However I find it far more concerning the user found it fit to edit war remove comments they didn't like. I think we've discussed before that this is rarely a good idea for an OP and I concur (and this is often good advice in general on wikipedia). It may be acceptable for another uninvolved user if the comments were clearly against policy or inappropriate but in this case they were just pointing out, in fact one of them via a direct quote, that the user was asking an inappropriate question so there was nothing wrong with them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Closed question

I collapsed the Israel question on RD/H, which was answered and looked like it was about to turn into a debate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good and timely move. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the question had been answered, and request that it be reopened. There are many reliable sources which have discussed US-Israel relations, and why the US supports Israel. Wikipedia should not be censored. Edison (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP asked an "Are you still beating your wife?" type of question, and it was quickly demonstrated that the OP's premise was untrue. Note that the OP's only other entry was, "Why does France still hang on to several of its colonies instead of giving them independence?" which is almost a provocative question also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is most certainly not true that it was "demonstrated" that there was a false premise in the OP's question. Someone gave an opinion, without any reference to substantiate it. If there can be long threads which beat up on the US for having the death penalty, and which make other countries uncomfortable, then this thread can be allowed. Edison (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Turns out there actually is an article on the specific subject, which another editor added. That should answer the OP's provocative question sufficiently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So when the next question comes up about "Why does only the US have capital punishment among developed nations," or other "beat your wife" questions relating to any country, the consensus is I could just refer the questioner to some article which bears in a similar way on the topic, and close the discussion? The article on US Israel relations states that the US favors Israel over its neighbors, but does not answer the OP's question as to "Why," so it does not answer the question. Rather this censorship just says that such a question related to Israel is not allowed. Edison (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question was, "Why does the US unconditionally support everything Israel does?" As Jayron said, "It doesn't." Do you argue that the US does indeed "unconditionally" support "everything" Israel does??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, President Johnson is quoted by some sources as basically saying, "Yes." He had little objection to their attacking a US ship in international waters and killing many crewmen. Other Presidents (Truman through Obama) have been partisan toward Israel, but to lesser degrees, occasionally objecting to some policies or actions. The reasons for their favoring Israel over that country's neighbors are not made clear in the article on US-Israeli relations, but this policy has been discussed in various scholarly sources, which could have been employed in providing an answer to the question, had not censorship been imposed. Edison (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're soapboxing in an inappropriate place. When someone asks a politically sensitive question, I think the best thing we can do is try to keep the discussion narrowly focused. If someone asks why some US states still have capital punishment, we should try to keep answers along the lines of the political circumstances that have led to the continuation of the practice rather than allow bickering on the merits of the death penalty. In this case, it was made apparent early on that the question was based on a fallacy. Edison, your comment threatened to open up a debate on the Arab-Israeli issue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Heaven forbid references should be provided vis a vis "the Arab-Israeli issue," since it has no importance in modern geopolitics, and since it has not been discussed in countless textbooks and scholarly articles. Rather than preemptorily closing the thread, it would have been more appropriate to provide reliable sources to show the incorrectness of any wrong assumption or false premise in the question, or to show that it might be a bit of a stretch to say "unconditional." The "conditions" placed on Israel's actions have in fact been demonstrably pretty limited. The fallacy would be to claim that successive US administrations has not been strongly supportive of Israel for 63 years. The cases where the US has criticized such actions as expansion of settlements is one such example, and another is the prosecution of an Israeli spy. These or any other areas of conflict or of US criticism could be kept in perspective over a long relationship which has generally been strongly pro-Israel. Then we could have provided reliable sources which have discussed why US administrations back to Truman have been extremely friendly toward Israel, with military and economic assistance in the many billions of dollars, and the frequent use of veto power in the Security Council. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, and it is not "soapboxing" to discuss it. The "soapbox" would be in the style of discussion, and not in the topic. We do not have "forbidden soapbox topics," in any guideline or policy I can find. The closing of the thread smacked more of "I don't like the topic." I did not see folks jumping in to close discussions such as Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 13#How many people have been killed by the United States?. There was Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 21#why is the USA more right-wing than europe and the rest of the westrn world? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 7#Native Americans?(which asked" Why did the US feel justified taking land from Native Americans?") Rather than preemptory closing down the threads, editors just pointed out questionable assumptions in the question. It is rare that a thread such as these about nations and their policies gets closed down, and it has to get to extreme levels such as Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 8#what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done? (which actually got closed). Edison (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP asked a question with a false premise, and it was answered. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

When the question was collapsed, there had only been Jayron's response that "Carter did not unconditionally support them" and mine which, to the contrary, said there was a long history of strong support. The question had certainly not been "answered" at the time it was collapsed, as Bugs claims, with any sort of explanation for why the support existed. It was apparently closed to prevent it being answered, which is contrary to the purposes of the Ref Desk. Edison (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Strong support" does not equate to "unconditionally supports everything Israel does." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Ref Desk we do not refuse to answer questions if we believe the OP has an imperfect understanding of the subject matter. If misunderstandings are present, and a false premise is in the question, then point out that false premise and go ahead and answer the basic question, which is "Why has the US strongly supported Israel for 63 years, rarely questioning its actions?" There are many reasons why one country might become an ally or supporter of another. A proper answer would be referenced and encyclopedic, and not just say "You're wrong, so go away." Do you follow the Science Desk? Do you have any concept of what proportion of the science questions contain some false premise, but get a good answer anyway? Edison (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The lack of followup by the OP-IP should tell you something. It was basically a drive-by shot at the USA, or Israel, or both - and doesn't deserve the time of day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We normally have no requirement that the OP present followup coments , clarifications, or responses. I looked at the September 11 Ref Desk Humanities questions, and found 5 with followup by the OP, and 6 with no followup by the OP, including "Why isn't the date of Jesus' crucifixion or birth known?", which might be taken as expressing doubt in the historicity of Jesus. It got about 30 responses from 14 editors, and no preemptive closure. We should not make up different ad-hoc policies based on the subject matter of questions. Edison (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The date of Jesus birth and death are not known, so it's a reasonable question. The claim that the USA always supports Israel, no matter what, is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is also a "reasonable question" of why the US, since Truman, has so strongly supported Israel. I was looking forward to reading some referenced answers (Did Presidents say in their memoirs that they felt so bad about the Holocaust they felt the need to back Israel? Did political advisors of presidents, in their memoirs, discuss how many electoral votes in which states were at stake in which elections depending on the President or candidate's middle east policy? Was there a cold war strategy to tweak the USSR's nose by backing the other side when they supplied Egypt with arms?). As I pointed out above, in many Ref Desk threads we move past a false assumption in the OP's question and answer the basic question. It is easy to refute any claim the US has always or even frequently had a hands-off or even-handed stance vis a vis Israel and its neighboring countries, as witnessed by massive foreign aid and frequent use of Security Council vetoes. Edison (talk)

"Why has the US so strongly supported Israel" is a legitimate RD question. If you had said on the project page, "Perhaps we should rephrase the question as `Why has the US so strongly supported Israel,'" that would have been a good way to handle it. Instead, you started irrelevantly soapboxing, leaving little reason to keep open a question based on a faulty premise that was about to turn into a fervent debate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I said on the project page was in the least irrelevant: the US using its Security Council veto in Israel's behalf? Giving more foreign aid to Israel than any other country since Israel's founding? Johnson's insistence on hushing up the Liberty attack? Such matters are highly relevant to US-Israel relations. Edison (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing/removing questions

This edit and edit summary got me thinking—I'm not sure that we should be so quick to outright removing questions that are unfit for the desk. I think it would be much more friendly and in line with WP:BITE to simply close the discussion with {{archive top}} and bottom, and leave your rationale there, instead of the edit summary of a removal. I guess another option would be to use {{hat}} and {{hab}}, but in my opinion those should continue to be used instead for hiding tangential bickering or other non-constructive comments inside of an otherwise useful conversation. Now that I've typed this, I've decided to just [be bold]. —Akrabbim^talk 23:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the question because I thought it was not appropriate and because Belchman, as a RD regular, should know better that it was not. Equally, s/he should be able to go through the page history to know what happened to the question. BTW, I don't believe WP:BITE applies here,. Wikiweek (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly amazed. How am I asking for an "opinion"? Apparently the current fad is the asking-for-an-opinion paranoia —we have had many of these before, such as the medical advice paranoia. --Belchman (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no medical advice paranoia (whatever that means). The RD has systematically rejected giving medical advice. Wikiweek (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I thought about removing that Q also. Are you deliberately testing the limits here? Did you search yourself for any objective measures of facial similarity before posting for opinions? Franamax (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Imagine you're before a law enforcer. He has a video/photograph of you committing a crime. You claim it isn't you, but a friend of yours who doesn't look like you at all. He says that it obviously isn't him. You reply: "Have you got any objective means of proving the face in the video/photograph is mine?". Your paranoia is sometimes so ridiculous it becomes hilarious. --Belchman (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that being obsessed (which I suppose we are not) is no paranoia? Quite in contrary, you seem to have some paranoid thoughts.Quest09 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, so the only way we are supposed to answer the question is by providing references. Do you genuinely believe there may be references which discuss whether those 2 people look alike? If not, then you were clearly asking an inappropriate question for the RD. Incidentally as those 2 images are NFCC, showing them on the page was a clear cut violation of policy. Since you specifically formatted the images for display, I presume it wasn't an accident because of a lack of familiarity with how to link to images. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Belchman, what the heck kind of answer were you looking for if not an opinion? Humor us in our stupidity, and give us an example of your ideal answer to that question. (Feel free to make up an answer. I'm looking for Form not factual accuracy.) APL (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP posts two photos which he presumably thinks happen to look kind of similar, and asks us if they look alike. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked a similarly subjective question on resemblance a while ago. Here's the link: "Resemblance of actors portraying famous people". I introduced the question by admitting to its subjectivity, but saw it as more of a difference in perception than opinion. Nil Einne is quite correct that finding references addressing Belchman's question might be tricky. I guess in the case of my question, references might have been findable, but I wasn't interested in them. I was interested in people pointing to examples from their own subjective point of view. Each and every example resonated in my own subjective point of view. I was glad so many people had responded, and I'm still glad no one removed the question, despite its subjectivity. I don't think we need to remove questions for being unanswerable or subjective. I don't even think we need to hat them. The only thing that counts is how we respond to them (and not responding at all is one possibility. A very powerful one when everyone chooses not to respond :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A big difference between your question and Belchman (other then the fact you acknowledge it could be OT whereas from the above Belchman seems to be refusing to accept this) is that your question allowed plenty of referenced answers to be given. While it's true people gave their personal opinions on resemblence of actors to famous people, many of them were in fact actors who had played a famous person. And while the respondents opinions may have influence their answers, they were often providing partially referenced answers (I know at least some of them mention the role in the person's article). In at least 2 cases, someone answering said the person had been noted for their similarity (this is fairly common on the RD and is effectively a way of saying, there are probably references out there but I can't be bothered looking for them). What you chose to do with the answers afterwards is of course not our biggest concern. I presume if someone With Belchman's question, he already provided two people. The only real referencing that would be likely to be able to provide would be in regards to specific claims relating to any analysis of the similarity, but it doesn't even appear that Belchman wants such analysis. Note that I don't think anyone is suggesting we remove all questions that relate more to opinions then references. Also, for many it may be a case of 'not how I would have handled it but not going to object' Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of hatting bad questions rather than deleting them. Deletion is the "nuclear option" and should only be used on the most blatant vandalism where everyone will be in agreement. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Belchman's apology

The Belchman, henceforth 'I' or 'me', is very sorry for the inconvenience caused by his former inquiry not adjusting to the Wikipedia Reference Desk, henceforth 'the Reference Desk' or 'RD', guidelines. His relatively long presence in the RD notwithstanding, the Belchman's behavior can occasionally fit the definition of the adjective naïve; especially when he strives to quench his thirst for knowledge, no matter how absurd the question he posed may seem to his neighbors.

Consequently, the Belchman timidly asks —if he may be so bold— his fellow RD contributors here, behind the scenes, in a warm and calm atmosphere before a virtual fireplace, whether, to their mind, these two people have some certain facial feature in common. The Belchman believes there is something, particularly in these two peoples' smiles, that might contribute to what he perceives to be a faint likeness. The Belchman, however, acknowledges that this presumed likeness may well be the product of these two persons' common Irish ancestry, or just purely illusory with little or no empiric basis. —Belchman (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mairéad_Farrell.JPG

File:Bobbysandslongkesh1973.jpg

I have removed the thumbnails and left wikilinks to the images. Both of them are non-free, and fair use does not extend to this page. Akrabbim (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these two pictures happen to look kind of similar. I wouldn't read too much into that. No big deal. What's really irritating to my sensibility is talking in third person. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Similarity is in the eye of the beholder. I am sooooo tempted to point out that all white people look alike, but I don't think everyone will get the joke. -- kainaw ™ 15:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And those people look nothing alike ! Can't you see how much more color is in the face of the one on the right ? :-) StuRat (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

These people are not alike, they just have long hair and look somehow alike. @kainaw: it makes sense only if you are not white, which I cannot judge over the Internet since on the Internet, no one know you are not white. Wikiweek (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There was once a series of humor books called "Separated at Birth?" which consisted of photos of unrelated individuals who happened to look similar in pairs of photos. One of the funnier ones was a picture of Mick Jagger juxtaposed with a picture of Don Knotts as "Mr. Limpet". The photos in question here would have been appropriate entries in those books. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sleep paralysis removal

I interpreted this as a violation of our "No medical advice" policy, particularly the last interrogative sentence that refers to the OP's specific case. Here's the diff. I'll leave it up to the RefDeskers to correct this if I've made a mistake.--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You did right. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, normal sleep paralysis would be OK to discuss, but it did sound like they were describing an abnormal medical condition. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Troll post closed - block suggested

I have closed [25] a discussion from a self-admited troll [26] [27]. As I mentioned there while closing the discussion, it is improbable that someone could come up with all that and not appreciate the many reasons why 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids' tech doesn't work in real life or the plenty of other problems with what they're saying. I can only conclude the new post is more trolling. Considering they've been warned before [28] I feel a block is in order but can't be bothered entering in to a potentially long discussion on the subject and this may need to go to ANI anyway so am not going to fight for it. I wanted to delete the entire thread but considering there had been several replies and the history of deleting such threads on the RD I decided against it. Despite the fact it seems clear from last time (see their reply to RDT where they admitted trolling and [29]) they were notified (by someone else) that they have no desire to seriously discuss their behaviour, I have notified them since I suggested a block. Nil Einne (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am only surprised that this stupid question was not nipped sooner. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for the troll to be iced for awhile, just in case Jayron doesn't get to it first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They issued him a warning. So that's all there is to do with the IP, at least for now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

He's being discussed at WP:ANI now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for the next week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Another removed. —Akrabbim^talk 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a "Honey I shrunk the kids" question is worth answering, and IMHO if we don't end the discussion with some ArXiv preprint that suggests a speculative idea how to actually do it, we haven't done our job. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You would think that, being a proven troll-enabler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If the question had not been censored I would have responded with a reference on embiggenator technology (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Proven troll-enabler" is clearly just name-calling, and is not at all WP:CIVIL. APL (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a demonstrable fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Every time you or one of your like-minded associates argues for allowing troll questions to be answered, you are enabling the troll. That makes you a troll-enabler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the controversy that enables the trolls, and you yourself Bugs are often front-and-centre in doing just that when you reiterate your inflammatory rhetoric, like when you got sucked into arguing with the "drive-by" IP. From my observation, Wnt's position is that just calmly and rationally answering the question (possibly with "this is unanswerable") effectively disarms the troll, since they no longer receive the desired response. That's not a totally invalid premise, however site policy and consensus is against it, so we are unable to try the experiment. Your use of the bald phrase carries a connotation of deliberate troll-enabling, and I don't believe it to be the case. OTOH unintentional troll-enablement, yes I happen to agree with you - but do step up and take a bow yourself. ;) Franamax (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the arguing by the enablers that feeds the trolls. If the enablers would keep their traps shut about it, there would be no need for me or others to comment further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What a convenient world it would be if everyone who disagreed with us "kept their traps shut". We could make some truly colossal mistakes and it would still go down as a triumph... ;) Franamax (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not "disagreement" as such. The core problem is that the enablers have made it clear in the past that they don't care that a user is banned or that a question is obviously trolling. So there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But that is exactly the point of people who take the same position, that if we just ignored the ban status or motivation for asking a question and answered calmly and rationally, the problem would go away, because no-one cared, thus no attention-getting reward for the trolls. The additional benefit is that a question-answer set is generated, so anyone curious in future about telescopes and Uranus will have a searchable resource. Believing that doesn't make the person fundamentally bad or worthy of a pejorative. And it's not going to happen anyway, RD is not separate from the en:wiki project and has to follow well-established consensus on dealing with this type of thing. There's no need to wish that people would shut up, because the community voice is on our side and not theirs. If Wnt was actively circumventing things with reversions, that could be a different story, but I'm not seeing it. I'll reiterate, your willingness to engage in combat on these issues is as much part of the "show" as anything else. Your other, more sober efforts look pretty decent to me. Not trying to be patronizing, supposed to be a compliment. :) Franamax (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't involved in the discussion that banned LC, nor am I actively trying to get his countless socks blocked anymore. The problem isn't really the troll as such, its his enablers. And if they don't like getting called out for their enabling, the problem is theirs, not mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this IP, so far as I know, is not accused of being LC or any banned user. He simply asked five questions which some people choose to categorize as "trolling". But our purpose here on the Refdesk is not to decide if the questioner is a "troll", but to answer the question if it can reasonably be given an informative answer. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sez who? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This particular OP choose to categorise their own questions as trolling. There is no need for us to 'decide' if someone is a troll if they self-admit it. Note that even if not all their questions are trolling, it doesn't change the fact they are a troll. Nil Einne (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just too much fun, Buggs consistently fails to see his problem. I can just see him screaming "Everybody stop Yelling" at a shouting match and truly expecting that action to bring peace and quiet. This place would be a boring habitat for trolls, and social rejects without the likes of Buggs to keep things stirred up. Oh Crap, this IP has only 1 edit, time to repeat some illogical nonsense on how that must matter!!!.67.78.255.226 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that Floridians are in love with their palms? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that if contributing to Wikipedia was a crime, there would not be enough evidence to convict you? 71.43.35.197 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but even though I haven't had a lot of time for wikipedia lately [lack of free time], I've still contributed more useful stuff [just] today than you [ever] have. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. See you when your checkuser block is over. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

[ec from before Bugs last comment here] Hey Bugs, I agree with you, but it's getting hard to stand up with you with that nonsense. Bugs choice of words might be suspect to some, but he has a valid point. Why leave that stupid question about the spoon up, seriously? Someone is screwing around with us, and we are all buying it, apparently. So troll-enabler is the wrong word, but to let stupid question like that stand will only encourage that troll to waste more of our collective ref-desk time. It certainly doesn't help Wikipedia, and it doesn't help the Ref Desks themselves.

Why don't we try a little experiment? For one week, we won't delete anything at all, troll or banned user. Let's see how that goes. There needs to be some quality control or this place will just become Yahoo Answers. Mingmingla (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Of note: Two previous trolls used to copy/paste questions from Yahoo Answers. The goal was to see how much time would be wasted on them. That was back when Encylopedia Dramatica closed and they had to find somewhere else to keep track of their troll points. -- kainaw ™ 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

why can't I see edit link to start a thread?

I mean, without signing in? --117.253.190.252 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I know. Click the "ask a question" tab. --117.253.190.252 (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an "Edit" tab at the top, to edit the entire page, isn't appropriate for huge pages like the Wikipedia Ref Desks. We do have section edit tabs at the top of each section and subsection, though. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the OP is referring to the 'new section' tab which should appear on every desk (along with the 'edit' tab) and should generally work fine. The most likely reason why it didn't appear for the OP is because of a bug which has been discussed (and I've encountered) before where non-protected pages appear protected for anons. Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem with Wikipedia. Follow the instructions on this page and it should return the edit links to normal. You may have to do that every time you want to edit the page if the problem keeps happening AvrillirvA (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Computing Desk: Syntax errors

Recent edit by User:TheGrimme damaged syntax on the desk. I notified the user and have repaired the changes. I'm just posting here for the record. Nimur (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing they're a newbie who doesn't know double square brackets are required syntax, and therefore removed the "redundant" brackets. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Randi Randi Randi...

In 3 weeks this OP has plied RD/M with enquiries [30] [31] [32] about what James Randi thinks. I propose setting a quota of maximum one question a year about James Randi's inner thoughts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what "setting a quota" means in practice, but I'll give moral support to removing any further such questions, on the basis of being outside the mandate of the Ref desks. Looie496 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bowei Huang? I thought he was indef blocked. -- kainaw ™ 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. As is his many many many socks including Bowei Huang, Brickfield, A1DF67... -- kainaw ™ 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The account that is asking these questions, Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs), is not blocked. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But, all of Bowei Huang's socks redirect to Bowei Huang 2. -- kainaw ™ 15:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, he was allowed to stay active as long as he kept to ONE account. The admins must have been feeling generous at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The questions require largely uninformed speculation to answer them. We should not be attempting that. They should be ignored. Deletion will make that more likely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In my mind the ideal response to these types of questions would be absolutely no response at all, but since it looks like that option is impossible I just hatted them all[33][34][35]. If anyone besides Bowei Huang think I did wrong you are more than welcome to revert. Royor (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just left an unambiguous warning at his talk page. If this continues, either with Randi or with another topic, it will be ended. --Jayron32 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bravo to both of you. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sterilize

The discussion on sterilizing a razor was closed as medical advice. I've reverted this on the grounds that tool maintenance is not medical advice.

While sterilization is tangentially related to medicine, I feel that allowing this closure for indirect relevance to medical topics would set a precedent for forbidding a vast range of subjects from tobacco to bicycle helmets. APL (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Advice on preventive hygiene does not need a doctor's qualificaion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not serious? Tool maintenance? This question is blatant medical advice. For fucks sake its basically asking how not to get hepatitis/HIV/etc. Or is it also appropriate if I was to ask how to go about not getting an STD? This question is highly inappropriate and should be closed immediately--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The spread of STDs and the probability of getting a particular one via different types of intercourse is often discussed on the reference desk. Especially HIV since there are good statistics for it. APL (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I support APL. The Masked Booby (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like medical advice. My first thought on seeing that question was, "Why on God's green earth would you want to use a 'pre-owned' razor? Are you nuts?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the thread, I think this should be removed, as it essentially asks: "How do I avoid getting sick?", which is a clear request for medical advice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming the OP of the question is going to use the razor of themselves. What if they're using it to cut vegetables or shave a teddy bear? 79.91.233.172 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please cite a case where a teddy bear has died from HIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

HIV was invented by the government to eliminate teddy bears. True story. APL (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, it isn't medical advice if it is not asking for three things: 1) Prognosis 2) Diagnosis or 3) Treatment. Prognosis means the outcome of a disease, diagnosis means the existance of a disease and treatment means the measures taken to ammeliorate a disease. Questions about sterilizing equipment don't prognose, diagnose, or treat any diseases. This question isn't about medical advice. Doctors and other medical professionals don't give out advice on how to sterilize things. I am a complete zealot when it comes to medical advice, and it is well known that I more than any other reference desk regular overdoes it when it comes to closing down questions. Nearly all of the questions I have every closed down as medical advice have been contested and reinstated, so if I think this isn't medical adivce, its a clear notion that it might not be. Seriously, I have never met anyone who was more zealous about this than me, and if I don't have a problem with it, I can't believe anyone else would. --Jayron32 16:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As has already been stated several times, this question boils down to one simple point "how do I not get sick?" Which is clearly a request for medical advice. I was under the impression that pretty much the whole point of not giving medical advice is because if we did, and we're wrong, and someone gets hurt/ill/whatever, we could face legal action, which is why this question is inappropriate. For example, say the question was answered "it will be sterilized just fine with hot chocolate" OP follows advice and uses razor previously used by a bloke with Hep B and so on--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Medical advice is avoided because medical advice is legally regulated. Not because someone could theoretically sue the foundation or us personally. (That's true of all information on WP.) So far as I know, you don't need to be legally licensed by any authority to sterilize a razor for private use. I'm pretty sure barbers aren't in danger of being arrested for practicing medicine without a license because they sterilized a few razors without supervision from an MD. APL (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Jayron, particularly on "prognosis, diagnosis, or treatment", and note similarly that I grade myself as being more likely than the average RefDesker to conclude that a given topic is medical advice. This isn't. — Lomn 17:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble over whether or not the question (or responses) violated the specific letter of the medical advice guideline. "Diagnosis, Prognosis, or Treatment" is a helpful rule of thumb only, and bickering over whether this is or isn't a 'treatment' or 'prognosis' entirely misses the point. Pretending that we could anticipate every possible situation and that we wrote a guideline that captured every possible circumstance where it might be appropriate to remove a question – while at the same time guaranteeing that all acceptable questions are permitted to remain – would be absurd.

The question here is not whether or not the guideline permits this question to be removed, but whether or not it is appropriate for the question to be removed. You can refer to WP:IAR, WP:5P, WP:UCS, or whatever other alphabet soup you like; ultimately the important thing is to determine whether it is in the interests of the original poster, the editors here, and the Wikipedia project as a whole for this question to be rejected as beyond our scope and skills.

There's no question that it is possible to transmit blood-borne diseases – some of which are chronic, incurable, and fatal, and which include hepatitis, HIV, and possibly vCJD – through improperly-cleaned and -sterilized blades. The OP is asking us how to prevent infection (of himself or others) with these diseases. An incorrect response could be dangerous or fatal. People responding to the question don't know what the razor (blade or handle) is made from or how the two are joined (infectious particles are often protected from sterilization when they are sheltered by hinges or crevices in tools). No one is referring to relevant references or sources describing proper sterilization techniques, their applicability to various pathogens, or their respective limitations. Several people have given advice presented as being "good enough for most concerns", which is flatly appalling.

The reason why we have a guideline regarding medical advice is to discourage our volunteers from offering advice – of a type that ought to come from a suitably-trained professional – which if given improperly may harm our readers' health (through acts of omission or commission) and harm the reputation of Wikipedia. This question and its responses fall far to the foul side of that line. By that reasonable standard, it was appropriate to close the discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You seem to be using the logic that if death can result from applying an incorrect answer, then the discussion should be closed.

Obviously this standard, if applied universally (And not just to "icky" topics) would cover a huge segment of human experience.

If someone asks if he should be wearing a bicycle helmet are you going to advocate closing the discussion on the grounds that the question-asker is "asking how to avoid a concussion" and that "an incorrect response could be dangerous or fatal"? APL (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to a ridiculous absolute statement that you made up. Sterilizing sharp tools that may have come into contact with blood (and which may in turn pierce another human's skin) isn't like riding a bicycle; you should be embarrassed to try to draw the parallel. The proper sterilization of tools is a very complex and specialized field. Indeed, it often isn't possible to properly sterilize equipment not designed from the beginning for sterilization—particularly without equipment and materials completely unavailable to the average individual. Unfortunately, there is a certain subpopulation at the Ref Desk who have seen medical dramas on television or perhaps watched their barber at work, and therefore believe themselves qualified to give advice about safe sterilization protocols. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed at all to draw the parallel. Just because we're all manly men who know all about blunt traumas, doesn't mean we're any more qualified to discuss those risks than we are any other medical risks. (And besides, I strongly suspect that riding a bicycle is far more deadly than using an pre-owned straight-razor. Lot's of people do both things, but you only ever read about the bicycle deaths.)

After rereading your original statement, and your reply, I'm still uncertain what standard you're applying if it's not, "if death can result from a wrong answer, we can't provide references". You try to say that disease control is a specialized field, but I can't think of a risk to life and limb that can be authoritatively discussed by laymen. (Hence the need for references, of course.)

For example, the many risks posed by cigarettes are extremely complicated, technical, and often subtle and debatable. I absolutely, 100% do not have the technical knowledge needed to discuss those health-risks, but I sure as heck don't need to be a doctor to link to our article on the risks, or to studies about specific risks. And this is routinely done on the reference desk.

And that's why I'm fighting this. If it becomes established that consensus is against allowing questions that relate to life and limb, we open the door for removing a large number of questions. You seem to be advocating removing potentially dangerous questions about pathogens, but there's nothing intrinsic about a razor blade that makes it more medical than a bicycle helmet or a cigar. APL (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note : When I said that lots of people "do both things", I was not advocating riding a bicycle and using a straight razor simultaneously. APL (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no doctor would accept a patient who makes appointments to discuss how to clean his razor, this isn't medical advice, it's basic hygiene. StuRat (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is outside of what doctors handle. The prohibition on medical advice is because medical diagnosis and prognosis is legally regulated. You need a license to dispense that kind of advice. So if you need a diagnosis, you need to go make an appointment with a licensed doctor. If a Wikipedia user was found to be diagnosing patients without a medical license he (or the foundation) could theoretically be convicted of practicing medicine without a license.

Prohibiting questions on cleaning your razor falls well outside that umbrella, and is therefore outside the original intent of the prohibition on medical advice. APL (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fear of lawsuits has precious little to do with our restriction on medical advice. I would say, in fact, that it is by far the least important reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? I mean if someone asked how to maintain their chainsaw to promote safe operation would you try to kill that too? Googlemeister (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How to clean his razor is a very different matter from how he should clean someone else's razor for his own use. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, would we even need to have this discussion if the question were "I would like to reuse hypodermic syringes that I bought from a stranger; what cleaning steps should I take to make them safe?" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be tricky to shave with a syringe personally... But seriously telling a person how to freebase heroin recreationally is also not going to give a prognoses, a diagnosis or offer treatment either and thus would not fall afoul of the medical advice checklist. Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That could be easily answered with references that used needles were not recommended. (Presumably the question-asker is diabetic, or has a diabetic pet. Those needles get pricey in the quantities that you end up buying them, so the question isn't totally off-the-wall, even if the answer is a resounding "no".)

However, used or antique straight-razors are very commonly bought,sold, and used. They're often passed down as family heirlooms.

I'll bet that you could walk into your local pawn shop and find a very nice straight razor. APL (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypodermic needles are at least medical equipment, unlike razors. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors who went berserk about the incalculable dangers of the same razor touching more than one person's skin must never have been in any of the US barbershops where the same straight razor was used on every customer, one right after another, to do some cleanup of the hair on the neck. It might have been dunked in Barbicide (introduced 1947). Even back in 1910, medical journals discussed infections such as syphilis spread by barbers using the same razor and alum (styptic) on different customers. Theoretically, many US states in the early 20th century required barbers to keep equipment sterile after each use, but the means were not always clear. A 1917 law in Indianapolis, Indiana required the barber to sterilize equipment after each use by submersion in 5% carbolic acid for 10 minutes, or in boiling water for one minute, or in 65% alcohol. (This is presented as history, and not as a medical recommendation for present day practice). After people became aware that HIV could be transmitted by implements such as razors, in the 1980's, the barbershop straight razor's popularity declined. One book says that barbers then started autoclaving implements and using UV light for sterilization, but I doubt that the typical straight razor's fancy handle would survive autoclavings. "Milady's Standard Professional Barbering" (2010) has a chapter on the barbershop ofuse of the straight razor, and says it is preferred over safety razors for the barber's use giving someone a shave, but the section on sterilization appears to be among the pages not shown online. The book does show a section on disinfecting and sanitizing barber tools. The book says that modern barbershops sanitize by washing, and disinfect with chemicals which kill most pathogens, but which might leave some spores, and do not generally autoclave or bake to actually sterilize to surgical standards. Page 90 says that implements which "break the skin" or come into contact with body fluids do get sterilized or disposed of as nonreused sharps. This is provided as information and we make no recommendation of following the practices described. As for hypo needles, before the advent of plastic disposable syringes, they were certainly reused. A school immunization would have a tray of presumably autoclaved needles, used one per child, and replaced on the same reused syringe. A nurse who worked in the mid 20th century in the US said that for a mass immunization, as when there was an outbreak of some pathogen, that the same needles were likely reused for each patient, with an alcohol wipe in between, since the local doctor did not have thousands of needles. Certainly there is considerable risk in such a practice, as shown by HIV outbreaks in pediatric units of third world hospitals when hypos and other transcutaneous equipment were reused without proper sterilization. or when junkies shared needles.Edison (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User keeps posting on my talk page

The user who has posted questions about Law and Order has repeatedly asked me, on my talk page, to watch the episode and answer his questions. I will not do this, and have repeatedly told him so, but I'm beginning to feel a bit hassled. Is there a way I can block him from my talk page? I've had a look in the Help and Village Pump sections but to no avail. I don't want to stop his questions being answered in the proper place - which is not my talk page! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this guy is starting to get on my nerves as well. This morning he deleted a post of mine which was reminding him that the ref desk is not a discussion forum. I raised it on his talk page but I don't know if it will make any difference. --Viennese Waltz 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In that particular case I dunno if what he did was really that bad. I strongly dislike those who delete answers they regard as OT or which point out their questions are not suitable for the desk. But since he did actual delete his question which I agree was OT that's in some ways a better outcome even if it was meant taking out your response which was appropriate to that question. He replaced it with what is a loosely related question (although not the sort of 'asking the same question with different words' we sometimes get) but looks to me like a question that was perhaps marginal suitable for the desk (although I'm not a regular at WP:RD/E) even if something that it will be difficult for anyone to answer without having seen the movie (the did anyone see part in his replacement question can be read as a way of pointing out it's unlikely you can answer the question if you haven't see the movie). I believe RD/E has had problems before with people asking obscure questions about movies that even someone who's seen the movie may not remember. One in particular (not this one) already appears to know the answer. So perhaps questions like the one he replaced it with are not particular welcome either, particularly if they keep coming from the same person (and harassing people to answer them is of course completely unacceptable). But I guess what I'm saying is if he's willingly deleting his OT or unsuitable questions, that's at least some progress. Not posting anymore will of course be even better progress. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A very small suggestion: just ignore him. He'll probably go away once you stop responding. If he doesn't, it'll be clear how one-sided this is and it'll strengthen any requirements that he stop posting nonsense on your page. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean Archer123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Most likely the same guy, which I deduce from their style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the same guy.[36] Numerous blocks last year, including a 1-year block which just recently expired, hence the 1-year gap in editing. Somewhat of a pest, but mostly harmless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I told him to go find a TV/movie forum site, didn't answer his second question, and he stopped bugging me. Just don't make eye contact and he'll move on, at least to someone else. —Akrabbim^talk 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He stopped pestering me about a couple of films (War and Face/Off) when I told him I had no intention of watching them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Banned user

I just noticed that 99.88.78.94 was tagged as a suspected sock of a banned user. A cursory glance at the contributions confirms this for me, as they have the same TV/movie hyper-interests, and the same way of posting on user talk pages with "Message for xx" headings and all that. If this is true, then maybe we don't need to be dealing with all this at all. Any other thoughts? —Akrabbim^talk 12:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Close enough to Timmy Polo's editing pattern for me. Blocked indefinitely as a sock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget his IP, I noticed you only blocked Sean Archer. —Akrabbim^talk 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for a month on the 9th by another admin. We don't indefinitely block IPs, but if he goes back to editing under it when the block expires it'll be caught quickly enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This that the most recent block was from 9/9/2010 to 9/8/11? —Akrabbim^talk 13:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

~~It's actually until 8/9/11~~ (d'oh, regional differences), but I get your point. Hmmm... why is the contributions page still showing a "currently blocked" bar? I'm going to take that to ANI. For now, I'm going to leave the (apparently expired but still active) block settings as they are, but will obviously block again should the editor turn out to be able to edit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is strange. My popups don't indicate that they are blocked, and they have edited as recently as Sep 20. —Akrabbim^talk 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the pink bar,[37] and you're right about the last edit. He has not edited since his named account was blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On WP:ANI they are saying that if an editor is autoblocked, his most recent block entry will redisplay, and that it's worked that way for a long time. Whether that approach is a "bug" or a "feature" might be a matter of opinion. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Put me to work...

I'm trying to find somewhere on wikipedia where I can do some repetitive task that is easy to complete. I was working on old merger tags but that requires thought, so is there anything I can do which requires little to no amount of thought? JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Mindless repetitive work is usually done by bots. You can do it also if you really want to. Just pick something that is obviously wrong like replacing "alot" with "a lot" or replacing "also also" with "also". Google will allow you to quickly find articles containing errors. Just search for something like "alot site:en.wiki.x.io". -- kainaw ™ 18:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything in Category:Wikipedia backlog needs looking at, though much of those seem to require some thought to resolve. You might be able to find something in the Wikipedia:Database reports that suits your preference. There's no shortage of work to be done. Franamax (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in working on the sister site http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - typically category diffusion - there's tons to do their - suggest looking at your state/city/country/interst area. Possibly there is similar work in categories on wikipedia, but my experience is that there is less work to be found.

Or you could go through articles correcting wp:mos, tidying up references is another task bots don't yet do reliablly eg converting from:

[38]

to

Ruth Chambers; Gill Wakley (2002), "History of over the counter medicines", Obesity and Overweight Matters in Primary Care, Radcliffe Publishing, p. 101 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

....

There are some lists and links also at Wikipedia:To-do list. stub-sorting, disambiguation pages, translations etc etc..Imgaril (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:New pages patrol, including its sub-sections about things like image pages that are in a "hat" that you have to click 'show' to read. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Geography questions

Looking at the descriptions of categories on Wikipedia:Reference_desk I notice none of them mention geography. Since this is a fairly common topic, should it be added to the descriptions one of the categories? Humanities seems logical ("History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society") but I thought I'd check. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many geographical questions have nothing to do with human activities. So RD/M is the place for them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's of little consequence whether Geography questions get asked at Humanities or Miscellaneous. They'll get answered just the same. Even Science would be appropriate for questions regarding physical geography (being a subset of the Earth Sciences/Geology). Political geography (relating to borders, states, or administrative divisions) would work fine at Humanities, as would Human Geography (demographics, populations, etc.). Let people ask whatever question at whatever desk feels natural, and as long as it sorta fits, there's no need to micromanage whether a geography question ends up at Humanities or Miscellaneous. It just doesn't matter that much (if one ended up at Computing, we may want to move it elsewhere, but I rarely see someone get it THAT wrong...) --Jayron32 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would ask a question about digital maps at the Computing desk. Anyway, people mostly ask the question there where he can get better answers, and I don't think it's a huge problem. Quest09 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

people...he? --Belchman (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire point of a "Miscellaneous" category is that if you aren't sure of what category to use, you can put it there. Feel free to avail yourself of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Either that or to ask questions such as "Two homosexuals fondling each ohter". --Belchman (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a university

What was the first time we got one of those "questions" by people who think Wikipedia is a university? --Belchman (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What kind of question do you mean? Right now people seem to believe Wikipedia is a a forum for literate people. Wikiweek (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We get these bizarre questions periodically. --Belchman (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2006 an Egyptian IP user [39] asked "How can I study theoretical physics in one of the US universities?". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The question cited by Belchman is clearly out of place, but I don't see any problem with the question of the Egyptian IP, which could and indeed was answered. The latter was just asking for references. Wikiweek (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly out of place" may seem harshly stated because without some ignorance on the part of the questioner there would be no question. For this question three responders (ColinFine, Lesgles, Wavelength) both corrected the OP's ignorance of whether Wikipedia is a university and helpfully gave much more information. It was just one more job where we had the power to help someone in need. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a permanent link to that question.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the help desk, you see this all the time. Many people don't understand that they are looking at an encyclopedia. They go to Google and type in the name of some university. They click on the Wikipedia article. From there, they click on "Help" and assume that they are asking for help from the university. -- kainaw ™ 01:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a link on the front page to Wikiversity. Slightly further up the page is the reference desk link, which states that we "tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects". The Wikiversity site has a "colloquium" page and some help pages, but those might seem less inviting and more oriented towards technical questions (why isn't this user blocked, why aren't more pages in Arabic, etc.) that the ref desks. It's not easy to find out whether Wikiversity is a real university or not. There are far too many pages there which might seem to explain what the site is all about, but don't. For instance I just clicked Help->Wikiversity basic information->About Wikiversity ...er... ->Wikiversity Statistics (is the only option from there) and now I'm being offered links like "Animated growth of Wikiversity projects" and "Alexa traffic rank". Card Zero (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Archives: missing links

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives (permanent link here) is missing links to archives after July 2011.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The list has to be hand-edited -- I just now advanced it to September. Looie496 (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it possible and appropriate to add temporarily red links for 12 months at a time?

—Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheap shots by 88.8.79.204

I'm sick and tired of this user's anti-German problems [40]. I don't care if he was beaten by some German kids in school, or if some German guy owes him some money. I don't even care if his parent's family were murdered in the Holocaust. THIS place is no place for his poison (he should go to a bloody shrink with his anti-German problems, not to Wikipedia). He kind of reminds me of Cato the Elder with his hateful "Delenda Caratago"; this guy changed it into: "Delenda Germania". I'm hereby requesting that such useless posts be deleted with EXTREME prejudice. Screw this self-righteousness. Flamarande (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Which specific diff or diffs are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This one [41] and this one [42]. Let me point out that if this was any other nation many would have found this behaviour unacceptable already. Flamarande (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think he's expressing some widely-held sentiments/frustrations as regards the trial of this alleged former Nazi. I also don't think that "the Germans" refers to all Germans, merely the politicians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If he is frustrated with this particular case he is free to debate it in a forum outside Wikipedia. THIS isn't the proper place for his ravings. By the way, he uses the term 'Germany' and that clearly means the entire nation. Flamarande (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that he's gone a bit overboard, even if I share his view of that show-trial. He's interposing his opinion when he should be looking for reasoned citations. I dispute that he's smearing all Germans. He's saying "Germany" and "Germans" are doing this-or-that, the way someone might say the USA is doing this-or-that. For example, America killed Osama bin Laden. I'm American, and I didn't personally kill him, nor was I asked permission for someone else to do it. But it's still convenient to say "America did it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Flamarande, I have no comment on the IP's posts, which I haven't read, but I'm intrigued by your suggestion that the ref-desk has a specifically anti-german bias. ("...if this was any other nation...") Of all the nations in the world, why would we be specifically anti-German? APL (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Strawman. Flamarande made no such suggestion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Flamarande did say that "if this was any other nation many would have found this behaviour unacceptable." I sincerely also don't see that Germany is being bashed harder on the RD. Although it's difficult not to find any questions about Hitler/WWII on the RD, most contributions are objective comments. Regarding 88. I think that he could have avoided the word 'pathetic' when referring to these recent German trials of alleged formed Nazis, but definitely 88. didn't refer to the whole nation when he said "Germany." That's a common way of saying something. Quest09 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He certainly did. APL (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Most people would take it (Germany) as a reference to the state of Germany, not the people .. ditto ("America" vs the "Americans") Imgaril (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how 88.8's comments could mean all Germans, don't understand how Flamarande could mean "his poison", when he explicitly says "don't even care if his parent's family were murdered in the Holocaust", and don't think 88.8 " should go to a bloody shrink with his anti-German problems." since here is plenty of reason for disapproving those German trials. Wikiweek (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's soapboxing or soapboxy [43] (or at least 'off topic' enough not be be a valid response) - I actually share a similar viewpoint on the trial whilst generally liking German stuff in general. It's not a suitable comment for these pages whether you agree or not. Clearly this has hit a nerve with Flamarade, and we can all appreciate their objection, but I think they are over-reacting (objectively). I would recommend future posts like the one I linked to above result in a warning about soapboxing, potentially inflammatory statements, and sticking to fact based or referenceable statements in general, but no more. The editor's short edit history shows they are not using the page exclusively to push a point of view - and has answered sensibly to other questions - so I don't see any more issues.Imgaril (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the accused. So, here my couple of comments:

1. I admit

-that the discussions went off topic. However, if anyone cares to read the thread carefully, he'll see that the discussion went off topic not only due to my comments.

-I know that pathetic is no objective wording, even if it perfectly conceives the right idea. That's a bit overboard, right.

2. Flamarande, for me, gave examples of his sense of believing to be unfairly persecuted. However, there is no evidence of that on the RD and it's not my fault if he's pissed off when he read comments about Germany that do not match his 'views'. He certainly has a problem with taking part in an open discussion.

3. Flamarande's logic is flawed: he said I should bash my own country. He presupposes I was not already doing it, maybe my own country is Germany.

4. Flamarande has no idea what the Godwin's law is, although he linked to it in the discussion. It is not bashing Germany, it is not calling a part of it's society pathetic, not even calling them Nazis would qualify for that.

5. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a problem expressing his opinions on the RD and his political 'views': See here: [[44]] calling certain people 'scum' and that they should be ashamed of themselves. On the top of that he's given his opinion about the London riots. Apparently, freedom of speech only applies to him.

6. It's amazing that he speaks of 'poison' , 'cheap shots' and that others need a shrink. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That should be spelled "its society" (no apostrophe) but otherwise the above is all fair comment. Verdict: innocent. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless he actually meant to say "it is society" (and also "Godwin is law"). ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If we call it a day at this point it will have been a potentially valuable learning experience for all concerned, with no real lasting harm done. Unless I made a grammatical or spelling error in which case I'm dead meat.Imgaril (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's (with apostrophe) a day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoop's anal fascination deleted

Deleted vandalism. Honestly... We haven't blocked this idiot yet? -- kainaw ™ 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the vandal reverted the deletion and I had to remove it again. -- kainaw ™ 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can it be answered in a factual manner by providing a reference to a reliable source? Then it's fine in my book (a lot better than the "is there a god" crap on the Humanities desk right now). I would have thought the Pylorus or something would try to prevent it, but maybe it would give out before the intestine bursts. Anyway, personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia, and I strongly caution you for making comments or insinuations about another editor's mental health. Buddy431 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If this were a question from a new or infrequent user, I'd oppose the deletion, but Whoop_Whoop has been asking a rather large number of inane questions lately. Perhaps it could be politely explained to him that the reference desk isn't really for asking a large number of questions that just happened to pop into your head, and that he shouldn't overuse the resource. APL (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If the question had not been censored I would have directed the OP to the article Enema which gives information on effects of over-administration. The likely injury is rupture to the bowel or rectal tissues resulting in internal bleeding, leaving the individual exposed to infection from intestinal bacteria. For people known as Klismaphiliacs the censored question is relevant and serious. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And next time we are asked if Uranus smells bad, you can provide a good answer as well. There is absolutely nothing keeping you from answering on the user's talk page. -- kainaw ™ 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The extremes of pressure and temperature (see profile) in the atmosphere of Uranus far exceed the operational parameters of human olfactory sense, which would inhibit a real-time smell survey of the planet. I speculate that if an atmospheric sample were obtained by a probe and brought to normal pressure and temperature, the content of methane, ammonia, sulphides and trace hydrocarbons would give a smell similar to diesel engine exhaust but I cannot give a better answer than that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You could also just ignore questions that you don't like. --Belchman (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Uranus. Next question please. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think kainaw should be blocked for a few days so that he has time to think why arbitrary deletion based solely on personal taste and aggressive insults are frowned upon here in Wikipedia. --Belchman (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoop knows the score around here. That was not a serious question. Mingmingla (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is to Kainaw's credit that Kainaw retracted a comment on Whoop_whoop_pull_up's page about a hedgehog. However this subsequent post: "Either you agree that you that do comprehend the difference between a real question and vandalism and that you are not a user that I would classify as mentally retarded OR you agree that you do not comprehend the difference between a real question and vandalism and that you the type of user that I attacked by calling mentally retarded." strikes me as an abusive claim to have an alleged right to explicitly call an OP mentally retarded. We are not here to do that under any circumstances, nor is it our remit to out (make publically known) any closet-non-klismaphiliac. They must be allowed to keep their secret as long as they do not frighten the horses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What does Kainaw's criterion say about ref. deskers diagnosing mental disease? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

To call someone a "retard" is kind of uncivil and childish, but it's not a medical diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mental retardation (see reference) is defined as an axis II disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, I never claimed that Whoop was mentally retarded. I stated that if he was actually unable to tell the difference between a real question and vandalism because of a real problem, like mental retardation, then the people here on this discussion page could help. I understand that my comment has been translated as: Whoop is mentally retarded. -- kainaw ™ 13:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Even when we put aside the case of Whoop whoop pull up who may not appreciate the subtle logic of your charitable intention, we still have the problem that an editor "attacked by calling mentally retarded" (your words, yes?) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The user, who has been registered for a year or so, is basically doing a bad imitation of "Light current". In future he should resist lowering himself to that kind of thing. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is another example of "Wikiproject:Babysitter" - where we are supposed to put up with and pander to the slightest whim of immature (acting) editors. ie I mean "whoopwhoop". This isn't the purpose of wikipedia or these desks. I see that Kainaw has got fed up of it and breached wp:civil and lost his temper. There's an obvious explanation for this - the editor "whoopwhoop" is playing games and wasting peoples time. Can we have a rule or guideline that penalises that sort of behaviour too . Yes I see WP:AGF, I also see WP:DUCK too - I don't need a degree in sociology to spot very immature behaviour that is ultimately disruptive. Imgaril (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If a user's name does not violate WP:UN then it is courteous to cite them correctly, not least to user Whoop whoop pull up. If you seek a new system of penalties for OP's to the ref. desks then possible objections are 1) the ref. desks serve best as a low-threshold service to inexperienced users who shall be treated with tolerance as WP:NEWBIES, and 2) we all volunteer our time and so can't be forced to pander to the whim of an immature (acting) editor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain who you mean when you say "an immature (acting) editor", and why you link to that ref desk discussion from last year? Fram (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On checking I see that the link I gave goes to an archive page containing 6 questions but not (as intended) to a particular question that is shown after the "#" character in the URL. If you look at the URL you will see it should go to "1.2 Meta-question." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Link fixed for clarity. (But really, you haven't answered Fram's question.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my link. I gather the unusual punctuation stop at the end was the problem. I linked to the question because it touches on (literally, as toilet paper touches anus) the same subject as the censored question by Whoop whoop pull up, and as evidence for my claim that "we all volunteer our time and so can't be forced..." Including myself eight editors responded to that question and I am sure that none of us now complain we were "supposed to put up with and pander" with it in the way that Imgaril describes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So, in other words, I think what you're saying here is, "We answered Steve Baker's silly question without complaint back then; ergo, we must answer Whoop whoop pull up's question today." I'm not sure others will find this analogy as devastatingly convincing as you might hope. And I'm rather forcefully reminded of the language at WP:POINT, which instructs us that Wikipedia will never be perfectly consistent, and that one rarely gets far in trying to excuse or condone bad behavior today by pointing at some allegedly similar, allegedly bad behavior which someone allegedly "got away with" in the past. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that he gave just one example, I think his point isn't "We answered a silly question in the past -> silly questions should be answered" but "We regularly answer silly questions; there's nothing wrong with this one". The "two homosexuals fondling each other" question and the ones about pissing/jerking off come to mind. --Belchman (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate question or not?

Was this deletion justified? The question might have seemed like a rant, but it is also a legitimate question. A lot of people don't understand why hypersexualization occurs in some media. If they want to do something about it, like organize a boycott of advertisers, they have to understand what's going on. I propose that the question be restored. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What "question" would that be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Why is "Univision" always use "All" their women with the breasts protuding?" Maybe the question is based on false premises, I have no idea (well I have a tiny inkling that it is not, after performing some research), but, anyway, that's what the question would be. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If the question survives, the OP's apparent assumption that a lady who has large breasts, or appears thanks to the skill of her couturier (read: padded bra) to have been so blessed by the Hand of an Almighty whose selective generosity in this matter is a doubly uplifting miracle, may reasonably be thought to be a "tramp" should not be left unquestioned. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A question that starts "Why does/is such-and-such always..." strikes me as an inherently false-premise question, unless the OP or someone can present some evidence that it is literally "always" or at least "most of the time". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you take a glance at Spanish-language American TV channels, the blatancy of sexism might surprise you -- so there is some reason behind the question. But it really was less a question than an excuse for a rant, and there is no useful response that can be given, so I'm happy with the removal. Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the responses, if it was intended as a subtle advertisement for Univision, it worked! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A problem is that the person asking the question provides no apparent follow-up. I'm assuming this is the only IP address under which that individual posted, but I could be mistaken. I think there is enough unclarity expressed by the respondents that a follow-up post was clearly in order. Without clarification from the person posing the question, any subsequent responses tend to deteriorate into speculation on potentially unrelated issues. But those breasts were really interesting that I located on a Google search on the topic. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" --Belchman (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Awk! Polly want a cracker! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but it's not relevant to whether the question is legitimate. Do you deny that the questioner was trying to understand why the phenomenon occurs? 69.171.160.199 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the questioner was trying to understand. Maybe you could ask him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I restored the question without any of the irrelevant commentary from the questioner or others. Now might be a good time to remind people of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. Missing the question is an excuse for removing it, but not a legitimate reason for removal. 69.171.160.131 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The commentary was every bit as relevant as the so-called "question" was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Question deleted

I noticed that my question about what still makes America the greatest country on earth has been deleted. It was a sincere question based on research and observation, but you all know what's best. If my question has offended anyone in the Wikipedia community, I apologize. Willminator (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like this trend. If whoever deleted the question thought its assumptions were flawed, it would have been better to have said so than to have violated the guidelines. 69.171.160.131 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the question's removal, and I don't like this trend either. Even the most opinionated questions, and even those questions clearly seeking opinions can be addressed with notable references, as has been discussed and demonstrated many times on this talk page and at the desks themselves. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a separate desk is needed to handle questions like this, which are essentially invitations to debate rather than factual questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a desk designed for those questions right here. -- kainaw ™ 12:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Should that perhaps be the standard response to these types of questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As if we needed an invitation to debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It won't matter much. It is still September. It is almost October. By November, the new kids who show up every fall and try to the Reference Desk into Yahoo Answers will be interested in other things and all will go back to normal. -- kainaw ™ 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear we may never see October again. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is better, that we all remove questions we believe are illegitimate without discussion or the required notices, or that we all follow the guidelines and explain to the questioner why we believe their question is inappropriate? Is anyone smart enough to always agree with your personal judgement about whether a question is legitimate? That's why the guidelines say what they do. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard guideline is to remove the question first, post a notice here, and then have it reinstated if the consensus is that it shouldn't be removed. Of course, that is all pointless because there a handful of vocal users who oppose absolutely all deletions - even if the person posting the "question" states that he did it strictly as vandalism because he hates Wikipedia. Then, there are vocal users who want every question to be a clear request for resources and nothing else. Because these two extremes will never come to agreement on anything, there is no consensus about what should or should not be allowed. -- kainaw ™ 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"In general, you should leave a note on the Reference desk page explaining your edit and the reason behind it." -- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already apologized for asking that question in case I may have broken some rule, because my question may have been interpreted the wrong way, and because I see that I may have offended some people here. I wasn’t looking to start a debate. That was never my intention. The intention of my question was to ask why people here in the U.S where I am and, even many people overseas, still consider America to be the greatest, or should I say the best, country in the face of the earth when we as a country are starting to lag behind on many things where we used to be number 1. My personal opinion as someone born in the U.S is that America is still the greatest country on earth, but now I wanted to know why the U.S still has that title because that title is becoming harder and harder to defend. I just wanted answers. People overseas have the impression that the U.S has the longest, largest, highest, and best stuff in the world because they’ve heard so many times that the U.S is the greatest country on earth. I’ve been overseas long enough and enough times to know this. Again, I apologize for asking that question. You did what you thought was the best thing to do. Willminator (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your detailed explanation is a much more acceptable question, although the US-bashing nonsense posted below ain't much of an answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How was the original deleted question inferior? It had the same explanations. What do you think the answer is? 69.171.160.237 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question and I wish you would replace it. The answer involves cultural imperialism, and foreign jingoism-like psychology. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The way the question was framed made it potentially a very provocative one. A better wording would have been....

Why is America still claimed by some (maybe many) Americans to be the "greatest country on earth? (Or something along those lines.)

Obviously a lot of people around the world, perhaps even some Americans, were going to feel challenged by what could have seemed on the surface to be a silly, arrogant assumption behind the question. The original explanation that followed was good, but by that time too many readers will have been provoked. As already said above, it's a topic worth discussing. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try again tomorrow. Willminator (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was able to try again. It is quite long this time, but it was actually longer when I wrote it down in Word, and I did my best to shorten it. How does it look now? Let me know what you all think. Willminator (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave the question a try as I've been told to do. Give me some feedback. How did I do? The answers have been very helpful and informative so far by the way. I simply asked out of curiosity, and out of concern for my country. Some of us Americans like to beat the world in every accomplishment and feat so that we could feel proud and good about ourselves. Since the U.S is my home country, I instinctly like to see people overseas getting wowed about the accomplishments and feats about my country. Willminator (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself how you would feel if another country's citizens made such a conspicuous deal about it as yours do. Most people understand that if, largely as a result of natural resources, you have enough money to throw at a given field, you will likely excel in it: this does not seem to many people to be grounds for immoderate boasting. It makes you seem immature, insecure and irritating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.66.70 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that America was lagging behind in the world in more things than it used to where America was number 1 in them. I’ve seen how some poor people react only about America overseas. The well-known title claimed by some about America being the greatest country on earth seemed to be harder to defend. So, both out of concern and curiosity, I asked my question, and the answers that came thereafter were insightful, informative, and helpful. I know understand how my concerns have been misplaced. It was a legitimate question as some have said here. I'm not looking to start a debate here. Forgive me if I gave you the false impression that I'm arrogant and I apologize for making you seem that I’m immature, insecure, and irritating. Willminator (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for carelessly giving the impression that I meant you personally; I was using "you" (after my first sentence above) in the sense of Americans perceived as a whole, and of course broad-brush perceptions do not necessary apply to any given individual: I should have been less ambiguous. As an active SF fan I have made the acquaintance of many US authors and readers who, being an atypical selection who are arguably more educated and internationally oriented than the average, do not fall for the shallow-minded and ultimately meaningless shibboleth of a country being some undefined general "greatest." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you seem more literate then most 49ers fans I know. Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)