Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 125

Getting the Nazi troll to go away forever
Has anyone figured other effective ways to get him/her to walk away from the refdesks forever without having to semiprotect?71.231.237.213 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * His IP addresses are all over the place, so range blocks won't work. The only possibilities at this point are for someone to come up with an edit filter that keeps him away (although I'm not sure this can be done without false positives), or hope the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department gets motivated to send him a cease-and-desist letter, followed by legal action. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's to be hoped that they won't have to resort to "taking him for a ride." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

But how can they possibly find out where to send him such a letter, given that the troll may be using open proxies?71.231.237.213 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason they haven't found you yet is that you don't matter enough to go to the trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea of trolling the ref desks is to fundamentally undermine the very purpose of them, and any troll, not just the Nazi one, does a good job of this if they get admins to semi-protect the desks. In doing so, the fundamental principle of the Ref Desk is destroyed, and it's left to the regulars to talk amongst themselves.  It's very sad that such a potentially helpful resource is continually repressed from the millions of visitors Wikipedia experiences every day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we could let the Nazi troll's comments stand. Would that be better? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be better would be consequent removal of the really in-your-face obvious, and ignoring (as in not responding to) semi-obvious trollfoolery. Semi-protection, in any case, shuts out a large number of querents and volunteers, and I agree with The Rambling Man: That's not desirable at all. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That removal is what's being done now, and as they continue the revert war through an endless series of IP's, an admin will impose a short-term semi-protection. If either of you have a way to get around that, let's hear it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, and I as well as numerous other regs and non-regs try to revert the dull and stolid onslaught (no beans to be spilled here for other types of instances where things may get a bit more complex). Like most semi-protections conducted by informed admins, Bishonen's most recent one of the Humanities desk (thanks to the mentioned dullard) lasted six hours and has expired now. Let's just keep reverting and/or ignoring. I don't think the cease-and-desist thingy is gonna happen. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We need to stop locking the page whenever he shows up. That's just giving him what he wants.  Revert and REVDEL his posts.  If you do that, he can't just revert back to the previous post.  I've stopped him as early as the first post doing this -- it works.  He's said that he gets off on the page being locked.  Does it make sense to keep feeding the troll in a way that prevents far more users from using the site, or to do something that immediately stops his attacks and discourages future ones?  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, of course I agree. So, give all the good-faith reference desk volunteers who watch the pages the ability to revdel :-). In all seriousness: The admins who help maintain this desk should feel free to revdel this kind of crap in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The one good thing is that the troll has made himself ever more visible, and hence his garbage gets ever more quick attention. And I concur that your revdel is better than simply reverting. The one thing you can't do, though, is stop him from getting a new IP and keeping his game going. So there's a place for at least a short-term semi, to put the brakes on the cycle for a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He only changes IPs whenever one of them is blocked. When his edits are revdelled, he goes away for several hours or even days as if the page was protected.  Check about ten hours before the last attack -- one IP address that stopped as soon as I came in and revdelled everything (leaving him unable to just hit "undo").  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as someone such as yourself is on the alert, that approach can work. If not, then we have a dilemma, because the "ignore it" idea fails: his Nazi garbage must not be allowed to stand unchallenged, whether there is an admin handy or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can undo/rollback the edits made by this individual, it doesn't need an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And if someone's around to lock the page, someone's around to revdel. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That depends. If it's posted on AIV, they might block the IP but not do the rev-del. As for simply reverting... well, experience shows that that generally doesn't work. As soon as you revert, he reverts back. And so on and so on... until he's blocked and the page is protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to stop locking the page whenever he shows up. - Yes, thanks. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to monitor the ref desks and revert him when he shows up? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not helpful, not constructive, red herring rhetoric. But yes, I do revert the Nazi troll when I see him, and have done so recently. I cannot revdel.SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverting when you can, is helpful. Your "stop locking the page" rhetoric is not helpful and not constructive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "I'm rubber you're glue", or "I know you are but what am I" -- looks like you've taken a page from the petty schoolboy's book of debate, so I'll reply in kind. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You got me there. I thought your "stop locking the page" comment was supposed to be serious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously it was. Which is why for you to dismiss it as "not helpful" (or, earlier, with the orthogonal and somewhat accusatory "Do you intend to") is not helpful and not constructive. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * His "do nothing" attitude is not helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. Repeated and ongoing confrontational language directed at experienced editors is worse than not helpful, in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it helpful to advocate doing nothing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of tone, which has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion. There are far better ways to disagree with someone. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What tone would YOU take with someone who's advocating doing nothing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, SM didn't advocate doing nothing, they agreed with a prior comment that we should "stop locking the page whenever he shows up". "Doing nothing" is your spin and misinterpretation of his comment, a classic straw man. Repeated straw men is an indicator that one is not really listening to what is being said, or doesn't really care what is being said. That is what is not constructive, in any discussion about anything. To respond more directly to your question, I would try to change my (apparent) view of other experienced editors as idiots who don't really understand the situation like I do, in my inifinite wisdom. See Humility. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hamstringing admins from using their best judgment is not a good approach. As for humility, I'm a lot dumber than you are, so my humility level is good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bugs, nobody is advocating doing nothing. Misrepresenting other participants in the debate is not constructive, either.
 * Whether to lock the page or not, or use other measures, are legitimate topics for debate, and there are legitimate differences of opinion. You don't get to dismiss those with legitimately held contrary opinions as obviously wrong. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, and it's already been debated countless times. The one new idea here is the rev-del, which is a good one as it denies the troll's "legacy" in the ref desk history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the issue of an edit filter, it's been done in the past with some vandals (most recently with the one who kept wanting to dox a particular actress). It can work well if the vandal is very specific in their attack and/or very automated.  My impression has been that this particular troll tends to vary their message a lot over time which makes it difficult to target.  I don't think we want to prohibit all references to Nazis, Hitler, Jews, etc.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We tried several different edit filters with this guy. It worked for about 3 seconds, then he found ways around it. Special:AbuseFilter/764 and Special:AbuseFilter/731 were two that were tried several months back.  The edit filter only works in blocking specific patterns of text; it's quite easy to dodge.  -- Jayron 32 23:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not meaning to be blunt, but does the troll ever get laid? Maybe what he needs is to find himself a girlfriend. It's certainly more pleasurable and exciting than trying to troll the Refdesk.Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure we should be encouraging Nazis to potentially reproduce. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if he were, it would still leave him with 23 hours and 59 minutes each day to troll us. Unlikely to create a major diversion from his daily activities.  -- Jayron 32 18:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't assume that everybody likes getting laid as much as we do. He might actually get sexual gratification from trolling (trolling fetish). Humans are strange beings. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No-one else seems to have noticed, or at least mentioned, that I reverted him seven times in the space of four minutes yesterday morning on Humanities. --Viennese Waltz 07:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bravo. Keep in mind that this thread here was likely started by the same guy. It should be boxed up except that it raised the good idea of revdeling the troll, which is worth implementing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from being a potential policy breach, revision deletion is not particularly effective.  Looking at the Humanities log, revision deletion was applied at 06:42 on 10 October but was reapplied just two days later.   Dragons Flight has introduced a new filter this morning which is set to "throttle".   This presumably means that if the troll makes the same comment too many times he gets stamped on.
 * Why not add "white noise" to make the message unreadable?  The following is a typical troll post to which additional letters were added:

Wpheys dto JBrexwitsh bjaudnkiecrs daelny trhee hvolioheciawgu

This is going to annoy him more than he annoys us. 79.73.133.142 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Disemvowelling is a similar technique that has been efficacious on other platforms. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Checking Revision deletion, most if not all of what the Nazi troll posts qualifies on several points. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't actually work. He used to repeated hammer the boards under different IPs by reverting our reverts of his posts, rapidly.  That's what causes the lockdowns every time, FWIW, it's that the boards become unusable as he edit wars with users rapidly to force his abuse to remain.  So, since he was just reverting under new proxies every few seconds (which is why blocks were ineffective), we tried to RevDel him right away so he has nothing to revert to.  It didn't work.  Within a few days, he figured out he could just copy his post to his personal clipboard and paste it in a new post.  We can't use RevDel to stop ctrl-C and ctrl-V, so we're right back where we started; RevDel doesn't actually stop the disruption.  Just like the edit filters.  Just like blocking the IPs.  We're open to suggestions, but know that so far every single thing people have suggested has been tried multiple times in the past, and he knows how to get around them.  We're open to new ideas.  Not just "Hey, have you tried reverting him"... No shit, sherlocks.  We're not locking down the desks because we like to.  We're doing it because we tried everything else except that.  If you have something we've not done, that you think will be effective, tell us and we'll try it.  -- Jayron 32 18:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So it still comes back to short-term semi-protection as the optimal solution to a revert war with the troll. A less mass-punishment solution would be to require registration, but the folks who own Wikipedia don't want to do that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Requiring registration could easily be done with an edit filter, however, since this user has previously created hundreds of accounts it would be less than helpful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of registered accounts? Can that be accomplished via some automated process (if so, don't say how to do it), or is it still a manual process? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say it's not automated. However it takes no time at all to register an account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Registration doesn't really stop anything.  It takes seconds to create an account, and in an hour or so a person can create dozens of accounts and store them for later disruption.  If anything, having a registered account makes it harder for admins to do their work because no one can geolocate or WHOIS a username, or do proxy searches on one.  Only a checkuser could do that.  Forcing people to register doesn't make it any easier to stop disruption, it actually makes it harder.  -- Jayron 32 11:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been over 9 years since I registered my account, and I thought it had taken more than seconds to do that work. So we're still back to semi-protection. How about this: By now, we know what he's going to ask. What if we had a set of stock answers ready to post? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of "Your question contains one or more false assumptions and/or faulty logic, so cannot be addressed."? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "No, the next race war will be Jews and Blacks and "Aryans" and Aborigines vs the Minbari Star Empire and Cardassian Star Empire vs the Borg and zombies and robot ninjas vs the redneck microlizard Confederacy (capital: Atlanta). The other races will already be killed by a germ from a third world country that the first world didn't care enough to nip in the bud. The world will be 1% "Aryans". This is as certain as the sun rising." Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We have never been able to get the refdesk regulars to agree on any course of action, ever, so why are we still proposing courses of action and asking them to agree on them? Why would anyone imagine that the result will be different this time? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true (see, we can't even agree on that ;-). It just takes time and nerves (1, 2, 3, 4, ...) ---Sluzzelin talk  16:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not that we can't get agreement on a course of action. We have actual widespread agreement on a literally impossible set of conditions.  Almost unanimously, everyone claims to want the following two results:
 * We don't want trolls to be able to post here, because fuck them.
 * We don't want to ever semi-protect the desk, because there are lots of good-faith users or occasional guests who don't have registered accounts.
 * That's literally impossible to satisfy both those conditions. Like can't be done.  People don't want to believe that it is impossible.  But people also believe in fairies and ghosts and a viable U.S. third party.  Belief in impossible things doesn't make them possible because we scream that we want them.  -- Jayron 32 16:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's true that I used to entertain the second stance (well I still don't want the desks semi-protected ever), but I (and from what I can tell others) have come to accept that there are now people who like to spend hours, without pause, each day, trying to post stuff they know will be removed (it wasn't always quite like this), and thus I have come to accept semi-protection for as short a time as possible (or as long as absolutely necessary).
 * Similarly, for a while, there were admins who semi-protected the desks for days, sometimes even over a week, but here too something has changed, the semi-protections have been reduced to a few hours, and current consensus and practice among those admins who take care of business here seem to be much closer to my current stance.
 * In other words, I think there is also convergence and agreement, not just contradiction and disagreement. And even if we haven't reached actual "consensus" (as often on Wikipedia, not just here), I think it's a good thing to exchange information (a lot of things mentioned in this thread were unknown to me) and opinions on this talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk  17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have always strongly disagreed with "we don't want trolls to be able to post here" for the exact reasons you detail above. What I would like to see (and cannot get agreement on) is that nobody responds other than reporting it at ANI, and letting the admins do their "delete, revdel, protect for a few hours" job. Responding in any way feeds the troll and results in increased trolling. Alas, getting everyone to stop responding is like herding cats. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reporting it to AIV is a less troll-feeding path than ANI, and it has the same effect as an admin happening to notice it and then blocking the troll. And then like you said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not "not responding" that matters. The current consensus on our current two trolls (The Nazi and Vote X) is Damnatio memoriae.  That is, the current consensus (based more on practice than discussion) is when he shows up, we remove the post immediately.  That's not a response.  The "locking down" comes from the need to enforce the removal.  I'm not saying that instant removal is the wrong thing to do (and saying that, I'm also not saying that it is the right thing to do).  I'm merely pointing out that's the expected practice.  So, how do we prevent them from reposting their shit if we don't lock the desks down?  I'm not opposed to opening up discussion as to changing the consensus response from "remove forever" to "leave alone, refuse to respond, and just leave it there impotent and ignored".  Also saying that I'm not opposed to opening up such a discussion doesn't mean I support such a response, and also saying that doesn't mean I oppose it.  I'm just noting the existence of alternate ways forward we have never yet tried.  For the Nazi, it would be an easy method of dealing with it.  After all, his only disruption ever is the repeated attempt to reinstate his bigotry.  If we never deleted his bigotry in the first place (and also never hatted, boxed up, or responded to it in any way)  it would just sit there ignored and he would go away.  Vote (X), whose participation at Wikipedia is a very different thing, wouldn't be affected by that.  Vote (X)'s WP:DUCK tells are less obvious than the Nazi, and their behavior is the sort that isn't easy for most to identify, so much so that it actually isn't (for those that don't recognize the tells) possible at first glance to recognize them, so people don't know they are engaging the troll.  That's the full reading of the situation as I can see it.  Your solution of "ignore and they'll go away" is easy enough for the Nazi (excepting that his posts are baldly disgusting and offensive, and so demand removal), but almost impossible for Vote (X) (whose posts are mostly innocuous, so aren't offensive to anyone).  -- Jayron 32 17:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * VoteX isn't harmful or offensive, and not a even a canonical troll in my opinion, at least based on the past several voteX removals. Rather, it seems to me that we have a bunch of registered good-faith users who appear to enjoy chasing her around, deleting completely innocuous posts because they can. It really looks like a useless silly two-way vendetta to me. I'm sure there's several things I'm missing, so if anyone wants to edify me, feel free to do so at my talk page, rather than further derail this convoluted discussion. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he/she IS offensive: He/she is a banned user, and banned users are not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged quality of the edits. If the user truly wanted to edit here, they could apply for reinstatement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thing is, this attitude (as much as Wikipedia's anyone-may-edit policy) guarantees that trolling will always be a problem, because you refuse to allow yourself the option of ignoring the violation, even though (in this case, not in all cases) doing so might result in less disruption overall than the rabid knee-jerk reverting and page protecting is guaranteed to. You persistently allow the troll to force you to disrupt things by reverting him.
 * Yes, I know, you're about to repeat for the umpteenth time, "banned users are not allowed to edit". Well, guess what. Law-abiding citizens are not allowed to jaywalk. People in many states are not allowed to smoke pot. Those under the age of 21 are not allowed to drink alcohol.  And yet. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Around here sprinting to beat the light then slowing to 3mph to block the outer lane cause you're lazy is a way of life. You're entitled to 1 second of traffic blocking jaywalking per 3 cubits of lead car width. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying that I personally support this counterargument, but there is a fair counterargument to be made regarding fairness and justice. Individual editors acting alone in some narrow corner of Wikipedia like the reference desks are not empowered to overturn the justly enacted decisions of the community.  There are thousands of banned people at Wikipedia.  Why does one ban get to be ignored because the ban inconveniences us?  Why can't every user argue "I was being good this one time, so that one thing should stand."  I should note that every banned editor could be unbanned whenever they wanted to WP:SO is usually followed universally and without question so long as the banned editor follows the guidance in earnest: stay away for a long enough time, make a clear statement that they know what they did wrong and what they would do differently if unbanned, and like magic, they are unbanned.  Every time.  Without fail, it would happen.  Editors who sincerely wish to be unbanned have an easy, unobstructed path to do so.  If vote (X) wished to be unbanned, they would have already done so already.  They prefer to test the ban by refusing to abide by it, and simply ignore it.  Why is that to be allowed?  Your notes that laws are broken elsewhere is a red herring entirely: If someone is taken to court for smoking pot in a state where it is illegal, they don't get to say "Someone else broke a law once, and didn't get caught."  Any judge would laugh such a defense out of the court.  If Vote (X) is identified, their ban is enforced because they have been caught.  If we don't enforce bans, what's the point of banning anyone ever?  Why not just let anyone do whatever they want at Wikipedia and never block anyone ever?  If we have reasons to ban people, then we need to be consistent.  It isn't fair to decide to stop enforcing a community decision merely because it's inconvenient to do so.  We don't free justly convicted criminals merely because it's expensive or inconvenient to jail them.  Banned editors aren't allowed to roam freely merely because they make it hard to keep them away.  I'm not saying we shouldn't overturn or modify Vote (X)'s ban to allow them to post here.  But there is a proper way for us to do so, it would involve starting a discussion at ANI and asking the community to support our proposal to do so.  I'm not saying I'd oppose such an effort.  But just allowing Vote (X) to violate their ban only because they are persistent is the wrong way to go about it.  Justly convicted criminals don't get their sentences overturned merely because they keep trying to escape, do they?  Insofar as the ban does exist, I'm not important enough to decide my own laziness is a reason to not enforce it.  If we want, let's get it overturned.  -- Jayron 32 03:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong, either, but let me clarify one thing. Did you just say that if banned user X posts, and I fail to revert it, I have violated policy?  Does it matter if I saw the post or not?  Does it matter if I knew the user was banned or not?  And even if I saw the post, and knew that the user was banned, can you prove I did? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and you, I, nor anyone else is never obligated to take any positive action at all.  Your free to not see it, or even ignore it, in the EXACT same way that you're free to miss (or not fix) a spelling error in an article.  However, that's different than saying that you complain when someone else fixes that spelling error.  -- Jayron 32 04:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't object to truly brief semi-protection, applied only after other methods have failed. I also don't have any problem with simply ignoring the silly "joos" posts. You're right that we can't satisfy both conditions. I'm of the school of thought that the troll likes the battle and contest more than the actual promoting of anti-Semitism. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with not responding is that they will end up enshrined in the archives. Could the archiving bot be modified to detect that junk and weed it out just before the archive occurs? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless a post is "rev-del"ed, it's permanently enshrined in the history of whichever page its added to, whether it's a nazi troll post or an unreferenced misguided response to a ref desk question. Thats Creative Commons.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Bugs, the fact that you and and a few others see problems with not responding is a major component of our problem.


 * What part of "editors don't respond other than reporting at ANI, admin deletes, admin revdels, admin semi-protects for a few hours" are you having trouble understanding? See WP:REVDEL for an explanation as to why the trolling cannot end up in the archives.


 * If only we could get certain editors (you know who you are) to not respond and report trolling to ANI, the problem would be solved just as it has been solved using the same method in a thousand other places. Wikipedia has the tools and personnel to deal with trolls. We (not all of us but some of us) simply refuse to do our part and allow them to work.


 * These methods work elsewhere on the encyclopedia. The only reason they don't work here is because certain individuals absolutely refuse to stop responding. And they will not allow even a limited-time experiment to prove that not feeding the trolls works.


 * We don't have a troll problem. We have a troll feeding problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverting the troll also feeds the troll. Taking the troll to ANI feeds the troll more than taking the troll to AIV. And this entire section (started by a one-shot IP, if you'll notice) is also feeding the troll. But it can still be a useful discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If, as you claim, report -> delete -> revdel -> semi (Which I will from now on call "RDRS" because I am tired of typing it) will not work (and noting that it has never been tried on the refdesks), how then do you explain the fact that it works just fine everywhere else on Wikipedia? Or that basically similar policies work on thousands of sites on the Internet? And more to the point, why can't we try it for a few weeks to see if it works? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't claim that at all. Furthermore, it's already being done frequently. But the reporting should be to AIV, not ANI, because ANI just gives that bozo a platform. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am agnostic regarding ANI vs, AIV. Whatever gets us an admin who will do the RDRS is fine. Regarding your claim that "it's already being done frequently", could you give us the starting and ending times for a period during which you believe that nobody on the refdesks responded to trolls in any way? Other than admins deleting and revdeling, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you've lost me. If you're talking about a uniform approach, no - it's case-by-case. Often the troll's junk is reverted as-is, sometimes it's rev-del'd (for unknown reasons, since we mere mortals can't read it), and the IP or redlink is blocked as part of that process. If the behavior persists from other IP's, the page might be protected. Sometimes it's not reported simply because a watchful admin has already taken care of it. Sometimes it's reported to AIV and swift action is taken. And sometimes someone responds to the troll's junk, while many times no one does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the revdelled comments seem obviously revdellable like the alleged address and phone number of a woman in plaintext and supposedly ROT13 or base64 (a public figure or not? IDK I didn't snoop) or like a megabyte that's allegedly the text of a copyright book in those formats. I think some of the others were by people of the school of thought that any Nazi troll posts should be revdelled. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that not responding to trolls in any way has never been tried and that every proposal to try not responding to trolls in any way as a limited-time experiment has resulted in a few vocal participants vowing that they will never stop responding to trolls, even for a week or two. Thus our troll problem is [A] unsolvable, and [B] the direct result of the actions of a few troll-feeding individuals. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A potentially resolvable question
Although I don't have any hope of our reaching consensus on the wider issue, can I try and get some guidance on one specific point, which I've been getting conflicting messages on? If a banned user's posts have good-faith replies, should the person who deletes the original posting also delete the replies? Tevildo (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends; if the replies are singularly to the banned user, and if the replies become entirely nonsensical and unrelated to the rest of the discussion once the banned users contributions have been removed, there is nothing to be gained by leaving them in. If the replies are only partial or general, or add to the general discussion rather than solely to the specific comment made by the banned user, then leave them.  So it depends on context. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Banned users are not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged quality of their edits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for restoring posts from a banned editor to my own talk page. Go with caution.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You were also unblocked 27 minutes later, and no one really supported the blocking admin. So, to act as though the system let you down because an admin once overstepped their bounds one time is pretty extreme.  Wikipedia is a big place, and sometimes people fuck up once in a while.  That you should not have been blocked for those 27 minutes can both be true, and also doesn't mean we don't enforce the banning policy.  there are no greater principles at play in your situation than "An admin fucked something up one time" and there are no warnings to be given about general caution here, unless you want people to feel sorry for those 27 minutes you lost.  Boo fucking hoo.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty extreme. You should have some flexibility in managing your own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if it's a banned user, even operating from random IPs, even if you've never spent your life stalking them. You still get blocked.  So be cautious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the admin wasn't wrong. But some discretion would have been better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just telling you what happened, to help others from preventing it happening to them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Fortunately (if that's the word), the troll who's been after me for at least 7 years seldom posts to my talk page. Usually it's elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"His Nazi garbage must not be allowed to stand unchallenged"
This isn't just feeding the troll. It is feeding the troll lobster tails slowly poached in butter, herb-crusted rack of lamb with rosemary roasted potatoes and a side dish of golden imperial osetra caviar, all topped off with a glass of 1998 veuve clicquot la grande dame Champagne.

Until certain editors realize that they created the trolling problem by feeding the trolls, the trolling problem will never be solved. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think his Nazi garbage SHOULD stand unchallenged? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * YES. And, by the way, pretty much everyone who has any experience dealing with trolls anywhere agrees with me. Just do a google search on "feed the trolls". You, Bugs, are a major cause of our trolling problem. You encourage trolling with your "challenging the trolls". You refuse to listen no matter how many people tell you that what you are doing is exactly what they like. You refuse to listen no matter how many people tell you that feeding the trolls results in increased trolling. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just leave it till the day before it's due to be archived then zap it? 92.24.110.90 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was allowed to stand, received no answers, and then got archived without incident, would the troll find that fun? Would he keep doing it it nobody reacted? Trolls feed on reactions, even meta reactions like people removing it and protecting the page. Trolling continues for as long as folks react to it, and it stops when nobody reacts because the troll moves on to greener, more reactionary pastures. I'm sure you'll just reply with "So it really should be allowed to stand???????" to avoid addressing the point, or call attention to my edit history to derail the discussion entirely. That's your modus operandi and from reading the reference desks over the years I have come to the conclusion that you yourself are a troll. 185.29.224.251 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been a pest since at least 2009. Big deal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A Restatement of the Issue
User:Guy Macon – You ask why Report Delete Revdel Semi isn’t tried here, although it works everywhere else in Wikipedia. I basically agree, and think that is the appropriate answer, but will explain again why some editors disagree. The sticking point is Semi. As I have said previously, there is a school of thought concerning the Reference Desks, which I call idealists, that the Reference Desks are special and that their purpose is outreach to the population of unregistered editors who must be allowed not only to read but to write. Everywhere else, we agree that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be read, both by registered and by unregistered editors, and that a secondary purpose is to improve the readable content, which involves the ability of editors to write. Therefore everywhere else, we agree that semi-protection is a small price to pay to stop trolling. However, on the Reference Desks, some editors consider semi-protection to be wrong’ a violation of the special mission of outreach to unregistered editors who wish to post questions. The idea that the Reference Desks should never be semi-protected prevents solving the problem, and the idea that semi-protection of the Reference Desks should be complained about encourages complaining about semi-protection, which is a form of troll-feeding. User:Guy Macon – You asked why RDRS isn’t tried here. The answer because idealists consider Semi-Protection, which is part of the formula, to be wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the comment that reporting the troll to ANI is a bad idea, but that is because trolls should be reported to AIV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Take it to ANI, and the first thing they'll say is, "You should have taken this to AIV." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Medical advice
- A discussion about my recent removal (diff) of a question which I interpreted as a request for medical advice (indeed, the OP is explicitly asking for a diagnosis and a treatment recommendation) seems indicated. Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SemanticMantis' comments from my talk page:

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> Hi Tevildo, Regarding this removal: is there a reason why you are acting against our published guidelines? They clearly state:

Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions. The purpose is to minimise disruption: editors disagree over whether a question is seeking medical advice, and removing the whole question is discouraging for new contributors. Therefore, most of the time, the responsibility lies with responders not to give medical advice, regardless of the question.

emphasis mine.

Is this you being WP:BOLD and applying WP:NORULES? I'm curious, because I have repeatedly pointed out on the talk page that we are encouraged to remove responses that give medical advice, rather than censor questions. I was tempted to revert your removal, but decided to ask about it instead. In my opinion there are many scholary references we could point the OP to, without giving any sort of medical advice, even broadly construed. I think ToE and User:Wnt's responses were perfectly professional and well within our scope. If you feel this needs more input, feel free to copy over to the talk page. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since my response (a mention of our no medical advice rule and a link to our article on the subject the OP brought up) was part of what was removed, I though I should chime in here to say that I have no dog in this race. Best of luck to those who are working to develop a consensus policy on handling these questions. Cheers! -- ToE 19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth pinging User:Bruce Washington as he was the one most affected by this action. I think that when there are nutritional issues that anyone concerned about graying hair can look at, it isn't an individualized diagnosis or treatment.  Oddly enough, I was just thinking of trying to harvest and cook some he shou wu myself (though with a certain degree of Japanese polygonum hybridization, I think); in the odd chance I actually get out the spade and take down some invasive plants I ought to let folks here know if they do anything.  But this is more experiment than recommendation since I have no idea if they will. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the cause of the graying hair is nutritional deficiencies. It could be, but it could also be something much more serious. You don't know. That's the whole reason behind not giving medical advice. We're not experts, and it's dangerous if you tell someone, "It's probably X" and they believe you when it's something else. I think removing the question was the right call. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wnt does this kind of thing all the time. He's got the idea that all doctors are crooks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Wnt suggested a wikipedia article. Even if Wnt did give medical advice, that is what should have been removed, not the question. That is the the point that is spelled out clearly in our guidelines, yet few people follow. That is what I would like to discuss. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * you still have not answered my question. Why did you remove the question instead of following our guideline? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In case my objection is not clear: I have no problem with removal of medical advice. I see removal of questions as disruptive, and against our guidelines. Since the question is removed, I cannot share references on this topic, and the function of the reference desk has been impaired. I am merely suggesting that we start following our guidelines. For illustrative purpose, I would have responded to the title of the question, and given scholarly references that address it. I can freely ignore any requests for medical advice, while also helping OP and other curious people, e.g.:
 * "Hair graying is the most obvious sign of aging in humans, yet its mechanism is largely unknown" . Here is a freely accessible article that suggests a "free-radical theory of graying" . Our article on Hair color also has sections on grey/white hair, as well as conditions affecting hair color.


 * There is nothing wrong with my that response it contains no medical advice, and several relevant references. I think it could help OP and others. The removal of the entire question disallows me from using the reference desk for its intended purpose, and that is why I object. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The current guidelines do not contain any criteria for deciding if a question should be deleted. It's "discouraged", true, but not prohibited, and I believe that this question, being an unambiguous request for medical advice, is inappropriate for the reference desk.  I would support reverting WP:RD/G/M to the previous, unambiguous version, which had been stable for several years - I would not describe the discussion (here) which led to the current version as showing a clear consensus.  However, no recent discussions regarding the reference desk have led to a consensus of any sort, so I doubt if it'll be productive to develop this point further.  If anyone wants to restore the question and ToE's answer, I won't object (although I still don't think it should be done) - I would object to the restoration of Wnt's answer, and the posting of any further answers along those lines. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to turn this specific case into a big issue. If you agree that removal of posts is discouraged, then I encourage you to remove responses in the future, in a accordance with our suggestions. And if I happen to restore a question you've removed in the future, know that it is because I think there are valuable references to be shared on the topic without going astray of our guidelines. Again, I return to the analogy of a real-life, brick and mortar reference desk at a public or academic library. This user would not have been asked to leave, this user would have been pointed to relevant literature, likely with a caveat of "we cannot provide medical advice". SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this might be a useful case to consider if we do intend a re-discussion of the guideline, but that isn't a discussion I have much enthusiasm for initiating at the moment. I would hope that none of us would object to our contributions being reverted in this sort of situation, and certainly would not take exception to any such action on your (or anyone else's) part.  On a practical note, would there be any mileage in developing a standard message to replace deleted answers that give professional advice, as we currently have for deleted questions?  Tevildo (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! If a template will help encourage our users to remove answers rather than questions, I'm all for it. As a starter how about:

Response redacted in accordance with our guidelines against providing medical advice. Responses that contain only references will not be construed as medical advice. If you feel this redaction was made in error, please seek consensus at the talk page before restoring this response.
 * To me, it's not necessary to change the guideline, I would simply prefer we start collectively following it. I have never yet seen a response removed, but plenty of questions, many of which I felt could be served by references. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I should note there was a big news story about the claim that PC-KUS could cure grey hair, based on, but this seems overblown.  Some of the discussion of he shou wu goes the same way.  But proof that there is something you can use and stop the grey is notably lacking, apart from avoiding B12 deficiency.  I imagine that stopping grey hair forever would be a tricky thing to do, since melanocytes are so prone to go the other way, so even if a new drug comes out I'd look at it with great suspicion.  The only question for me now is if anything old has some small effect that's been flying under the radar. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nicotinamide mononucleotide. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing my attention to this! This is an interesting substance said to prevent melanocyte stem cell senescence  and to protect from hearing loss from loud sounds  though oddly to reduce exercise performance by 35% at less than one-third this dosage .  Still, I'm a bit concerned that one company is controlling and marketing this rather aggressively.  It is said to be a "form of vitamin B3" present at "trace amounts in some foods", but unfortunately I cannot immediately access the review articles saying this.  My first thought is that if it is present in sufficient amounts to be have such effects, we should learn what foods they are, but if this is only a technical pretext to classify it as a supplement ... then this is something very different from the usual vitamin supplementation because it has dramatic effects.  If this is conceptually a stem cell treatment, well, we know that other stem cell therapies are fraught with cancer issues. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is an example of why we shouldn't be playing doctor here. You've already made a diagnosis and now you're discussing treatment... without ever having examined the patient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I'm discussing some interesting research results and whether NMN has useful potential in general. Surely you see that these papers, which aren't even really about gray hair, have little direct relevance to this particular case.  Any of us might pick up this supplement - it won't be prescribed, it's not a drug, and the physician won't mention it for us, and since a doctor doesn't really care whether a cat is black or white as long as it schedules its next appointment, I dare say he will know little about it.  Nonetheless, we could update the article about gray hair with some data about it ... if we had more reason to say it is relevant, that is, than I've found so far. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have revealed, yet again, why you should never comment on anything here that's even remotely of a medical nature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bugs, it's not that hard, we're not talking about any patient, so we can't be giving any diagnoses. I intended this to be a discussion of policy, but if Wnt and Iblis want to talk about melanocyte senescence, that's fine and fully permissible as well. I will be the first to remove Wnt's posts if he makes any diagnoses or treatments to posters. Also, if you're going to be critical of others, you might check the log in your own eye with respect to post quality. That is not what this discussion is about, so please don't insist on making this personal.  SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Giving medical advice is against the rules. Wnt knows that, but doesn't agree with it, and often tries to weasel around the rule. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The question ought to have been channeled toward an existing article, like this: "We can't give you medical advice. You may wish to read our article Human hair color for more information." loupgarous (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Medical questions of the type asked should not be routed to articles, because Wikipedia is officially not considered a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit has been identified as unconstructive
When I typed in black magic, I got an error saying that the edit was potentially unconstructive. When I put in dark magic though, everything was okay. Is there some sort word filter?AndrewAngel1024 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We get a lot of spambots that try to advertise black magic, astrology, feng shui, and other stuff. Brand new accounts are prevented from trying to type in those words.  You were legitimately trying to ask a question, though, so you're not in any trouble.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Electron mobility
A post at WP/S amounts to an opinion piece that contradicts the accepted rôle of the electron as the mobile charge carrier in metals. The poster resists my hatting of their claim "the electron does not move" and has deleted links I gave to the articles Electric current and Charge carrier that state our mainstream understanding. The "righting a great misconception" tone and scathing reference to Lie to children is ominous. Following WP:BRD procedure the poster's peculiar claim should be dealt with if possible on this page rather than engaging them in yet another ugly argument on the Ref. Desk. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I never once disagreed with any part of that, and my post does not either. It merely notes that the incorrect model of an electron as a discrete, individually identifiable and trackable solid particle is false.  Every single word I said is 100% compatible with the notion of an electron as a charge carrier, and if you think that electrons are tiny little moving billiard balls, your belief is in direct contradiction of all of science of the past century.  But you keep going with that false belief, in the mean time, I'll stick with what every meaningful physicist ever has had to say on the nature of electrons.  As in, I never once said that electrons aren't charge carriers.  You can't box it up for false pretense because you don't understand or believe like, everything quantum mechanics has to say about the nature of current models of electron behavior.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your post declared there are misunderstandings "here", understood to mean in the responses to "How long would electrons take to stop accelerating if homes used DC?". Kindly specify who of those who responded viz. Sagittarian Milky Way, Dragons flight, Trovatore, Vespine, Tevildo, Tigraan, myself or Wnt has misunderstood. Kindly provide diffs if you want to debate against what you think any of us believes. One can suspect that you have an issue with my belief already expressed in "The Drift velocity of electrons in wires is typically 1570 km/s (related to the Fermi energy concept in quantum mechanics)." because you pointedly avoid echoing that the electron is a mobile charge carrier, so please clarify that perception. Avoid misspelled grandiosities such as "you're[sic] belief is in direct contradiction of all of science of the past century" and understanding you will be easier. AllBestFaith (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The laughable irony of this entire discussion, which I consider to be futile enough that this will be my last comment on the matter, is that my response is written in complete support of your post. I agreed 100% with everything you wrote regarding the matter, especially the note about "It's probable that the majority of electrons in a switch when it left the factory never move out of it throughout the life of the switch."  I thought it useful for further readers to elaborate on the issue by noting the problems with classical physics understanding of the behavior and nature of electrons as "discrete particles" and of models based on such understanding.  For you to then box up my elaboration of your excellent initial points was beyond confusing, which is why I reached the only conclusion that you either did not understand, or flat out refused to believe quantum mechanics.  So, considering I considered everything you wrote to be correct and excellent and worth elaborating on, your response to my reminder that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality and obey the Heisenberg principle and that we need to remember those concept when describing their behavior, is to box it up and say that they don't and that I was wrong.  Do you see where I got confused?  I say "electrons are not localizable little balls" and you say "no, you're wrong" and box up my explanation as such.  So, above my question is "what part of quantum mechanics do you not believe in?" is a result of that.  I apologize for speaking in too many absolutes in my answer.  I also deeply apologize for my mischaracterization of you.  When I said "you don't understand or believe..." that was very rude of me.  It was inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for it.  I have no expectation of forgiveness for it, and only offer my apology to you because it is the right thing to do, not because it obliges you to forgive me in any way.  I am deeply sorry, and publicly apologize for that rudeness.  It was inexcusable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the text that you deleted: "The article Electric current explains the rôle of electrons as the charge carriers in metals." Why did you do that?
 * This is a new claim that I challenge because it is a lie: "your response to my reminder that electrons exhibit wave-particle duality and obey the Heisenberg principle and that we need to remember those concept when describing their behavior, is to box it up and say that they don't and that I was wrong."
 * Kindly address your own actions above. Your last 5-6 sentences are irrelevant ad hominem drama. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was still wrong, you were still 100% correct, and I was still rude, and I still apologize. You don't become less right, nor do I become less wrong, because you wish to continue the discussion.  I will not, at any point, change my stance that I was in the wrong here, nor will I, at any point, be saying that you ever said or did anything wrong.  My apologies again to you.  I still deeply regret my actions here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't wish you to stagnate in error, I wish us to find consensus on what is correct. The alternative is doing disservice to readers at the Ref. Desk with prolonged dispute. It will be necessary for you to digest properly the article Electric current. That article is the consensus result of many Wikipedia editors who incidentally include Spinningspark who often joins us on the Ref. Desk, and I have no personal stake in its writing. You will find that it contradicts your still defended claim that "the electron does not move". More pointedly, you should by now have found out that the article says your claim is wrong, and that should have happened when I hatted your post with no condemnatory comment except "The article Electric current explains the rôle of electrons as the charge carriers in metals." However I cannot predict the thought processes of a Wikipedian who ignores Wikipedia articles, or who clings to a non-specialist excitement at the surprises for which Werner Heisenberg is worthily prized and it appears that you found yourself, maybe still find yourself, rebuffed or marginalized. But it is of no benefit to anyone, least of all yourself, that you indulge as an escape from these issues in the self mortification of continual apologies. Frankly speaking, these apologies come across as manipulative and tacky, but that is when I take into account your use of taunting and obscenity in other posts. Keeping to rational discussion might find us agreeing on the summary below.

Electric power can flow through 3 media

Power delivery through insulators occurs on a small scale in electronic capacitors. Utility power distribution to homes by AC through insulators is a theoretical exercise but would be very impractical. Metal cables are universally used and giving a lecture about electrons that don't move in insulators is inappropriate for that case.

Fun facts about the electron

If it were not a discrete charged particle, Millikan would not have found its elementary charge difference between oil drops in 1911. But he did.

If the electron were not mobile, Thomson would not have been able to control their trajectories by electric and magnetic fields in his cathode ray tubes. But he did.

If an electron is not a trackable individual particle, Wilson would not have tracked individual electrons from decay events in his Cloud chamber. But he did.

The above short list of scientists who I think are all worthy Nobel laureates will suffice to answer your claim that "all of science of the past century" rejects the model of an electron as a discrete, individually identifiable and trackable particle. In view of the electron's Wave–particle duality I choose not to be drawn into a debate with you about whether the electron can be called solid. They certainly have measurable mass and are in continual random motion and collisions. Anyone who may have rashly sworn never ever ever to find fault with my writing, I do hereby graciously release from that onerous commitment. Pax vobiscum. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above contains multiple glaring errors. You claim "[in a] Vacuum [...] DC cannot flow continuously" yet cathode rays exist. You claim "utility power distribution to homes by AC through insulators is a theoretical exercise but would be very impractical" but utility transformers with galvanic isolation exist. And I find your treatment of Jayron32 to be abusive and disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you I value your comments. By Vacuum I meant utter vacuum devoid of any charge carrier, leaving only Maxwell's displacement form of current as a possibility. I should reconsider mentioning electric arcs and plasma in the table, and I alluded to cathode rays in the "Fun facts". Transformers do not pass alternating current through their winding insulations, the power transfer is through the shared changing magnetic field. What I call impractical is utility power distribution through insulators instead of through wires. That is what we might be reduced to if the knowledge of electric current by mobile electrons in metal were suppressed and forgotten. AllBestFaith (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you persist in this discussion. I have already told you you were correct.  I have already told you I was wrong.  There is nothing further to be gained by continuing to lecture me on material and concepts 1) I already understand just fine, TYVM and 2) that I've already told you I understood and 3) That I already told you I knew I got wrong when I wrote the first time, and 4) That I already apologized for writing the wrong thing and for being rude to you when you corrected it.  Can you explain what you hope to gain?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I answer you by number. 1) Actions such as deletions have spoken louder than words, but this is encouraging to hear. 2) You have told every reader at the Ref Desk what you think you understand, and indeed that they need to think the same. 3) I know, and 4) I don't gain anything from your apologies and would like them to stop. I put some effort into framing what I hope to achieve by bringing the issue of your deletions to this page rather than exposing it unnecessarily on the Ref. Desk. That is why you see no correction by me of your croquet-video-based "explanation" on the Ref. Desk. Do you plan to react or hold resentment if I reinstate my post "The article Electric current explains the rôle of electrons as the charge carriers in metals." among the responses? AllBestFaith (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC) See AllBestFaith (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Article about reference desks
"For over 40 years, AskNYPL has been answering people's questions by looking things up in a variety of texts, recordings and other resources. And these people are expert researchers, so they know where to look for information, which is key in providing a really good, quality answer [...] — even if the question has multiple parts, and even if you're missing some key information. That's the benefit of a human over a computer algorithm. Plus, you might learn something unexpected from talking with a researcher — and if you need some recommended reading, they've got that covered too."

Source: [ http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/years-before-Google-existed-new-york-public-library-offered-human-google ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Great stuff, thanks! I think many of us could learn quite a bit by asking some questions at a professionally staffed ref desk. This also highlights why "google it" is almost never helpful here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, I visited the New York Public Library during my vacation to Manhattan - and I even visited their reference desk. The New York Public Library has a unique-in-the-world archive of paper prints of historical aeronautical charts - a personal interest! - and the maps librarians were awesome.  The resources I sought were exceptionally esoteric - and I can tell you, I have searched for them, far and wide, in some of the greatest digital- and brick-and-mortar- maps libraries in our nation.  The New York Public Library's maps and cartography staff had to pull out multiple layers of indirection - a paper catalog index into a microfiche archive, which pointed to another paper catalog index, which pointed to an archive shelf, ... and so on... but after over an hour of their efforts, I managed to get my hands on some very unique, real historical artifacts: actual paper aeronautical navigation charts from as far back as 1924.
 * I'll have to do a write-up on that experience at some point.
 * I would like to emphatically remind our volunteers here: we have an obligation to spend our efforts at providing excellent quality encyclopedic reference service. We are trying to construct a digital archive, and at our disposal we have the greatest repository of free, free human information ever constructed.  The bar is very high.  Let's do right by it.
 * Nimur (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Chicken or Egg came first
What came first? – What do Scientists think, and what do Wikipedians think?

103.230.107.23 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See Chicken or the egg for a full discussion of the issue. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Dinos had eggs, but there where no chickens around. So the egg was first. --JMS (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point, but then, birds are dinosaurs. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also a good point, but then again not all birds are chickens. Since chickens have not existed as long as eggs have, that solves that problem.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

wiki server issues?
Anybody know if there've been any problems with (or changes to) the Wikimedia servers lately? The RD archiving bot has been complaining about strange errors for the past two nights, as if edited pages are coming back empty, or something. I haven't yet dug in to figure out if they're real or spurious.—Steve Summit (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see Village pump (technical) but a simple 503 error doesn't seem fit with what you're experiencing. Also I believe the bot still doesn't use the API? Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very strange. No, the archiving bot does not use the API.  But just now, at least, although it can edit the Science and Computing desks just fine, every attempt to submit edits to Miscellaneous results in a blank page, and no edits actually submitted. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to have fixed itself. (Still not sure what the actual problem was.)  Normal archiving resumes. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This bot edit on the Language desk seems to have gone wrong, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. The content that was deleted in that edit is now available at Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 October 20. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first edit left several posts that should have been archived, and no date headers. This edit from last night seems to have fixed things, though. Tevildo (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016
I'm unable to find a wrap speed animated wallpaper that starts from a normal motion to the wrap speed motion.

103.230.105.8 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Slavery
During the transatlantic slave trade, were women also shackled and chained during the middle passage? --Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Pike-Pilet (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)



Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016
Can someone move the question at Reference desk/Computing to the Science ref desk? Obviously that question is in the wrong place.

47.138.165.200 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  15:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

a modest proposal (with a lot to be modest about)
Sometimes a reader asks a question and we fail to provide an answer; I'd like us to do better. Let me be more precise: The example that causes me to write this is [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#First_US_State_Dinner The first US State Dinner]. It is not the only one.
 * a reader: often an anonymous one, and thus for all we know making their first attempt to engage with the refdesks
 * asks a reasonable question: one that is fully within our remit and which a reference library certainly ought to be able to handle
 * and we fail: specifically in the sense that no answer at all is forthcoming.

I'll head off digressions by saying at once that no answer may be better than a wrong one, unsourced speculation to fill a void is not helpful, and there is no obligation on any of us volunteers to research any query that does not pique our interest. However, doesn't the querent deserve better than nothing? Being ignored can be a very odd feeling - exacerbated electronically.

Has anyone previously proposed something along the lines of a response template that could be manually deployed after three or four days of silence? "Thank you for your question. Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but .... [something about the limitations of volunteer editors]. You may find an answer by ... [something about reference libraries, which not everyone knows about]. Please feel free to ask another question in the future, and again, our apologies for not being able to help you this time."

Thoughts? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Splendid idea. Can't be that hard. Why not? Britmax (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that a first-time user will be able to find the response. Where I work, we cannot access Wikipedia from our office. We must use the public computer in the library. I've shown the RD to other employees here and I know they've asked questions because they've come back to me and asked how they get the answers. I show them and they find it far too difficult and likely never try again. Therefore, I feel that the benefit from the effort will be too small to justify the effort. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, I like the template idea, and I'd help revise a prototype. I'd also add that questions that do not get satisfactory references may be re-asked here at a future time. I usually recommend waiting about a week before re-asking a same or similar question. Another benefit is that we'd then be able to use instances of the template to generate a list of unanswered questions, which anyone could peruse and work on in the future. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe more to the point, to ask after it has been archived, to avoid having the same question twice in the active ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. Where should we draft the wording of the proposed template, and the protocol around its use? Would it be correct to create something like Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Sorry? I'd like to know if there's anything similar, in form or function, that I can look at for inspiration. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Carbon Caryatid: your talk page is fine for drafting. I think your suggested placement would be fine for a final home, but that doesn't really matter as it is instantiated into the thread at each use. I am not aware of any template with similar function. You might find better guidance at the village pump, or by posting again here when you have the first draft ready. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've created a draft in my sandbox: User:Carbon Caryatid/RefDeskSorry. Let's move the discussion of protocol and wording over there. Ping especially to User:SemanticMantis and User:Britmax. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment, about the legitimacy of deleting another editor's legitimate question from the Ref Desk.
Additionally, can Wikipedia suggest me a reasonable way to ask our editors - a question continuously deleted from the Ref desk by two editors - who mistakenly think my question is not genuine?

Today, I asked a question at the reference desk (for details about the question, see the last section below, in small letters). Unfortunately, two editors who - instead of assuming a good faith - thought my question was not genuine, deleted it from the Ref desk, while adding a comment - on the summary edit - that there was no way to answer my question. However, I think that - instead of their deleting a (legitimate) question from the Ref desk - they should have written their (unnecessarily correct) comment on the Ref desk, and should have let other editors try to answer my (legitimate) question.

Actually, what happened was the following: Today I noticed, that some people had used the connection between the word Trump and the word trumpet, e.g. in this paper, so I wanted to know whether anybody before me has also noticed the connection between Trump's name and Trump's rival's husband's expertise in playing trumpet. I innocently asked about that - at the reference desk, but unfortunately my question was deleted (instead of assuming a good faith).

HOTmag (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * For convenience, this was HOTmag's original question. Btw Bill Clinton didn't play the trumpet, he played the sax, as the image you linked to shows. So you probably are quite unique in connecting Bill's musical prowess with Trump. That's just a guess, though. Nobody can know, as we keep telling you. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC).
 * We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last Trump. Deor (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion, that "Nobody can know", is a legitimate one, but I was not asking here about the legitimacy of your opionin, but rather about the legitimacy of your deleting my question from the Ref desk - instead of assuming a good faith and of letting other editors express their opinion which may be different from yours.
 * "Nobody can know as we keep telling you": The only editors who are "keep telling" me that "Nobody can know", are the two editors who deleted my question from the Ref desk, but I'd wanted to have - a third opinion - and not only your opinion, and that's why I wanted my question to appear at the Ref desk.
 * As for your opinion, that "Nobody can know": It's a legitimate opinion, but: First, I think it's unnecessarily correct: You can't know whether anybody can answer my original question, as long as you don't let other editors try to answer it. Second, I was not asking here about the legitimacy of your opinion (that "Nobody can know"), but rather about the legitimacy of your deleting my question from the Ref desk - instead of assuming a good faith and of letting other editors express their opinion which may turn out to be different from yours (Unless you don't let them express their opinion because you delete the original question). HOTmag (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion. This is not a question that the Wikipedia Reference Desks are set up to answer.--Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please notice, that the editor who deleted my question, did that - not because "This is not a question that the Wikipedia Reference Desks are set up to answer" - but rather because they thought "nobody can know" the answer, so I asked whether any editor was allowed to delete another editor's question from the Ref Desk - when there was a dispute between the two editors about whether (really) "nobody can know" the answer.
 * Additionally: please notice, that I asked also another question you haven't answered yet (See above: "Additionally...").
 * HOTmag (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, your section comment said "request for comment", and I have given mine, but now it appears you're requesting a debate, which I'm not interested in. --Steve Summit (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please notice, that I'm not requesting a debate, but rather requesting your opinion about a question you haven't answered yet (as I explained in my previous response). HOTmag (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked multiple questions. One of your questions was "the legitimacy of deleting another editor's legitimate question from the Ref Desk". Steve Summit has basically said the answer to that is yes. There is no requirement to answer all question in an RFC and badgering people to answer all parts of an RFC is definitely not the way to go. If you think it is, I suggest you refrain from opening RFC since you clearly don't understand how they work on wikipedia. Note that you did not ask whether the specific deletion was legitimate, simply to repeat "the legitimacy of deleting another editor's legitimate question from the Ref Desk". Note also believing that a deletion was legitimate, even if the reason given was incorrect, is a perfectly acceptable (or legitimate if you prefer) option on wikipedia. Finally note that it's the responsibility of those forming RFCs to get the wording right. If they can't they should seek advice before opening their RFC. If they get them wrong, people answering the RFC as worded, rather than answering some other question that the person opening the RFC wanted to ask is to be expected and accepted. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like you didn't understand my response to Steve. I responded to them, that they answered neither of my two requests.
 * I had two requests: Steve didn't refer to the last one (they didn't have to), but they also didn't answer the first request they did refer to. My first request, was for a second opinion about the legitimacy of deleting a legitimate question. This request can be understood in two ways: Either as a general request about deleting legitimate questions in general (unnecessarily my question), or about deleting my question specifically. Steve answered they supported the deletion, because "This is not a question that the Wikipedia Reference Desks are set up to answer". So, they didn't understand my request as a general request about deleting legitimate questions in general, but rather as request about deleting my question specifically. Now, assuming my request was not general - but rather referred to deleting my question specifically - as they understood, I responded to them, that the editor who had deleted my question, had done that - not because "This is not a question that the Wikipedia Reference Desks are set up to answer" - but rather because that editor had thought "nobody can know" the answer, so [assuming my request referred to deleting my question specifically as Steve understood] I had asked whether any editor had been allowed to delete another editor's question from the Ref Desk - there being a dispute between the two editors about whether (really) "nobody can know" the answer. HOTmag (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be a good reference to determine whether you're the first to notice something? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In principle, you could determine that, just as you can easily determine I was not the first to use the connection between Trump's name and trumpet, as you can realize by this link - indicated in the last section of my first post. HOTmag (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since Bill Clinton is not a trumpet player, it's probably a sure bet that no one has noticed a connection between the fact that he doesn't play trumpet and the name of the current Republican nominee for US president. I suppose if the question had remained, you might have received this or a similar answer. Sometimes legitimate questions that sound like trolling get deleted from this page (because genuine trolling happens here frequently); this was probably such a case (either that, or they wanted to spare you the embarrassment of someone pointing out your flawed premise). If you get an apology from the editors who made this error, are you willing to move on and do some editing that benefits the project?  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   02:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If anybody thought I had a wrong premise, they could say that at the Ref desk - without deleting my question from the Ref desk, and then I could respond them and tell them - at the Ref desk - whether or not I agreed with their comment and whether or not it satisfied me (and then I could wait for another answer if I was not satisfied by their comment).
 * As for your question: Yes I am (but I guess they won't apologize). HOTmag (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting it might have been overkill. But since your question was based on a false premise, the alternative might have been for some of the editors here to dump scorn and ridicule on you, at the Ref desk. The third alternative would be to box it up. Which approach would have been best? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anybody who states I have a wrong premise, must do that by ridiculing on me. If they think I have a wrong premise, they can say that (respectfully as you did) at the Ref desk - without deleting my question from the Ref desk, and then I could respond them and tell them - at the Ref desk - whether or not I agree with their comment and whether or not it satisfies me (and then I can wait for another answer if I'm not satisfied by their comment). HOTmag (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC closed. The question at issue was flawed for all the multiple reasons given, and was appropriately removed. This matter does not warrant further discussion, and certainly not an RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please notice that only one editor (other than the editor who deleted my question from the Ref desk) justifies the deletion. Another editor suggested an apology for the deletion, and another editor called the deletion "overkill". HOTmag (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes deleting "legitimate" questions is surely legitimate for a legitimate number of different legitimate reasons, and fully and legitimately supported by long term legitimate practice. I legitimately make no legitimate comment on the legitimacy or non legitimacy of deleting this claimed to be legitimate question. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First, please notice that I didn't ask about "legitimate" questions, but rather about legitimate questions. Second, if deleting a "legitimate" question is legitimate (for a legitimate number of different legitimate reasons), then also undoing a "legitimate" deletion is legitimate (for a legitimate number of different legitimate reasons). In any case, your opinion is as legitimate as any other editor's legitimate opinion (e.g. the editor here who suggested an apology for the deletion, and the editor who called the deletion: overkill). HOTmag (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely think BB was actually opposing the deletion, you don't understand BB. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely think BB was actually supporting the deletion, you don't understand BB. Btw, I've never said that BB was opposing the deletion, nor that BB was supporting it, but rather that they called it overkill. HOTmag (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016
Which non-free adobe softwares are meant for students. If I am looking for time pass, not professional or business works.

1.39.39.187 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't you people see that the page is semi-protected and IPs can't edit Reference desk/Computing. And semi-protected edit request is being redirected here. --1.39.39.187 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still not clear what exactly you want done. As stated, please make your request as "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you and JTP not familiar with our problems associated with semi-protection and IP posting of questions? I interpret this as a straightforward request to post this question to the computing desk, which I have done. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your assistance. As this was formatted as an edit request without explanation as to what was desired, it wasn't clear to me that it was just someone asking a question, I thought they wanted something on this page changed.  If the user had stated "I want to post this question on the page but I can't", it would have been clearer. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that neither 331dot nor JTP appear to be regulars at the RD. I think the confusion over what was intended is understandable for the reasons outlined above. Note also there are multiple desks but only one talk page and the question didn't specify which one. Remember that the template puts pages into a category and it's intended that people can check them out to help who have no experience with the page, that's why the various help pages say you should specify exactly what you want to do (although since they're generic they don't specify that you should mention which desk exactly). Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All good points, that's why I tried to briefly explain our ongoing problem, but I did not fully understand how these might attract attention from elsewhere. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

✅

the sorry template is ready
I think my "modest proposal" above is about to fall off the edge of this page, so I'll start a new section. I mooted the creation of a form of words to deploy on questions that remain unanswered after a few days. It is now ready for anyone to use, or not. I'm calling it the Sorry template. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

- I don't know what I'm doing. I tried to make this invokable by copying the text to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Template:sorry, but due to namespace precedence or some other reason, just calls that apology template at the start of this comment. Maybe a rename would work, or it needs to be put in another place? Thanks for any help. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's already a template at . To call this one, you'd have to type  (see WP:TEMPLATE and WP:TRANS for more info), but it'd probably be easier to move it to the template namespace with a different name, like Template:refdesk-sorry (so it could be invoked using ). clpo13(talk) 19:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! I did the move you proposed, so, should now work, and look like this:


 * SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really like this template because it gives the impression we've given up when someone still might answer. It reminds me of the "resolved" template, which is very seldom added to a question, but when it is, you can rest assured that the most interesting answers will follow it. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea is not to post the template unless a query has gone several days without any (or any decent) replies. At that point, in my experience, that round of volunteers usually has given up. It does happen, but a good post to a five day old question is fairly rare in my estimation. Reposting later is also invited, so I really don't think it will discourage good responses in practice. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the "resolved" template is usually added only when it is clear that the question has been fully and correctly answered. In which case, no-one has any business posting anything afterwards, but you can be sure that the usual suspects will pop up with some lame "joke" or other (usually in small type, as though that excuses it). --Viennese Waltz 05:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you Brits and your inside-the-box thinking. When I've asked a question and it's been answered I will typically post the "resolved" template. But that doesn't mean there isn't more information available about the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but it means the thread is over and should not receive any new posts. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that a rule, or just your personal opinion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion, backed up by commonsense and good posting etiquette. Not that Americans know much about etiquette. --Viennese Waltz 15:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor do Brits, evidently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if both the questioner and the answerer "think" the thread is over, it's possible they are both wrong. Think outside the box, son. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience the "resolved" template is often (perhaps usually) added by the OP to indicate that the query has been answered to his or her satisfaction. Deor (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea is not to post the template unless a query has gone several days without any (or any decent) replies. At that point, in my experience, that round of volunteers usually has given up. It does happen, but a good post to a five day old question is fairly rare in my estimation. Reposting later is also invited, so I really don't think it will discourage good responses in practice. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making a template: refdesk-sorry is easy enough to remember. Further to this and this discussion, the intention is to use this template:
 * a) if you want to
 * b) after three days
 * c) in which a question has attracted no answer.
 * If anyone wants to create something similar-but-different, for questions that have attracted responses deemed insufficient, please go ahead. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Banned user
How do we know this is a banned user? Is it Vote X? --Viennese Waltz 08:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote X, yes, of course. Known IP range, known location, was restoring material previously deleted as being from another Vote sock; was referencing another Vote X episode in their posting on ANI too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What about these? Looks like the same IP range again, but I'm too inexperienced in these matters to revert on sight. --Viennese Waltz 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, almost certainly them again, recognizable by the way their contributions are always narrowly off-topic and never address the actual issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The troll's attempt to insert his junk into the archive is an example of why the archives should be permanently protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bugs, is your "attempt to insert his junk" a reference to this edit from the Special:Contributions link given by Viennese Waltz above? If so, then this appears to be a good faith effort to archive a section which scsbot was unable to handle as it was a hatted discussion which lacked a section header.  They incorrectly archived it in the monthly index, but I have corrected that, creating the appropriate daily archive page and fixing the monthly index.
 * More generally, I disagree that protection of the Reference Desk archives is desirable. Prompted by concerns expressed by Medeis last year, I have, since the beginning of this year, been regularly monitoring our archives via a Special:RecentChangesLinked link.  There are usually only a handful of such edits each week.  Many are general housekeeping edits (such as fixing improper template usage), some are vandalism, and a few are genuinely useful additions of information.  Since the number is as small as it is, I am able to examine each edit in order to identify and revert vandalism and spam as well as add signatures to or correct the formatting of good faith but poorly edited additions.  Until now I have not been monitoring the monthly indexes, but I will add them in.  I also have a low priority project of scanning non-bot edits from previous years to root out past vandalism. -- ToE 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ToE, I had no idea you were doing all that. Thank you!  (On behalf of all of us, I suspect!) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as you're keeping a watchful eye, that could be good enough. That could be termed "manual" protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Question deleted as trolling
Why was my question deleted as trolling?24.90.72.195 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor who had deleted your question has reverted themself. HOTmag (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RD regulars that have become employees
Have there been any RD regulars that have become employees of the Wikimedia foundation?Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Possible, but not likely. There are only about 200 employees of WMF, see Wikimedia_Foundation. Mostly they seem to be grant writers, accountants, and others skilled at administration of non-profit organizations. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is quite probable; while there are about 200 employees of the WMF, there has been considerable organizational turnover over the past 4-5 years or so. I probably know more ex-employees of the Foundation than current ones; it would probably take some digging, but I do not doubt that some current or former employees have also contributed to the ref desks at some point.  None comes to mind immediately, but I would guarantee {WMF employees} ∩ {contributors to the Ref Desks} =/= {}.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, your last claim is reasonable, though we still have no direct evidence of its truth. But that's a different question from what Uncle Dan asked. Whilst the definition of "regular" is subjective, I've been seeing mostly the same few dozen names here for the past six years. Also we have the fact that most truly regular readers of the ref desks will have seen this post by now, and none of them have chimed in to say they work for WMF. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they just don't want to admit it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a possibility too. Maybe you are on this list of WMF staff, or maybe I am! Joking aside, until we have at least one candidate and some sort of confirmation, we really can't be sure. If Uncle Dan is interested, he could perhaps contact WMF and ask them directly via their "Answers" page . SemanticMantis (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting debates at the wikiversity help desk
Where do I go if I want to start a debate there? All of the past debates are from years ago. What if I want to start a new one? The Rd guidelines directed me to there if I want to have debates97.94.201.18 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I doubt our guidelines have ever directed people to any specific site to have a debate. There are zillions of places one could go to.  I know next to nothing about wikiversity, but I'd suggest its help desk is for seeking help about using wikiversity, not for having any kind of debate.  But what do I know?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The RD guidelines state that the Wikiversity help desk allows debates. I checked the history, and that line has been there forever it seems. That said, since this is not the Wikiversity help desk, no one here can help you with that. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to start a debate, here are some options that I think will be better than wikiversity. Debate.org and OnlineDebate.net are two of the more famous online debate clubs, there are many others that can be found with a google search for online debate club. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Astronomical Optical Interferometry
<p style="font-family:Georgia;">I just "fixed" one of the issues on the page Astronomical Optical Interferometry, and removed the issue saying the lead was too long. Is it okay now to remove it? If so, how do I change the "Multiple issues" to just one issue? <strong style="font-family:Georgia;">Checks Facts (Talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * <p style="font-family:Georgia;">Never mind about the Multiple issues problem, I found that out. <strong style="font-family:Georgia;">Checks Facts (Talk) 22:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of question should be asked at the Help Desk, for your future reference. Tevildo (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thank you.<strong style="font-family:Georgia;">Checks Facts (Talk) 14:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Question deleted
My question was deleted.

I know it might seem like it, but I'm not trolling.

Perhaps, could I have worded it better?

Please, help me ask my question, don't keep deleting me...

Benjamin (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Revdel is an option
Just a reminder that it's a lot harder to revert to a revision after it's been revdelled (and before you argue, remember WP:BEANS). It also seems to discourage a certain someone who has said that he wants page protection and whose edits are valid under WP:RD3. We should probably be going "Block, revert, revdel, ignore" instead of revert, block, ignore. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly more convenient to get them blocked first, before attempting a revert. And the increasing use of the revdel seems to be beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Policy against opinions predictions and debates not being applied consistently
One thing I've noticed about the Refdesk is that the policy against predictions,opinions,and debate doesn't seem to be applied consistently. Sometimes I see question s which clearly fall into any of those three,yet they never get hatred. Now I admit, some of my questions fall into those three,but at one time I saw someone asking a question at the computing desk about which was the best something to buy. I forget what it was exactly,but the OP said that he had done a Google search,and wanted to know where to find out about buying something. The question was hatted even though he made it clear he was trying to research about buying something, probably because he phrased it as which is the best something to buy. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The way around the problem is to ask for references rather than for editors' opinions. For example, at the computer desk they could have asked, "What are some good source for evaluating PC's?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Asking for a list of states where gambling is illegal
Could someone help me out? I'm trying to ask for a list of states where gambling is illegal, but it says that my edit is unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.79.72 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends on what type of gambling you mean—see the chart in Gambling in the United States. Deor (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Deor (or other admins, who can view what's been revdelledl) might you take a look at it and decide whether the question and your (Deor's) answer might be moved back to the Humanities desk. It could have been a casualty of dealing with an undesired question immediately before the OP's edit. I can't see it (and/or any admin who has already reviewed and decided it's not worth restoring, please raise an eyebrow or something, thanks!) ---Sluzzelin talk  02:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "How does the glorification of Allies and the demonization of Germany during World War 2 help to serve an antiwhite agenda?" was the question asked. I can't see any mention of gambling there, 24.107.79.72. Have a nice block.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy. But the puzzlement is why he would think that the allies were non-white. FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. all looked pretty much white. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would appear to me that WP:REVDEL may not have been appropriate in this case, under the third clause of WP:CRD. (By which I mean, "Oh, f@ck, I blocked the wrong guy. I'd better cover my sorry ass by quoting policy.") Is there a WP:LTA case page for the Nazi ref desk troll? Pete "lack of attention to detail" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Long-term abuse/Soft skin. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 24 hasn't been blocked.  Let's WP:AGF and assume (s)he is telling the truth.   BB's claim that "It was 24 who answered the troll's question, though it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same guy" is typical of his prejudice against IP editors.   Note that BB cannot view hidden content, the post was made at 21:11 and hidden at 22:58 and Bugs was offline throughout the window of visibility and three hours either side. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Experience, not prejudice. Also, I did see it before it was rev-del'd, though I didn't happen to edit anything. That's how I knew 24 was the one who answered it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 24 was blocked and then quickly unblocked, with a note in the log saying it was a mistake. His edit has to be hidden because it still contained the offending comment. That's how revdel works, sadly - you have to hide every revision between when offending content was added and when it was removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 24 also told the troll where to go, literally, in quite a non-troll way. Instead the problem here is that 24 hit the edit filter. There doesn't seem much point transferring the question, as it seems to have been answered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Downsizing display of a jokey response
...on the Miscellaneous RD - and in this case, not my own but another User's response appearing under my good-faith one. I know we're not supposed to edit another's comments, but I waited a good half-day and got tired of seeing what I suggest is a form of abuse: of the OP, of the good-faith respondents, and of the countless lurking readers - many of whom may not have a full command of English nor the contributor's cultural matrix - who hope to glean information from the RDs. I don't consider the Miscellaneous desk a playground and think the RD rules should apply here too, one of which is to surround a purely humorous remark with a pair of "small" HTML tags. Kindly clarify this, for me as well. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems. Personally I would've hatted. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  11:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. If you'd asked when you saw it I would've downsized it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * when I saw it (as above), I posted the matter here on the RD Talk page: the venue for clarifying participants' behavior on the Reference Desks. You're a veteran RD respondent and I had enough reason to believe that you quite deliberately left this response formatted as though it were genuine. This merits the attention of a forum of our peers, in hopes of eliciting discussion or perhaps even a consensus. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think SMW's failure to downsize his text on this occasion is mitigated by the very high likelihood that the OP was joking/trolling in the first place. (I noticed that the first respondant referred to this, and the OP failed to assert GF.) The second respondant was obviously playing along with the joke (in normal-sized text). Your own response, Deborahjay, linked to the same Facebook page that the OP had already linked in his query, so overall you seemed not to have picked up the thrust of the conversation. However, I do agree that to avoid bamboozling EFL readers and native English speakers who have problems with nuance (such as a friend I'm going to be meeting in the pub later today) we should all observe the 'smallification of humorous text convention' more strictly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're probably right the OP is joking but the page was not provided by the OP. The signature was modified by Deborahjay here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=758842977&oldid=758841917] I'm guessing due to an accident when composing their reply. I have returned [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=759478141&oldid=759461852] the signature to the original state [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=758753532]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have indeed guessed correctly, - the intruded URL for that Facebook page was indeed a wild paste during my edit that I failed to catch, let alone realize my being responsible and taking care of the defective content. (Lately my fairly new Asus Zenbook has been unpredictably putting the insertion point wherever the I-bar appears on the screen - anyone have a remedy to suggest or is it back to Customer Service for me?) Kudos and thanks for your savvy intervention! -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I see it, downsizing is a courtesy, not a requirement. But I'd also say that downsizing others' jokes is acceptable - strictly, it does not change the text, merely puts a wrapper around it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also permissible to collapse off-topic digressions, including unreferenced material and jokes. I favor the / because it does not ask for no further comments to be made. Let people joke all they want, but let's not let it interfere with providing references to our users. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection-template spacing
At the top of each ref-desk is some logic that adds the visible protection tag automatically whenever the page is protected:



followed by a blank line with the comment "Please do not delete the following blank line, the protection template interferes with the TOC otherwise". Indeed, when protection is on and there is no blank line, the prot box overlaps the "skip to bottom" (upper right) part of the Reference desk/header boxes. But when protection is off, that blank line leaves whitespace at the top of the page. I can't figure out a way to get the blank line to be part of the #ifeq block:( I assume the browser can't cope with the header using:

to move the right part of the headers further up than expected. Not sure a cleaner solution yet. Maybe the right part of the headers should be re-designed not to have a dangling-up item? DMacks (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is the prot template not part of the Reference desk/header code? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question! Wouldn't affect this situation, but would certainly centralize the code (and eventual changes to it). DMacks (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did it. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection message twice
At the top of WP:RDH there are two boxes regarding how the page is semi-protected. I looked at the page source, but I couldn't determine why the box is showing twice. Can someone explain why it like that and how to fix it? RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because was made (see above} without also making . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick history link
Although I have found how to access the archives, I fail to see a quick link to the immediately-previous one (once there, they link eachother for convenience). I'm not sure if this is a bug, or intentional. I personally believe that such a link at the top would be very useful, but I understand that it probably cannot be a static link, and may need to automatically be updated by the archiving bot if there is no dynamic template for this... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be useful, but it only takes 4 clicks to get to the most recent one. It's also possible no one has asked for this before. (To find out, though, you'd have to search the archives, and the search mechanism is clumsy). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A few days?
I noticed the page description includes: We'll answer here within a few days -- c'mon, "a few minutes" would be closer ... "a few hours" at the most. -- 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)‎
 * Or sometimes never, if the question is too obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't want to raise expectations too high. Some questioners get impatient if they don't get an answer within 24 hours.  As BB says, the response time depends on the question, and to some extent on how busy the regulars are.  On topics where I have little knowledge or interest, I often wait a day for someone better qualified to reply before I start doing any research.   D b f i r s   09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The point of the rule is that people should not expect private replies. Questions asked publicly are answered publicly. The time frame in which this is done varies widely, from almost immediately, to a day or two, to never.  Saying "We'll answer here within a few days" is a promise that an answer will always be provided - but that's not a promise we can or should be making.


 * Maybe we could say instead, "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. Maybe the "few days" bit was also meant to convey that there is a point when the question will be archived and no more answers forthcoming. That might also be explained with something like "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here, so make sure you come back to check the replies before the question gets archived within X days" (don't understand the current archiving pattern well enough to know what to put in there for 'X'. And I trust someone else could phrase this more convincingly, if people even want that info there). Anyway, I think Jack's suggestion is clearer than the current text. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made the change.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 'A few days' gives those of us who don't check in every day (but may know where in wikipedia or on the Net to point a questioner for an answer) to respond. This might take a day or so, depending on answerers' workload outside wikipedia for us to answer a question responsively.  Not every good answer will be at someone here's fingertips. loupgarous (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

notification of request for comment on mandatory tagging of all refdesk pages and some refdesk questions
discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A few days?
I noticed the page description includes: We'll answer here within a few days -- c'mon, "a few minutes" would be closer ... "a few hours" at the most. -- 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)‎
 * Or sometimes never, if the question is too obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't want to raise expectations too high. Some questioners get impatient if they don't get an answer within 24 hours.  As BB says, the response time depends on the question, and to some extent on how busy the regulars are.  On topics where I have little knowledge or interest, I often wait a day for someone better qualified to reply before I start doing any research.   D b f i r s   09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The point of the rule is that people should not expect private replies. Questions asked publicly are answered publicly. The time frame in which this is done varies widely, from almost immediately, to a day or two, to never.  Saying "We'll answer here within a few days" is a promise that an answer will always be provided - but that's not a promise we can or should be making.


 * Maybe we could say instead, "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. Maybe the "few days" bit was also meant to convey that there is a point when the question will be archived and no more answers forthcoming. That might also be explained with something like "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be posted here, so make sure you come back to check the replies before the question gets archived within X days" (don't understand the current archiving pattern well enough to know what to put in there for 'X'. And I trust someone else could phrase this more convincingly, if people even want that info there). Anyway, I think Jack's suggestion is clearer than the current text. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made the change.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 'A few days' gives those of us who don't check in every day (but may know where in wikipedia or on the Net to point a questioner for an answer) to respond. This might take a day or so, depending on answerers' workload outside wikipedia for us to answer a question responsively.  Not every good answer will be at someone here's fingertips. loupgarous (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

notification of request for comment on mandatory tagging of all refdesk pages and some refdesk questions
discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Questions about rapid transit
On which desk should I ask general questions about the history and/or operating characteristics of various rapid transit systems (by "general" I mean questions other than ones like "What's the best way to get from Station A to Station B?" or "Would I get a good view of Building X from elevated line Y?")? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If uncertain, post it on "Miscellaneous". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in the engineering features of rail links might I suggest the Science desk? 86.151.49.189 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, and if it's about, say, how government funding and social support affects transit, humanities may be more appropriate. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)