Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128

Searching for questions in page history
Given how poorly our search function works, I sometimes prefer to go just manually go through the page history to find an old question I'm looking for. That would be a much easier task if I could filter the results by a "new section" tag, but that functionality doesn't exist yet (see here). Personally, I would find it useful to have that filter; between user contributions and page histories, I think it would be quite helpful in tracking down previously asked questions. I would also just find it "neat" to be able to look through my contributions and see what questions I've asked. However, as PrimeHunter mentions in that link, there would be a performance hit for creating that new tag, so, before I take this any further, I thought I'd pose the question here: would that feature be of use to you? Matt Deres (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked this question myself a couple of months ago, see here. Actually, it is already possible. Go here, type the user name you are looking for and "new section" in the search box, et voila. --Viennese Waltz 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I was unaware of it! Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm assuming you're aware that not everyone actually uses the new section button to ask a new question? Some of them just tack it on to the bottom question, with or without a heading. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of it. But I think the incidence of that is extremely low. --Viennese Waltz 13:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Village pump (policy)

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Where Do We Go from Here ?
Where do we go from here? The WP:ANI filing was archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic_behavior_by_User:Medeis_at_the_reference_desk The closing administrator, User:Neutrality, said: No consensus for any administrative action against Medeis or any other editor at this time. As several editors have noted, this discussion has strayed quite far from its original purpose. Many proposals regarding WP:RD have been advanced - from abolition to reform to minor tweaks - but it is apparent that these ideas are very preliminary, and exist only in very broad outlines. As Robert McClenon and Berean Hunter wisely pointed out, if the community believes that RD reform is necessary or desirable, then that is a discussion that should take place somewhere centralized and in orderly fashion. A well-written, clear, and specific, community-wide RfC, enumerating particular proposals (i.e., Option A, Option B, Option C), advertised at Template:Centralized discussion, is an good option. If an editor wants to pursue arbitration, they are free to so request, and it will be up to Arbcom to make the call. I note, however, that it would be needlessly confusing to have both a Request for Arbitration/Arb case and a community-wide RfC pending at the same time; I therefore advise against doing both simultaneously.

That leaves us with two options as to how to proceed. We can conduct a centralized discussion on Reference Desk reform, leading to a community-wide RFC. Alternatively, we can file a Request for Arbitration. We shouldn’t do both at the same time. So the question seems to me whether we, the Reference Desk sub-community, a portion of the Wikipedia community, are willing to try to let the Wikipedia community address the Reference Desk issues amicably first. I would suggest that we try discussion followed by an RFC (not just an arbitrary RFC that someone throws at the community), and expect that this process will take about 60 days, maybe 15 days to put together the right RFC or RFCs, followed by 30 days for the RFC to run, followed by 15 days to close the RFC (and to give anyone a chance to take the closure to WP:AN). If the process is disrupted, we can always punt by requesting Arbitration. As North American sports fans know, once you punt, it’s no longer your football. (However, the roles of receiving team and referee are combined in the ArbCom.)

Does anyone think that we should request Arbitration at this time, or is everyone willing to give centralized discussion a chance? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If by "the community" you mean "the same small cadre of pissy people with axes to grind as always" and by "reform" you mean "a vindictive sense of outsized retribution because of some minor wrong that those same people can't seem to get over" then yeah, that's right. You forget the third option which is "Do nothing, and go find some questions you can provide references to answer".  I'd greatly favor the third option.  Some people just want to watch the world burn.  Instead of giving them kindling, just ignore them and carry on as we always have.  -- Jayron 32 03:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Jayron32, for what might have been useful at WP:ANI, and, at this point, is just dumping on those who are also saying that the constant complainers should either put up or shut up. That comment might have been useful at WP:ANI, but at this time is just directed at those who are trying, perhaps pointlessly, to address the problem that exists because some people insist that there is a problem.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Jayron32, Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you wrote above is true, we still would have a problem to solve, which is the fact that many, many editors think that there is a real problem here, that more and more new editors who think that there is a problem here keep arriving here as the old ones give up, and that together this large crowd of editors keeps posting complaints here and occasionally at ANI. To solve that problem (again, assuming for the sake of argument that everything you wrote above is true), we need an RfC or arbcom case that tells everyone to quit complaining. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Word. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, In my experience Arbcom before centralized discussion tends to go very, very badly. Arbcom tends to fix things with a sledgehammer, and in one recent case voted to sanction an editor who has completely uninvolved and had never edited the page in question or interacted with any of those involved in the dispute.


 * What did he do that they thought deserved sanctions? He presented evidence in the form of diffs as an uninvolved editor that Arbcom didn't want to hear. Not being on the list of those officially involved in the dispute, There was no mention of him in the evidence phase, and he wasn't given a chance to respond before they voted to sanction him.


 * They finally relented after a large number of veteran editors complained, and even then some Arbcom members stuck to their guns, some changed their vote without explanation, and some changed their vote with an explanation that they really should have declared him involved in the dispute as soon as he posted his evidence and then sanctioned him.


 * Most Arbcom cases don't go quite that badly, but there is a strong tendency for Arbcom to punish everybody even in cases where one side misbehaved seriously and the other made only minor transgressions.


 * In my experience, ANI makes fairer and wiser decisions, but they have made it clear that they need an RfC or other centralized discussion to tell them what to enforce. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Painful to see one drama spilling over into another. To keep this on track, I would like to clarify a bit on why I stated that an RfC would likely be necessary first. ArbCom are a last resort when other avenues have been exhausted. Cases are often rejected when it is realized that not enough effort or the wrong effort have gone into finding solutions. Robert is used to seeing cases go to ArbCom because of his fine work in the DR area. Cases that come from DR will have been viewed as having gone through multiple attempts at resolution and satisfying the prerequisite conditions for consideration. At the present, I believe they would see that there are steps missing here and the case would likely be rejected. An RfC would give them a good meter upon which to judge community wishes. I would recommend that you not conflate this drama with another that may only serve to confuse the unfamiliar. Using one example of a case to best the committee and nullify them as a route for possible resolution is like trying to say that a single court case gone bad nullifies the whole legal system.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you ever given consideration to setting up clerks here? That may be a solution. I can think of three areas where clerking is used to help maintain decorum and process. ArbCom and SPI which have specific clerks with defined duties as well as RfA where the bureaucrats serve as clerks. Without such clerking, things would get out of hand.
 * I don't see what the function of clerks would be or how they would help. Clerks are used in situations where there is clear authority, and the clerks do the clerical work for the functionaries.  In ArbCom, SPI, and RFA there is clearly defined authority, and clerks do the prep work for the arbitrators, CheckUsers, or Bureaucrats.  What would clerks do?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One big question, of course, is: What's the big problem we're trying to solve here?
 * * There aren't enough good questions any more
 * * There are too many bad / opinion-seeking / debate-attracting / trolling questions
 * * There are too many jokey / bantering / speculative / unreferenced answers
 * * There are too many questions / answers that violate the no-medical-advice and other guidelines
 * * There's too much hatting and deletion of borderline questions / answers
 * I'm afraid there's not good consensus even on what the problem is, let alone what the solution(s) might be.
 * Me, I fear the root cause is that while the RD's once formed a pretty large, vibrant, relatively cohesive community, over time it has both shrunk and splintered, meaning that it's painfully hard to come to consensus on much of anything these days. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me, I fear the root cause is that while the RD's once formed a pretty large, vibrant, relatively cohesive community, over time it has both shrunk and splintered, meaning that it's painfully hard to come to consensus on much of anything these days. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me, I fear the root cause is that while the RD's once formed a pretty large, vibrant, relatively cohesive community, over time it has both shrunk and splintered, meaning that it's painfully hard to come to consensus on much of anything these days. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We need to take serious the proverb that says that "too many captains will sink the ship". What often happens is that a system that is actually capable to do the job it is supposed to do, but due it's being micromanaged to much and then you get disputes that escalate. That's why I proposed sticking to 1RR when doing housekeeping tasks like hatting questions. And I think any revert of this nature should be accompanied by a posting on the talk page explaining the reasons why you reverted. After that you should recuse from any further action on that particular issue. But there are other solutions like Berean Hunter's suggestion of appointing clerks.


 * If this then doesn't work then that would pointsto there being a far more fundamental dispute between editors who are just not able to work together, and then you really need a forceful intervention. But it's best to separate such a dispute from trivial disputes that are an artifact of everyone playing the moderator at the same time before going to ArbCom, otherwise what Guy says will happen; everyone will get topic banned and this place will be shut down. Count Iblis (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think "troll questions" are really a problem - you shouldn't really need to hear the bell ringing for the church service in order to have a steeplechase. If it's a question and you can think of an interesting way to answer it, answer it.  The only problem here are people who think there's a problem here. Wnt (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, at this point it appears that maybe User:Jayron32 was right. There is a problem because some editors say that there is a problem, and that makes the problem, but maybe Jayron32 was right, and no one except the complainers wants to do anything, and all they want to do is complain.  If so, maybe we know that the next time someone goes to WP:ANI, a boomerang should be thrown.  Maybe there only is a problem for those who say that there is a problem.  If no one proposes anything constructive, then maybe that is reason to infer that the real problem is non-constructive behavior.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! Oh we all agree the problem is non-constructive behavior. We just can't agree on which behavior is most non-constructive! ApLundell (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Clerk Discussion
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (Answering your question about clerks here) Clerks may:
 * Regulate archiving
 * Regulate hattings and removals
 * Regulate formats and necessary refactoring to make sure nothing breaks. Add sigs/datestamps for archiving bots
 * Regulate behavior by editors and show some the door if necessary
 * These are a few examples. You can peruse the SPI Clerk role and responsibilities and appropriate how that might be adapted here. If you can't imagine how a clerk might help then I would ask you to consider the catalyst for the recent turmoil. If hatting were left up to a clerk then there wouldn't have been an edit war over it.
 * After looking over the responsibilities of SPI Clerks, I am still confused as to how clerks would help in general, although I do have a guess as to how User:Berean Hunter may see it. SPI clerks, as I commented above, act as the gatekeepers for the CheckUsers.  CheckUsers are highly trusted by the community.  SPI clerks must be trusted by the CheckUsers and by the other clerks.  SPI clerks are noted to have no special authority.  I see that User:Berean Hunter is an admin clerk, and there are also non-admin clerks.  My question is:  Who would decide what editors can be trusted as clerks?  If Berean Hunter is saying that part of the problem is that some editors have self-appointed themselves to act as the clerks, that is true, but who would unappoint the self-appointed clerks?  It is true that the Reference Desks have a few admins who are active from time to time, including BereanHunter.  Formalizing a role for a group of admins would help, if it were understood that those admins could issue blocks to any self-appointed clerks who engaged in questionable hatting.  However, what is a questionable hatting?  We don't have any rules on hatting.  I see that BereanHunter says that clerks could "Regulate behavior by editors and show some the door if necessary".  Only admins can show the door to trolls, to busybody self-appointed clerks, or to other difficult editors.  I see that BereanHunter has made this proposal in good faith, but I think that they are making assumptions, as an admin clerk, about what clerks could do and how they could help.  I can see that giving more responsibility to those editors who are admins would help, but I don't see any need for a designated clerk role, only for asking admins to use the mop heavily.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't see a need for clerks, only for clarity. Most of the time I think we can do without enforcement.  Administration is never pretty, whether we do it here, on AN/I, or in some clerk star chamber; it's possible that having some editors hatting and unhatting comments is as peaceful a resolution as we're going to get.  Convincing the editors to tolerate a wide-ranging conversation is what I'd prioritize; no need for an entrenched bureaucracy, particularly not a substandard one. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that the comment by User:Jayron32 was hostile and disparaging, and I still think so, but, seeing the lack of any constructive comments now, I conclude that his hostility was partly warranted. My conclusion is that, the next time anyone takes a Reference Desk dispute to WP:ANI, the appropriate response is simply a boomerang.  Complainers about the Reference Desks, you had a chance to try to be constructive.  You didn't act.  Those of you who make a big stink about hattings are only a little better than those who do the hattings that cause the stink.  User:Guy Macon is right that editors should stop trying to control other editors, but those who want something done about controlling behavior seem to want only attention or something.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
In WP:RD/H, at a suitable position and indentation below this comment by Baseball Bugs:
 * The start of Lincoln's presidency was marred by the entire south seceding from the union. I don't think anything like that has happened before or since.

Please add:
 * Sorry, they started seceding before Lincoln was president. Remember, inauguration day used to be in March. Admittedly it happened because be was elected, but it still doesn't count as an event during his first months in office. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Signal-to-noise
On the present WP:RD/H query, I'd appreciate some guidance here: are the comments at 07:14 and 11:34 today - minimized in type size though they be - wholly acceptable to the purpose and spirit of the Ref desks? Having read the above discussions (Where do we go from here? and Vibrancy), and being often enough on either side of the footlights - with my queries focused on editing Wikipedia content - I'm not so tolerant of what I consider outright noise. The subject of Masha Gessen's professional credentials and positions, inasmuch as they possibly overshadow her "views on gay marriage" is complex enough that those who edit might show some concern toward the quality of that article's citations and possible POV. Oh, and here at 15:11 another comment that actually refers to the subject., but in my experience belongs on Talk:Masha Gessen and I'm about to mention that. My contention is that noise unrelated to the issue at hand is out of place on the RDs. As we often respond to inappropriate queries - go find yourself some social media forum to display your self-styled wit, there are plenty of them on the Interwebs. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can take the additional step of boxing it up, if you like, but outright removal seems inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP was the same one that asked about Hitler banning fox hunting. Wondering if it's the Nazi troll taking a different tack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a how-to page on that, including how to document the action (e.g. standard heading, Edit summary sufficient to explain...)?

How's this ? Go into edit mode to see the syntax needed.


 * Why does it seem inappropriate to you? I'm wholly in favour of deleting irrelevant comments such as the ones highlighted here. --Viennese Waltz 16:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A talk page such as the Ref Desk does not allow you to just delete comments that you find to be irrelevant. There is good reason for this.  People will disagree on what is relevant.  For example, some of the comments in question seem to be pointing out, in a flippant way, that whether the person themself has been in a gay marriage does not automatically reveal their position on gay marriage.  Also, how would you like it if somebody declares your comments to be irrelevant and deletes them ?  This practice would lead to anger, edit wars, and drama we don't need. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I use a simple rule of thumb to identify irrelevant comments. They're the ones signed by Sturat and Baseball Bugs. --Viennese Waltz 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You forgot to add yourself to that list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You've just demonstrated the problem nicely. You've prejudged ALL contributions by two people to be deserving of deletion, without even reading them.  This shows that you lack the judgement to be entrusted with such decisions. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it could just be that British rye sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "That hammy answer goes against the grain," he said wryly, but he was only chaffing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's corny. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Asking a question and now Refdesk is semiprotected
I was reverting MarnetteD who was constantly deleting my question, saying that it's trolling, and now the humanities Refdesk is semiprotected. Why? Is it because I'm not allowed to ask questions? My question was why there are so many gay pride parades but no straight pride parades. What's wrong the question?24.130.68.155 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your premise is false. See Straight pride.  General Ization   Talk   15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a decent answer. So why didn't we give that answer in the first place, not delete the question as "trolling", not semi-protect the Refdesk for "sock puppetry?"  I mean, I have no idea if this is a sock puppet and frankly I don't need to for this argument -- if we're going to answer questions ... why not do it on the Refdesk?  Just seems like sensible design!  And as usual I see more disruption from the enforcement than the "trolls". Wnt (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's typical of one type of question the Nazi ref desk troll would ask. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD deleted the post. So, I went to the user's Talk Page to talk about the deletion. I told the user that I could have posted this as a reply: "Homosexuals are often stigmatized and shamed by society for being homosexuals. Homosexuals tend to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt for a harmless behavior. Given that there is no scientific or medical support for the harmfulness of homosexuality, homosexuals feel they should be exonerated from this guilt and be accepted by society. Acceptance is an universal human trait, because humans are very social. Social isolation is tantamount to torture, and humans feel that they do not deserve torture for a harmless thing. Heterosexuals do not experience shame for heterosexuality. Most of the time, heterosexuality is the expected and enforced norm." But the user just deleted that and told me in the little Edit Summary that I shouldn't reply to the troll or the other troll. That said, the Reference Desk post does seem a bit troll-ish, because no one should have to explain the central characteristic of human nature. It is always assumed that all humans understand human nature tacitly. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * With these edits, which I reverted, the OP was confirmed to be a troll.  General Ization  Talk   03:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first question seems legitimate. One challenge in public health is trying to be more open and friendly to non-heterosexuals in a heterosexist, homophobic environment. The second question sounds like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was assuming good faith and composing a reply to the first followup question when the OP posted the second, making their true intent clear. Based on behavioral evidence, the OP is a well-known troll here. General Ization  Talk   03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI is the standard practice, especially when dealing with Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. IMO it is a shame that "it" is being fed here. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As General's links show, the troll very soon reveals his true agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Refdesk requires ignorance; without that, it would have no purpose at all. If Nazi or anti-Semitic or anti-gay posters are driven to ask us questions, even if they are pointed, then this is part of the world trying to purge itself by a normal healing process: the ignorant come to us with their ignorance and we have an opportunity to answer it.  If we do so simply and honestly, we will either put the troll to rout because he is afraid to think about what we say, or we will convert him.  Meanwhile, in making such answers we build up a database of responses that might productively be used by those facing discriminatory gibes or needing additional confidence.  There are situations we know nothing about, where a lone victim cannot block the troll for some reason, and we should have confidence that straightforward responses by us now will eventually work their way out to that system. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you succeed in enlightening the Nazi troll, get back to us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me give you some medical advice, Wnt. There is no compulsion to answer every question.


 * And user 50's assertion that "Homosexuals tend to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt for a harmless behavior" is condescending twaddle. When I figured out my own sexuality, my reaction was "oh, so that's what the fuss is all about--well then their "moral" teachings are false and I can ignore them, since I feel no quilt for my nature."  Marnette was right to close the discussion, it was a request for debate, as usual, not a request for references. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't be sending you a quilt for Christmas, then. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone who thinks homosexuals feel quilty must be a square. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hatting a question at the refdesk
Was it okay for me to hat the question about the origin of one quote? The question was a reasonable one but eventually turned into trolling. Or should have I removed the trolling part and kept the question unhatted?Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP quickly revealed himself to be the Nazi troll. Hatting was fine. As was deleting it, which I did after that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks.Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take much to flush out the Nazi troll. It's like shooting gefilte fish in a barrel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is why I tried to answer the question briefly and factually without trying to engage him in conversation after the question was answered.
 * ApLundell (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Except the Nazi troll is a banned user, and is not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you won your game of cops and robbers by baiting the troll and encouraging disruption. I'm sure it made it fun for both you and the troll, And no doubt you're both looking forward to the next round.
 * How boring it would have been for everybody if you hadn't baited him.
 * ApLundell (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No adult can be baited unless they're willing to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you, Bugs, even realize that you're probably one of the reference desk's easiest targets of troll bait? ---Sluzzelin talk  02:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can handle it. If he's messing with me, he's not messing with someone else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See, I'm not sure I buy that, and you have complained about being harassed/targeted by people with nefarious goals in the past. Nobody wishes for you to be a martyr here, but, more to the point, when you call out trolls (rather than ignoring or responding to the skeleton question with references which possibly make trolloid questioners look stupid or, when really needed, removing a question) and respond antagonistically or make a big general fuss out of them (on this talk page, noticeboards, etc.), you're giving the attention most craved by the person we call troll. Sorry for singling you out, but you are singular, long ears, wisecrackery, and all. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, I let someone else handle the troll. He's got more eyes on him than you can shake a shtick at. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit that I have been called out as a "troll" before. Most of the time, I was never aware that I was trolling. I just knew that I asked a question that no one liked, and people started to question me as if I had some kind of hidden motive. It was extremely frustrating, because then I didn't know what people wanted from me or what people wanted me to say. It's like playing mind games. Looking back, I think that some people regarded my posts as "trolling", because they thought that my questions were hopelessly naïve. In my own matured self, I think that there are some questions that should not be asked in the first place, especially if the question touches on taboo or controversial subjects. Someone will always get offended or perceive that the questioner has "motives". The question must be of a certain difficulty level with some academic knowledge background in order to be perceived as genuine. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Who makes the rules here?
So, does a user get to unilaterally make up their own rules, because he thinks some answers are "interesting", even if they contravene our policies and guidelines? I refer to "Is it certain that 1 WTC would have collapsed by the plane crash?", a question on Humanities.

I hatted the first 8 responses (from 6 different users) because they contained opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, debate – but not one link to any external source. Zero.

After that there was a post containing 2 references.

Then the OP comes along and unhats what I'd previously hatted: "I appreciate that you care about people sticking to the topic - but these arguments are interesting in their own right, and still, they are the context of the answer citing a source".

Well, yes, lots of things we see around us are "interesting". But so what? Saying these unreferenced posts are acceptable because they are interesting is tantamount to saying debate is perfectly OK here. Isn't it?

As for "they are the context of the answer citing a source", I don't get that at all, sorry. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:IAR and WP:DNFTT. I tend to think that it's not worth trying to contain edits unless they are directly disruptive (as e.g. those by our resident Nazi troll). The fallout is usually worse than the inconvenience of the original problem, and the interpretation on what is acceptable and what not differ too widely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's a reference desk, not a discussion forum. That's what it's called, at least. If we want a forum, we should change the name after getting community consensus for the mission change. Jack is correct, although tilting at a windmill. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A rather quixotic remark, if I may so. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:KnightMove. Sorry for overlooking the OP.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The idea of the Refdesk is to get to references, but it isn't really necessary for responders to get there in one go. I made a brief comment about the floors in order to illustrate the concept, based on the pancake explanation, which has been very widely reported in American press; while it would have been better to source it, I was trusting someone with intimate familiarity would come along shortly and explain in better technical detail.  This in fact did happen - you see that the post you approve of made a response that the pancake theory had been debunked.  Now you can say that's some kind of offense, that any kind of idle talk is a crime against .... well, a crime against what, exactly?  We were thinking about the question. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The rules do not demand that all answers must provide sources, only that "Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources." Anyone might have a look and judge whether the contributions hatted by JackofOz (see here) have violated that rule. I think they have not, even less all of them, so taking action was at least unnecessary. --KnightMove (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Questions that are such fodder for trolls and demand WP:AGF should put us on our best behavior. The replies are not our best behavior. The fact that OP is a long-term user in good standing who seems to acknowledge the potential for abuse is a mitigating factor in the eyes of many (though I still espouse that IPs are WP:HUMAN). Anyway, ending all the set up, the OP posts an entirely appropriate question for the ref desk: Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered?


 * Unfortunately, nobody seems to have really tried to field the only appropriate part. Unsourced opinion is never ideal here, and it is especially bad for this kind of (potentially, inadvertently) troll-baiting question. In my estimation 209...'s response is fine, because it's ultimately seeking clarification and critiquing the associated image, not offering much in the way of speculation or WP:OR. Wnt's response at least contains some reference. I do think Wnt has a good point about incremental responses being occasionally useful, even if they don't contain references. In this specific case, however, none of it seems especially useful. Every other (current) responder deserves at least a WP:TROUTing in my book, because it's basically fan chatter and arm-chair analysis. Ultimately, the reference desk is for seeking and providing references, but all I can manage to do is try to act like a pro about it myself, and maybe toss out the occasional trouting.
 * Finally, as you know, the rules are ultimately upheld by the fickleness of the crowd and by people who like to boss people around and by people who just want this to be a nice place and also whoever the hell is awake and reading at the moment. It's crappy system, but still one of the best out there :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See, I liken this to a RL library where there's a reference desk staffed by, say, 10 people. A user goes up to the desk to seek information on a certain topic.  What he probably expects is either the names of some relevant books/sources, or at least a pointer to the relevant section of the library.  What he gets, in this case, is a round-desk discussion among the staffers in which their private opinions and theories are bandied about, but no actual advice is given to the user as to where to go to find what they came to the desk for in the first place.  Would any of us walk away feeling satisfied with such an experience?  Would we be inclined to go back to that desk with other queries?  I certainly would not.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But note the alternative of all 10 staffers cooly turning their back and ignoring the question - would that be better? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How is that a relevant analogy? We don't "coolly turn our backs" and ignore OP's questions.  No, what happens, ideally, is that anyone who can supply a reference does so pretty quickly, and others simply remain silent (if only ....) .  In the unlikely event that nobody has enough interest to be bothered getting involved, or enough smarts to be able to provide a reference, someone usually pipes up and asks a clarifying question.  Remember, we do tell OPs that an answer may take a few days, so they should not expect instant responses.  If you think that silence for a day or so would be interpreted as us "coolly ignoring" the OP, then I suggest you're shouldering too much emotional responsibility for the presumed feelings of anonymous people on the internet.  There's probably a term for that.  I hope it's not contagious. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At a physical reference desk with a staff, the questioner would have face-to-face interaction. Here, it's like if the guy asks a question and then immediately bolts, possibly in the library, possibly out on the street, possibly to never return. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you're talking about? How is this type of occasional OP behaviour relevant to this topic?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're trying to compare an electronic ref desk with a physical ref desk. And I'm saying that comparison doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack's point, with which I agree, is that the comparison doesn't work in respect of the respondents, not in respect of the questioners. --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work with regard to the questioners, either. The fundamental difference is the lack of face-to-face interaction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, I agree, and what I'm saying is that these folks have largely acted unprofessionally, hence the trouting. Unfortunately we can't really stop them, and we also can't force anyone to actually do a good job of it. If this were anything else I'd go finds some refs just to make a WP:POINT, but I have a severe allergy to reading materials on this topic. Perhaps your hatting would have stayed in place if it were not hat, but a simple collapse, like so:


 * Comment A
 * More bullshit
 * That's a good point
 * No it isn't you don't know anything
 * If only there were a way to find out where I can read more, possibly in a reliable source!


 * I have had some mild success with that in the past. People don't like being told "no" or "you can't do that", but they are often ok with "let's put this material off to the side so it doesn't get in the way of good reference work." - your mileage may vary :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemanticMantis (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The analogy that the reference desk is like a library reference desk is fundamentally wrong. I'd liken it more to a room at a university where students hang out between classes.  Someone walks in and asks "Anyone know anything about XYZ"?  People who have knowledge or interest in the subject have a discussion.  People walk in or rush off to class at various times.  (In a library if you don't like how the librarian is working you complain and they stop getting paid.  No one here gets paid in the first place.) RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is NOT the "anyone know anything?" desk. it is still a reference desk. Your drop-in-drop out point is apt, but our explicit goal is to provide references, not act like self-appointed experts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally, questions which are unanswerable or vaguely worded should be ignored. Realistically, people want to help. So they engage in discussion to try to figure out what the questioner wants or needs to know, whether references exist or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes it's necessary to ask questions to get to the real question. But in this case the question was quite clear, yet the 1st respondent started out with "I am obviously not an expert, but the collapse of 1 seemed to come from the collapse of the floors above the impact site ...".  This was just a personal observation.  The next 7 responses just added more opinion, observation, thoughts.  Nothing remotely resembling an attempt to answer the question posed, which was "Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered?".  Those who contributed their own opinions may well consider them to be in the realm of the "serious discussion" the OP was after.  And the OP did say they were "interesting".  But my point remains: they talked around the general topic without ever addressing the actual question, or even trying to.


 * It cannot possibly be the case that people come here primarily to find out what the anonymous respondents think (interesting and all as their thoughts sometimes may be). They come here to find out what published reputable sources have to say.  Why are people so unwilling to do that basic work of looking up the references the OPs are after - which is after all why we're supposedly hanging around the reference desk in the first place - yet equally willing to pipe in with their own opinions, as if they counted for something?  Is it an ego thing, where they think that whatever they have to say on any given topic has greater authority and merit than any published sources?  They may well think that, but on the other hand, how highly would they regard anyone who would blithely accept the opinion of any old anonymous jerk on the internet?  Not very, I suspect. So they're actually in the business of feeding people they consider idiots.  I hope their mothers are proud of the great heights to which their paths in life have brought them.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out some specifics of the current case: --KnightMove (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was fairly obvious that the opinions of the posters don't come out of nowhere, but are rooted in published analyses of the WTC collapses - as required by the rules.
 * Unsurprisingly, in the USA there is much more material on the collapses published and consumed, and I did learn a lot from these answers.
 * None of the answers was destructive or 'trolling' in any way. Any disruption was far off.
 * The non-sourced answers led to a sourced answer, as should be the case for a discussion.
 * Some of the most active reference desk contributors were among the hatted posters, esp. StuRat. If conclude they did misbehave, it might seem advisable to either clarify or modify the rules.


 * How was it obvious (point 1)? If they were just repeating stuff you already knew to be true, then that's hardly an advance in your knowledge. If they were saying stuff you did NOT know, what led you to believe them, and why would you prefer the personal testimony of a ref desk respondent over a link to a published source?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have many, many times, begged and pleaded with StuRat to stop posting whatever pops in to his head. I'm not alone, several others have too. Sometimes I think we should start a support group. But it never works. I've mostly given up. More recently, I've noted a slight improvement in his (quality referenced post)/(unsourced opinion)/ ratio, but it is still far less than one, and he is still far from a ref-desk role model. For a guidance or role models on ref-desk behavior, look to Nimur, Jayron, BenRG, Nil Einne, Nyttend, Steve Summit, AlanSplodge, and many more. Jack himself does pretty good work here too. But your comment brings up a good point: since Stu is so active and so often engages in bad behavior, it does give the impression that this is ok. I don't want this to turn in to yet another thing about Stu, but since you bring up his behavior and activity as evidence of the acceptability of said activity, I had to correct that mistaken notion: just because Stu makes a lot of bad posts doesn't mean it's ok. This specific instance is not terrible in my book, but I'd also have recommended leaving all the unsourced material in a collapsed section like the one I used above. The notion of "It was fairly obvious that the opinions of the posters don't come out of nowhere, but are rooted in published analyses" is completely off base for a reference desk. If they have analyses, they should post them. This is not an expert desk, nor is it a "trust me I've read stuff" desk.  SemanticMantis (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also disturbing is when other editors yell at StuRat (or whoever) and tell him he's wrong about something which he might actually have right, or at least partially right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That utterly misses the point, as I think you know. This desk is not for respondents to say things that are right.  It's for respondents to provide links to things that are published.  Big difference.  Huge.  Now, OK, sometimes we can diverge from that core principle (as StuRat notes below), but often all we see is the variations, with nary even a suspicion of the theme.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The attackers, too often, fail to provide their own references to refute the original comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a mistake to say that every response needs a reference. Here are some exceptions I can think of:


 * 1) Request for clarification of the Q.


 * 2) Pointing out that the Q may be taken more than one way.


 * 3) Pointing out answers which others have already given (like "You might have missed that the 3rd response from X included a link which shows...").


 * 4) Calculations. Common on the Math Desk, but sometimes also on the Science Desk, Computer Desks, etc.  (Something like a simple conversion from metric to US units doesn't really require a ref, unless there's an argument over it.)


 * 5) Saying why an answer is not possible.


 * 6) Reformatting (like boxing up large chunks of code).


 * 7) Suggesting a method for finding the answer.


 * Another one I don't much support is responses that do nothing more than criticize the responses of others. That doesn't belong on the Ref Desk.  Take it here or to their talk page instead.  (Saying that a response in incorrect is OK, with evidence, but insulting people is not.)


 * Also, Jack, note that most your recent responses (since you posted this complaint) on the Ref Desk don't include refs either:, , , , . Now that doesn't mean those were bad posts, but neither does it mean so when others do the same.  StuRat (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are the 5 dumbest NON-refutations I've ever seen, Stu. A complete waste of your time, defending the indefensible by attacking the upholder of the rules.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You seem to have been saying that every Ref Desk post requires a ref, and that's clearly not the case, as I just described. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I've ever said. In fact, just up above I said: This desk is not for respondents to say things that are right.  It's for respondents to provide links to things that are published.  Big difference.  Huge.  Now, OK, sometimes we can diverge from that core principle (as StuRat notes below) ....  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So you're saying my position is "indefensible" whilst simultaneously saying you agree with what I said ? Huh ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me make it clear. I have no issue with any of the 7 things you listed.  But these are not pertinent to my topic, which is that a range of people provided "opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, debate", but nothing remotely like any source.  I note that you didn't mention opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, or debate in your list of exceptions.  Nor should you have.  I take it you accept that these things are not welcome on the reference desks.  Yet you were one of the users engaging in such behaviour in the thread in question.  Care to explain?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The first link of your contributions I provided is opinion. In some cases, like Language Desk Q's, I don't see how you avoid opinion, say if somebody asks if a sentence sounds too formal for a given situation.  As for speculation/hypothesis, that's often the first step in finding an answer.  For example, on the Computer Desk, we might say "Sounds like a bad power cord, try another cord to test this hypothesis".  "Argument/debate" is what you could call discussions like the one I linked to below, where the ability of US state governors to refuse extradition from other states was in doubt.  As long as those are kept civil, that's a valuable part of the process.  So no, I don't agree with that list of "banned interactions", either. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so now we know. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense that someone is allowed to make a claim with evidence but you require evidence for a challenge of that claim. Yes evidence makes for a better challenge but sometimes comments are so stupid there's little point looking for the evidence. Of course simply questioning something which was claimed but without evidence, without saying it's definitely wrong, shouldn't require evidence either. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If someone attack's another's comments as being incorrect, without providing refuting evidence, then the attacker is just as guilty as the one they're attacking. In lieu of refuting evidence, the right response is not "That's so stupid." The right response is "What's your source for that?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As for Nil's comment, a statement of fact doesn't always need proof, until somebody challenges it.  If I claimed that the Sun set at 09:12 PM (EDT) in Detroit today, without proof, that's OK.  However, if somebody challenges the truth of that claim, then they should provide their proof I am wrong, and ask me to provide my proof.  In this way we could find out why there's a diff in our sources, such as one rounding the minutes up and the other rounding them down. Simply saying "You're wrong !" does not help to resolve the discrepancy, and doesn't even identify what the discrepancy is.  And saying something like "You're a moron if you believe that !" is even less helpful.  Civility should be our highest goal.  StuRat (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See Reference_desk/Humanities for an example of the proper way to disagree. There was a question over whether US state governors had the right to refuse an extradition request from another US state in the 1930s, yet we were able to disagree and discuss this question civilly, without resorting to calling each other names. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, if in an article someone writes that the time of sunset on 21 June 2017 in Detroit was 21:12 EDT any person can tag it .  They don't have to suggest or provide evidence that it is wrong.   One consideration is that the sunset time varies according to where in Detroit you happen to be.   That's what Stu says in the first part of his answer.   On the reference desk, it's helpful, if someone believes a statement to be wrong, to say why they think it's wrong.   It's not obligatory, however.
 * Again, someone commented that in London different classes live cheek by jowel.  If the observation is supported by the fact that the informant lives there, and is speaking from personal observation, I don't see that whether the information has or has not been published derogates from it. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The danger there is that someone may be objectively mistaken in their well-meaning and good-faith testimony, whereas a published source is less likely to have this problem. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Many published sources are wrong. And, if there's an error in a post, others will catch it and point it out, and then we can look it up in various sources.  This is an example of how the crowd is smarter than any individual, a principle behind both capitalism and Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In my version of English, "less likely to [be mistaken]" includes the possibility that it is mistaken.
 * Your system involves open slather on the admission of erroneous (even maliciously erroneous) statements, and the consequent need for their correction. Permitting only sourced statements would greatly reduce this workload. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is you're making the silly assumption someone needs prove that something is wrong to ask for evidence it's correct. This explains why there's such a problem with "fake news". You don't need proof that something is wrong to ask for evidence to support it. We may be living in a world with Donald Trump but we're not living in a Trump world where everything someone says should automatically be believed even if there's zero evidence for it. Even more so since we're on the reference desk. Further you seem to be implying that all questionable claims made on the RD have evidence to support them. The reality is with certain people, and yes no point beating around the bush, I'm referring to you in particular, the questionable claims have no real evidence hence why they were questionable in the first place. It's not that the sources were wrong or disagree, it's simply that there are none. In other words, the person had no good reason to think the claim is true in the first place. Whether they half remembered something they once read, or they came up with some idea but their understanding of the situation was too limited.  And yes civility is important, but so to is not misleading our readers which happens a lot when people like you just write whatever that comes into your head and make no attempt to research that what you're actually writing about is correct. Ultimately the best way to you can win an argument against someone who says you are wrong or stupid is to provide evidence that you are not wrong. If a person keeps saying you're wrong and you provide evidence you aren't, people are going to start thinking the challenger is the stupid one. And yes, it becomes resonable to start ignoring the challenges (although bearing in mind this is a reference desk requests for references should always get some respect if it's likely someone will use them). This doesn't happen here though because most of the time you are wrong and even when you try to provide references they often either don't support what you're saying or are very poor. The few times you are able to provide decent references tend to be cases when people ask for references without expressing any scepticism.  (And to be clear, I'm not saying that saying someone is stupid is a good way to handle a dispute, it clearly isn't but in reality it almost never happens. Saying you're wrong without some reason why you believe they're wrong is also generally unhelpful. Although there's no reason why you have to provide sources at the get go when the thing you're suggesting is wrong has no evidence in the first place. Especially if you have good reason to think no sources would be incoming and you have good reason to think sources could be found and it's not clear that point actually matters to anyone i.e. while we shouldn't misinform the reader, it doesn't necessarily matter that they can be sure which one is true. Still you ideally should be able to provide sources later if needed or at least try to. And then either admit you're wrong if it's clear the other person is right or if neither of you is able to provide sufficient sourcing to resolve the dispute, agree it's unclear so the person may not be wrong. And take the lessons learnt on board in future challenges. But let me repeat again, simply asking for evidence, or even if it includes some scepticism, should not mean that you are willing to provide evidence that the person is wrong.)  Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway I've already spent too much time on this. If you want to think you should be able to say whatever you want and no one is able to ask for your evidence without providing evidence you're wrong, that's up to you. I don't think it would be a good idea for us to try and police and these "ideal behaviour" discussions don't tend to go anywhere much. (Well I have tried to change my behaviour in response to some of them and I'm still hoping you will one day too, although my discussion style is probably not the best way to effect that.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's really not difficult. If you think someone has made a factually incorrect or questionable statement, you should either explain why they've got it wrong, or ask them what their source is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely. So why does StuRat seem to think that you need to provide a source to ask for a source? Or if you offer some explaination of why someone is probably wrong but without a source, this is unacceptable despite the fact you may be offering a better explaination and no source was provided in the first place? These are the point of contention, and why I made my first comment. (And note, it's not just that the OP and others may have no interest in the issue, but also simply that there's no reason someone should be forced to spend their time to provide higher standard of evidence to disprove a claim based on no or little evidence. Sure it's better. But we are all volunteers. If someone is going to volunteer info they believe to be correct, someone else should be free to volunteer contradictory info they believe to be correct based on the same threshold of evidence. It may not allow the reader to be certain of which one to trust, but it does help any readers who are interested know they should be cautious of trusting the original statement. As someone who strongly dislikes incorrect or misleading info it is a pet peeve of mine.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. My dislike of something being wrong extends even more to myself hence why I often do way too much research before posting sometimes in a poor way. (Whether as a direct response to a question or when challenging a claim made.) However it's also one of the reasons for my long posts given the needs for countless caveats, clarifications etc and likewise sometimes means I'm reluctant to admit I'm wrong, both of which but I admit much more the later I'm trying to improve. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay on further consideration what I wrote above may easily be misintepreted so I'll offer one final clarification which will hopefully help you understand the situation from my POV. I'm not saying that people always need to provide references. I don't always and I have seen some great answers without references. Sometimes these are from personal experience etc and while as highlighted by others above. this isn't always the best source (although very occasionally it's actually better than what RS say) nor something acceptable on the encyclopaedia proper, they are something which we generally accept on the RD. There are other reasons why we don't always need sources and yes we may disagree on the extent. Still I think it's clear that many participants feel your opinion of when you need sources is way too infrequent. The problem is not simply the lack of sources but how often you are wrong. In reference to one of my earlier points, AFAICR, I often either provide some evidence or simply ask for your evidence when challenging you. Still I'm sure I sometimes do express scepticism without much evidence presented for it when challenging you. But there's a reason why it happens with you but if I'm challenging someone like Nimur or Semantic Mantis or SBHB or Jayron32 yes even μηδείς for certain things and other people current and past, even when they didn't provide any sources; I nearly always provide evidence in the form of sources. And I personally believe it has little or hopefully nothing to do with any personal feelings towards you. It's because they're selective enough that when they do post without sources they still tend to be right.  We all make decisions about when to post and what to post and make mistakes at times. And to be clear, I'm not implying here or with my earlier comment that most of the time you're wrong and so can't provide sources but rather it's IMO too frequent. And so when people are challenging with scepticism, even if they don't provide evidence themselves, they are generally in the right and so you can't provide sources. When people think you're in the right or are fairly unsure, they either don't challenge or only ask for sources without expressing scepticism. (So this tends to be when you can provide sources.)  While I obviously don't edit my posts enough before posting, I do actually edit them a fair bit and can spend quite some time on them. Notably it isn't uncommon when I believe something but then when actually researching for the answer find out I'm wrong and have to re-write (or write something different from what planned). And yes this does happen when I think someone is wrong too. Particularly in the later case, I may feel there's nothing to be learnt so don't even post at all. (As I obviously have the nasty habit of writing long responses I'm perhaps a bit slack at providing what I've found even if it's probably helpful due to a lack of sources. Although my threshold for what I'd accept as "well maybe the respondent is right" is a lot lower than I like to provide to the RD.)  Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you really do need to work on being concise, as I almost skipped reading your massive blocks of text. You might consider the outline form I favor.


 * I have long since given up on Nil Einne's absurdly long posts. I just cannot bring myself to read them anymore.  They are completely wasted on me.  I have numerous times asked him to learn to be more concise, but nothing ever changes.  Even now, as he's explaining why he's not concise, he takes WAY TOO LONG to make his point.  To keep doing this is an insult to his presumed readers, of whom he will find there are many fewer than he thinks.  Just being a contributor to a thread online is zero guarantee others will read your posts, particularly if you make them unreadable. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * He does seem to realize he has a problem, and that's the first step to overcoming an addiction. :-) Maybe he needs the lesson from A River Runs Through It, where the father had his sons rewrite everything repeatedly, cutting it down in size each time.  Like everything, there's a cost-benefit analysis involved when we choose whether to read something, and the longer it is, the more benefit it would need to have to justify the time we must invest in reading it. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Nil Einne has improved, and structures his posts (as seen above). 2) If there is consensus that the length of Nil Einne's posts are of such repressive dimensions that they constitute an unreasonable demand to whoever is interested in reading this talk page, then I realize I am really out of tune with today's culture of communicating in snippets of 140 characters. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 140 chars per bullet point seems about right. Then maybe limit yourself to around 10 bullets, and you have a concise communication. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My point is just that there needs to be equality in demand for sources on both sides. So, if you ask for a source to prove some factual statement, then you should be willing to provide a source disproving it.  It would be unfair to demand a source when you yourself refuse to provide one. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * How can you provide a source that something is not true?  See the discussion at Evidence of absence. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You often can. In the two examples I've discussed so far:


 * A) For the sunrise time on a particular date and location, just provide a source for when it was, and this disproves any claims to the contrary.


 * B) For the discussion of if governors of US states can refuse extradition requests from other states, we have an article with sources that gives all the nuances. This will disprove any claims to the contrary.


 * Now there are some claims that can't be disproven, like "I saw a cat on Elm street the other day", but then there's no reason to challenge such claims either, unless they are extraordinary claims, then Occam's razor kicks in: "I can't believe you saw a T Rex running down the road in New York City. Now if you said Tokyo, I might believe it." :-)  StuRat (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing
said " If you think someone has made a factually incorrect or questionable statement, you should either explain why they've got it wrong, or ask them what their source is". How often does this happen? Especially with users who routinely post personal opinion, personal experience etc without any kind of factual and verifiable evidence? Should we now have a Ref Desk monitor who asks for all such "questionable statements" (and that can mean just about anything) to be referenced? Wouldn't it be simpler to just ask for such comments to be referenced in the first place? I'm happy to review every Ref Desk contribution and ask for citations, but I think it would work better the other way, the sourcing comes first, personal anecdotes, etc should be shelved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Or just ridicule the user. That seems to be the standard practice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from other regular users here. As I said, I'm happy to "ask them what their source is" every single time someone makes an unreferenced claim.  After all, this is an encyclopedia and a Ref Desk should use verifiable responses.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I frequently ask people to provide sources.-- Jayron 32 03:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As do I. However, in my case, I only do so if I am interested in reading the source or if I have reason to doubt the statement.  I don't ask for a source just to be a dick. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sourcing is clearly desirable, but that doesn't mean that unsourced answers are undesirable. When people are wrong, they are likely to be called out -- even a wrong answer, when honestly given, can be a step toward clarifying the question.  With a good question there is a good chance that there is dispute even among researchers.  Now to be sure, there have been a few times where I've seen StuRat start going on a low-effort speculation that wasn't well considered enough to be useful, but more often he is at least an "icebreaker".  So I mean he should watch his tendency to just think he can make up an answer, and be willing more often to present his thoughts as a question ("could it be for this reason?") rather than a confident answer.  But I don't want him to go away and give up either, and I sure as hell don't want people who I never see answering questions themselves to come to the desk and start denouncing him for trying.
 * I think the best metaphor for sourcing is to think of the Refdesk as a party and the source as being the bags of corn chips or bottle of wine or casserole that you bring to be polite, and because the party wouldn't be very good without someone bringing something to eat. You can come without, but it's best to be polite, and people usually are. Wnt (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Return of the "is been" troll
I know it has been mentioned that the Russain "is been" troll was blocked on ru.wikipedia. Was he formerly blocked here? If so, this question should be removed for block evasion. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually I find that one less annoying than people who ask silly questions they could look up all the known facts about easily using Google and who seemed determined to just start debates. Perhaps they haven't anyone else to talk to but this isn't supposed to be a social service providing that sort of forum. At least this one you can see they probably do have problems finding things out for themselves. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like it should be hard to avoid getting into a conversation with someone who can't talk, but it does seem like some folks have trouble with it. ;) Really though, one nonsense question - or two or three - is not really a problem.  If you see a yellowjacket's nest, do you stop to dig it up?  Don't be that guy, and you'll scarcely care about them. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change the description in the Reference Desk rules
I am referring to this part.


 * We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
 * We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
 * We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.
 * We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.

These are all negative questions. Instead of talking about things NOT to do, I think it is better to write a brief description of what can be asked on the Reference Desks. First of all, the Reference Desk is not like other Q&A sites. Other Q&A sites may not have standards or requirements about references, but on the Reference Desk, references should be recommended, even made normative. While other Q&A sites may have points to incentivize adding references and citations to responses, Wikipedia Reference Desk does not, probably because it's Wikipedia and not built to handle points. Second, there should be some kind of affirmative question of what can be asked or be acceptable on the RD. The question must be a fact-based question, with enough information from the OP to allow the answerer know where the OP needs help on. "What is the capital of Norway?" is a fact-based question. Third, common-sense questions should not be asked on the Reference Desk. Such questions may be, "Is the Pope Catholic?" or "What is the capital of Norway?". Both are too searchable on the Internet. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your first point has been a subject of frequent debate on this Talk page and elsewhere for many years (try looking though the Archives). Your second point is explicitly addressed by instructions at the tops of all the Ref Desk pages but, like your third point, is unenforcible because, despite any criteria we set, querents will persist in asking what they choose to ask.
 * Our only current recourse to "inappropriate" questions is to ignore, hat or delete questions deemed inappropriate, but no two volunteers will infallibly agree on what is and isn't inappropriate, and which reaction is best in each case.
 * Ignoring rarely works because there's usually someone who can't resist responding; many hattings and deletions lead to extended arguments about whether or not they were appropriate, and get reverted (rinse and repeat); the (over??) propensity of some regular editors to hat and/or revert regularly leads to proposals that they themselves be restricted or banned from activity on the RDs (no names, no pack drill).
 * I'd advise you to steer clear of the drama, as I (mostly) do. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea of some positive examples of Q's that could be asked. StuRat (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not against it in principle, but we must beware of making the introductory instructions on the Desks ever-more lengthy – the more preamble there is, the more likely that people just skim past it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting instructions on the Reference Desks to be lengthy. In fact, I am suggesting that we revise the current ones while keeping the same amount of brevity.
 * Questions that ask for medical, legal, or pastoral advice will be removed.
 * Questions that invite personal opinions without references/citations, predictions, and speculations will be removed.
 * Controversial debates are not allowed on Wikipedia. It is possible to provide references/sources for a specific known opinion, if the asker inquires it. Responses of controversial topics should be neutral.
 * Wikipedia Reference Desk may provide the references for homework-type questions and lead to the correct answer by solving a similar problem.
 * As a rule of thumb, Wikipedia Reference Desk does not provide original research. Any "original research" must be formally published elsewhere. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Several of the suggestions above imply that we at the refdesks are free to violate Wikipedia policy as found at WP:TPOC and WP:DISRUPT. I am going to have to insist that any refdesk rules that violate long-standing Wikipedia behavioral guidelines go through a proper RfC at Village pump (policy)‎. Also see WP:LOCALCON. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine. Then, can we at least change this sentence?


 * We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

It should be:
 * We don't answer or may remove questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

The parentheses really aren't necessary. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparent Copyvio
This rather long question from the Feynman Lectures seems to be an obvious copyvio, see my edit collapsing it for other's comments, rather than outright deletion. I believe the item should be removed. The http for the question links to scribd and to a work dated 1964. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reproductions of small proportions of textbooks, for instructional purposes, has traditionally been regarded by publishers as permissible (and I speak as a former secondary-level textbook editor). Despite this OP's regular queries of the same sort, I doubt if he/she is actually trying to evade copyright, but the accumulation of extracts from a single work might by now be beginning to strain against the acceptable limit (traditionally, 10% of the overall text). Although these queries seem usually to elicit informed and satisfactory answers, I do wonder if this is the most appropriate venue for them; they seem more suited to something like University Tutorial sessions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.82.167 (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware that parts of, say, poems, or song lyrics under copyright can be reproduced: this is an entire page long and complete sample question. The source itself, Scribd, routinely publishes material under copyright.  The OP did not just quote a few lines from the example, and ask what was meant, but provided the entire item, like giving the entire lyrics to "I am the Walrus" rather than asking what two lines of the song meant.  I am not arguing that the OP's previous activity is relevant--it is not.  This case stands alone so far as I know in reproducing a complete exercise. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I translated and gave the full text of the solution, because I assumed that in the discussion I would have to refer to some paragraphs, which ones I do not know before the discussion. Note that neither Feynman nor any American publisher did publish the solutions, but only exercises. Username160611000000 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to compare it to a song lyric. The exercise evidently originates from some volume of/about the Feynman Lectures (regardless of Scribd being an intermediary) and I am saying that (from my own relevant professional experience of publishing science textbooks) just copying this size of passage from such a volume for educational purposes (rather than for trying to re-sell it), even if it does comprise a complete exercise, would in itself be acceptable by the traditions of paper textbook publishing, but that the OP's accumulated similar copyings over a number of similar queries on the Science Ref Desk might well be pushing the amount of reproduced material beyond what is acceptable.
 * I therefore concur with the removal of some at least of this particular query (which you have already done), and I also concur that the OP should be asked to refrain from copying such extensive extracts in future (as you have done on their talk page) – it should be possible for them to precis and paraphrase at much shorter length while still conveying the essence of their queries. If the OP is not prepared to do this, I feel they should be asked to find a different venue for this activity. I think this matter needs to be addressed not just because of this particular OP's behaviour, but also because of its setting a possible precedent for other OPS. Just my two-penneth worth.
 * [Edited to add] The nationality of the publisher of the material is not really a prime consideration. The OP might like to study the articles on The Berne Convention and The Universal Copyright Convention. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Removal is justified only if there is indeed a copyright violation. Can anyone prove it? As I mentioned on talk page, the publisher copyright is expired. Username160611000000 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On your talk page you have argued that the item is free use under panorama, and that the Soviet state publisher Nauka has given permission for use of its derived work based upon the Feynman Lectures. But panorama does not apply to texts.  And the copyright of the original and hence derived works resides with Addison-Wesley, an imprint of Pearson PLC.  You'd have to show that Pearson PLC has relinquished or lost all rights.  The fact that the immediate source for this material is hosted at Scribd, notorious for hosting entire copyrighted works, tends to imply the work may not be free, but the burden is on the person who adds the material to show it is free.  Since the Soviets manifestly did not respect foreign copyright, they can hardly relinquish rights to what is presumably stolen property under US law.  An excerpt cut down to include only the specific lines necessary for your inquiry is, however, quite acceptable under fair use. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, solutions is not derived work, because it doesn't contain original work (except numerical values of quantities). Second, is the publication of a public link a copyright violation? Then scribd itself violate the copyright. But even if scribd did not receive the permission officially, the term of 50 years after first publication has expired. First publication was at 1964 according page 3. And copyright term can't be prolongated by reselling the rights. Username160611000000 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am firmly with TPFKA: this is completely and utterly fine, and no more illegal than photocopying a page from the book at your public library. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not the same as copying a page for your private use during research. It is publishing an entire page, widely disseminated.  Also, according to our article on US copyright it is only works published before 1964 that have fallen into the public domain.  Furthermore, per wikipedia policy, US law governs in these cases, so the OP's statement that he doesn't care about country of origin is beside the point.  Finally, the OP has not, as of this edit, redacted or editted down the exercise, he has simply posted a new question on a different topic.


 * I suggest he redact the quoted material, and we can remove the hat. Otherwise the material will be removed and the matter referred to the appropriate noticeboard. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my questions. You just write the suggestion based on WP:NOR, other members don't think it's copyright violation. I will not edit the original message until the dispute is resolved and a consensus is found. Editing message would be meant I agree with your claims, but I don't. Also there is a caution "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." I have proved that solution is not subject of copyright because was never protected and was never a part of US book. It's very hard to show something that does not exist. Can you show that Solutions is part of Exercises? The Exercises contain answers, but not solutions.Username160611000000 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have deleted irrelevant part of the solution.Username160611000000 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand the concept of derivative rights. Copyright gives the original user exclusive rights to make new works based directly on the old one, like workbooks based on an original text.  At this point, your question will age off the page before any admin would comment, but if you reproduce an entire problem again I will report it for sanctioning. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In this edition 1978 publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/F/FEYNMAN_Richard_Fillips/Feynman_R.F..._Feynmanovskie_lekcii_po_fizike._Zadachi_i_uprajneniya_.(1978).[djv-fax].zip on page 5 is said that copyright to solutions and to english-russian translation of exercises belongs to Mir Publishers.  So it's wrong that Solutions - is derived work and copyright belongs to ADDISON-WESLEY PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. Username160611000000 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough to decide on the copyright issue. The work actually cited is "MEPhI, Solutions Google translate" without an obvious link to it.  IF this work is in fact free-licensed or public domain, then there is no issue.  Even if the authors infringed on Feynman Lectures, that is their problem.  That is a tough one to guess at because Fair Use should provide abundant protection for "transformative works" that try to solve the problems posed independently.  We need merely ask if Wikipedia has infringed the authors of that work - which requires more information about it than I've seen - or if Wikipedia has infringed Feynman with the derivative material, which is *extremely* unlikely, since people here are not objecting so far to the quotation of individual problems for purposes of our discussion, and nor should they, because that Fair Use is something to fight for.  So it all comes down to where this stuff was copy-and-pasted from.  What I see on scribd is a list of questions, not the answers.  The scribd file may be an infringement but again, I see that as the uploader's issue there.  The copyright holder of the Feynman questions could DMCA him at any time, so why should I guess at whether he has a license.  I mean, it's entirely possible that at some point Feynman told Caltech students or all readers to go ahead and share the questions and discuss them - why not?  We're not here to second guess every publication on the web!
 * That said, I should say that these questions are not being well presented. It seems like there are too many links, some to json output that isn't obviously useful.  The amount of solution material presented here was generally excessive - it makes it hard to see exactly what point you're focusing on.  Some better trimming would be just better editorial style and help you get better responses.
 * Last but not least, remember that I'm leaving it up in the air whether it's an infringement of the Russian site. You should figure that out.  It is of course interesting that Google is free to go ahead and publish a translated version of the site we can read.  But the law for you and the law for Google may be different, because the contents of thy wallet shall be the whole of thy law.  I mean, seriously, my ultimate opinion on these topics is that no matter how much you try to guess, any answer you give about copyright pertains mostly to ignorant conversations among Wikipedia editors and what they think is right.  When push comes to shove, whoever has the most money wins in court (prone to purely random deviations) and so whatever the average schmuck does is wrong by definition, unless no one notices it.  That applies triple to copyright, which is a modified slave system where parts of people's minds are called property, and violates basic freedom of expression in the name of a largely imaginary incentive to genuine creators. Wnt (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy relisted for another 30 days
Hello. You were originally notified about Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy, which was moved from Village pump (policy). Just for notification, I have relisted the discussion, i.e. gave the discussion additional 30 days. Therefore, more participants would be welcome to comment at the newer page there during the extended time. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Copying others' posts when an editor deletes and adds during the same edit
This edit removes my post and the responses to my post while simultaneously adding an inflammatory post about some kind of anti-Semitic/racist conspiracy theory. My conjecture is that doing so will make the edit harder to revert, which brings me to my next question. Can one copy and paste back others' posts in this situation? Or should I just copy and paste mine? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the Nazi troll screwing things up, compounded by the editor Golbez making a well-meaning but incorrect manual revert of the troll. I have reset it to where it was just before the troll edited. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How does one make a correct revert? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What he should have done is a straightforward automated revert. Instead, he simply deleted the troll's post without realizing that the troll had done an incorrect reversion too. So I opened the version just prior to the troll and saved it, thus resetting it. You can tell by the byte count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there have been no good edits since the trolling began you can revert to "last clean version", which means clicking in the history on the version above the start of the trolling and when it appears clicking "edit" and then "Save changes".  If there have been subsequent good edits you can consider copying them from the versions in which they appear and then pasting them (in the appropriate places) into the last clean version.   Alternatively you can work from the current version removing any troll edits and adding back any good edits removed by the troll.   Watch out for good edits which might have been vandalised by the troll - you have to be careful to paste in the correct version. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the troll added back the Donald Trump discussion, which was reasonable in the circumstances. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was intentional, it was just blundering. At 3:22 he reverted back to the 3:05 version. On matters of history, the troll is a total moron, so it should be no surprise that he's also incompetent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeking an optimally helpful response to a member of the public trying to be helpful
From time to time someone (an IP, who shows no sign of having edited before) finds their way to a RefDesk and politely informs us that an article is wrong, and requests that we correct it. The most recent example is Gurkha Error. A RefDesk volunteer then responds politely that the querent can edit the article. Sometimes discussion follows, about whether the article really is wrong or not. Then someone else will point out that this belongs on the article's talkpage.

I have come to accept that most people who read Wikipedia will never, whatever the encouragement, edit an article; even editing a refdesk (i.e. asking a question) requires a certain mindset. The very fact that they've taken the trouble to report the issue, however they perceive it, is to be commended, in my opinion. My question is: do we have a consistent and positive way of responding to this situation? I'm thinking of two things - one, a response to the individual, and two, an improvement of the article in question. In other words, is it a given that one of us will now look at Gurkha, or might it just fall by the wayside? I'm not interested in this particular example; what concerns me is how we deal with this sort of query. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO all we need to do is refer the user to article talk. I wouldn't want to trust that a reader who doesn't know the function of article talk is going to know anything about WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc, so I wouldn't even suggest that they can edit the article themselves. If anyone reading the thread here has an interest in the issue, they are free to go to the article talk and discuss it there. If they are competent to do so, they are free to edit the article. But the involvement of the refdesks should end at directing the user to the appropriate venue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We should tell people that the talk page is the best place to raise concerns, but I balk at those who try to tell people that the Refdesk is not a valid place to raise article concerns at all. There is already a lot of complaining that the Refdesk isn't "useful" to Wikipedia, and that kind of policy-mongering is deliberately designed to prevent it from being useful!  We should feel pretty free to evaluate statements in articles here and provide references -- the only thing we need to do to keep this from being a forum shopper's nirvana is to make some guideline more like "consensus here doesn't apply to articles; use the talk page to gain consensus". Wnt (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree totally. I recall a few places where a ref-desk regular has posted a question here and said something like "look I know the right place is the article talk page but that talk page has 3 entries, the last of which is five years old, so I'm asking for refs/correct info here."
 * Put another way, there's absolutely no reason why we can't help improve articles here, both directly and indirectly. So to Caryatid and and others, sure, we can tell OP to fix it, but we can also be bold ourselves, do the fixing, post on talk pages, project pages etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * From this I gather that no, there is no consistent and positive way of responding. It's all up to each individual editor. So be it. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=788388094&oldid=788387326

If we're going to remove a thread like that, let's do so because (say) it's opinion- or debate-based, not because of alleged BLP concerns. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Medeis' justification "entirely unsourced" is incorrect, as several sources were listed. Also, it's not a valid justification for deletion, in any case.  At best, it's a justification for boxing up the unsourced replies.  I restored it. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion that thread is about as blatant abuse of the desks as one can get. Right out of the gate it was a request for opinion, and a politically-biased one at that. And multiple regulars took the bait, completely unable to restrain themselves. Comical. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Care to point out those several sources? All I see is Count Iblis's link to his own opinion on an off-wiki forum, and a couple of wikilinks that can hardly be called sources.


 * There's the Donald Trump on social media link, which discusses the real world case and has 85 sources, and now my Wag the Dog link, which describes a fictional case. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement, thank you. Now if responders can refrain from offering their personal viewpoints, we might have an actual legitimate use of the desk. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe the parts that are just unsourced opinions could be boxed up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * At the very least, the parts which comment on his mental condition are, in fact, BLP violations - except maybe if they included sources which have made such comments. For example, the Washington Post item labeled "Trump is not well". Albeit written by the targets of his wrath. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing a Washington Post article is not a BLP violation. And if it were, that would be a damning indictment of BLP, not the editor.  Some people here say they don't Refdesk responses to omit references.  But if people's personal opinions of what is "wrong" to say about a politician override the references, then we are well and truly sunk. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is actually an opinion piece by the targets of Trump's wrath. But at least it's a source. Wikipedia editors calling Trump an idiot or mentally ill, with no backing reference, are off base in doing so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Exhibit A: Donald Trump is president of the US. That in itself answers the OP's question. We have to note that the sources are all being manipulated directly or indirectly by Trump, therefore they are all unreliable for this specific question. What we can do is analyze how the sources react to Trump's statements. When candidate Trump was down (locker room talk and then all these women came forward saying that they had been sexually harassed by Trump), Trump could hardly get his message through, he was on the defensive. He had practiced his last debate a lot, and he knew what he had to do. He went on the offensive "Donald Trump on Wednesday refused to say he would accept the result of the presidential election if he loses to Hillary Clinton, raising the possibility of an extraordinary departure from principles that have underpinned American democracy for more than two centuries."

The media didn't see through this, they gave Trumps ambiguous statements a lot of attention thereby drowning out the issue Trump had with women. Trump knew that this question would come up, he deliberately gave a politically incorrect answer to keep he media busy with that. That's better than the media discussing his locker room talk over and over again. Count Iblis (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Even calling it "locker room talk" is accepting Trump's version, as "bragging about committing sexual assault" sounds far worse. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed :). Count Iblis (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is apolitical and who doesn't give a rat's ass about the ongoing fight between two groups of US politicians, saying "we have to note that the sources are all being manipulated directly or indirectly by Trump" without also noting that the sources are all being manipulated directly or indirectly by Trump's opponents is a failure to follow WP:NPOV. This is ironic, because the original thread was also a failure to follow WP:NPOV. Could we all please just stop the soapboxing and editorializing about US politics? That sort of crap does not belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The 'is a former restaurant' and 'awarded a star in 1998-2002' topic at the Language desk
The topic started out as a good faith request for language advice but it has since decayed into a somewhat uncivil content dispute. Should the topic be shut down? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The topic looks legitimate, and should run its course. It looks like some people might have tried to hat some irrelevant content in the middle and were reverted - in this case it definitely is irrelevant.  The Refdesk isn't the place to argue about who is following who around.  People can and should weigh in on specific proposed edits in terms of technical accuracy, but this is not the place to decide consensus about the article or debate Wiki behavior.  I feel like the question is a little simple and might have been asked as part of an argument, but if people were going to answer it they could have done a better job -- I mean, the best wording depends on a lot of little specific issues.  For example, "awarded a star in 1998-2002" might actually make sense if the Michelin Awards are only given every four years, and "is a former restaurant" would work beautifully if followed by ", now a ".  Now the Refdesk trying to be useful to Wikipedia tends to mean bringing Wikipedia knock-down-drag-outs here; that can't be stopped.  But we should try to slow it down a bit, keep our ivory tower chic at least partially intact. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

RD is not for internal WP:POLICY matters
Please be more careful distinguishing between RD answers about what our articles and their sources say about the external world, and what internal WP policies and guidelines say, especially when it comes to language matters.

This exchange, for example, resulted in the querying editor going around to literally hundreds of articles imposing anti-MoS changes, on the strength of a handful of style guides (conveniently only those that agree with the editor, and ignoring British ones that do not, like that of The Economist), and claiming that Reference Desk/Language agreed with him (or at least hadn't contradicted him).

This is by no means the first time that WP:RDL has incidentally encouraged someone to go on a style-changing spree across Wikipedia or to come "challenge" the Manual of Style on some tedious bit of trivia that has been discussed a zillion times already. It would be helpful if RDL included a statement that it does not address questions about the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and redirected people to WT:MOS for that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The RD/L thread from April (now archived here) did not, to my eyes, "encourage" the would-be style-changing editor.
 * It did point him to the MOS talk page, where (as can be imagined) a spirited debate ensued, now archived here.
 * If that thread didn't dissuade the editor from his quest, I doubt we could have!
 * I'll grant that discussions like these (and the editing sprees that sometimes follow) are intensely annoying, but given that there will evidently always be people obsessed with such matters, it does seem like centralizing the madness at the MOS and its talk page is the appropriate thing to do. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC), edited 11:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The ref desk was originally a splitoff from the help desk. This would be an example of a question that harkens back to the help desk. And you're right that an editor obsessed with fine points of punctuation and the like is going to find a way, whether we help or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a point of historical interest, Bugs is simplifying.
 * The original Help Desk was moved to "Wikipedia:Reference Desk" (And then years later became the miscellaneous RefDesk.)
 * It wasn't until over a year later that the current help desk, then called the "Newcomers' village pump", was created. So far as I can determine, there was no help desk in the interim period of about 13 months.
 * So it was less a spinoff, and more a case of "Let's rename the help desk the reference desk", and then later "I wish we still had a help desk."
 * What value this bit historical trivia has to anybody, I don't know, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. ApLundell (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the history lesson! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I object to your behavior on the science desk.
You removed a question of mine which was exceedingly well-phrased for "trolling" and suggested I run my own experiment. My question was very well-phrased and completely practical. I object to your behavior on this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:48bb:ee48:34f:334a (talk) 01:51, Today (UTC−5)


 * First, you didn't sign your post here. Second, you didn't sign any of your posts on the science desk. it says clearly at the top of the edit window how to sign posts, so please do it in future. Thirdly, your post here is addressed to User:DMacks, but you should be posting it on his talk page, not here on the ref desk talk page. Diff, in case anyone else is interested. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, my post here is addressed to everyone at the science reference desk. I did not sign my posts due to your vindictive behavior in bad faith.  that's a plural you.  I had a poor experience.  a glance at the talk pages shows that others also have a poor experience with you.  (again a plural you.)  I object to the behavior of all of you on the science reference desk.  I had my time wasted, my question removed, was accused of trolling by different people despite an exceedingly well-phrased and clear question, and had a negative experience with you.  (a plural you.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:c524:fa0b:c48a:bfb3 (talk) 06:55, Today (UTC−5)


 * I'm also curious why this question was removed. It wasn't the best written or thought-through question ever, but it seems to be earnest and on-topic. ApLundell (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I put a very large amount of thought into writing the question very carefully. Based on the vindictive behavior, in bad faith, by multiple contributors, even the "best written or most thought-through question ever" could generate a poor experience for the person asking.  I put a huge amount of effort into asking the question and following up on it such that I would be able to receive a helpful answer, which I was denied.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:c524:fa0b:c48a:bfb3 (talk) 10:06, Today (UTC−5)


 * NB: someone just attempted to delete this report: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=prev&oldid=792274744 (i.e. this very comment), calling the above good-faith report "trolling". This report is made in exceedingly good faith.  This is a talk page for this project and I have a right to report my experience.  Now you understand why I did not name names and simply honestly and anonymously reported my experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:51b3:ad84:d8de:4c7 (talk) 11:40, Today (UTC−5)


 * Are you seriously going to humor a troll while chiding other editors who refused to do so for humoring a troll? Keeping this thread open is contributing to the trolling, it's feeding the troll by encouraging people to comment and to to stir up drama exactly the way you are doing by reverting two other editors. Come on. Just delete or archive this thread and let's all move on, FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OP here. I am sympathetic to removal of the link if you like, which I did not include. I can assure you my participation was in good faith.  I would like some form of the present note to remain up, however.  You may leave the following version up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=792283812&oldid=792283159  -- To elaborate, what I meant with this phrasing is that such a note would allow my objection to be voiced without "stirring up drama" and so forth.  It is very brief and non-specific.  I feel I should be allowed to voice such an opinion about my experience, on the project talk page, given that my experience was a negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:51b3:ad84:d8de:4c7 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me that the original question was an intentional troll.
 * But 'regardless, the original question could have been asked,answered and done and forgotten by now. Regardless of whether the question-asker was a troll as some people suspect, or a child, or just someone who has trouble with English. Instead people have been dogmatically edit-warring to keep it deleted. ApLundell (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OP here. As you write, yes, the original question could have been asked, answered, done, and forgotten.  This is why I reported, here on this talk page, the negative experience I had with the reference desk from multiple contributors.  At any rate you have my permission to replace this entire thread with a 1-line report in which I report vaguely and in general terms my negative experience.  Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:51b3:ad84:d8de:4c7 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup. Keeping this thread going by reverting removals while using blatantly untrue edit summaries is going to put a stop to it. That's the trick right there. Good job. One begins to wonder if there's more than one troll at work here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP-hopping troll, in addition to not ever signing his posts, has also made insults and demands toward the ref desk users. That's why his garbage keeps getting reverted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Is User:Uncle dan is home a sock of user User:Bowei Huang 2?
User Bowei Huang2 is a permanently blocked sockmaster whose modus operandi is to post hit-and-run questions with random concatenations of belief systems, political institutions, economics and political groups. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Bowei_Huang_2/Archive. His edits are subject to summary deletion.

See Special:Contributions/Uncle_dan_is_home for typical political/ideological/ethnic questions and page blanking such as:

22:23, 31 July 2017 (diff | hist). . (+240)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎why don't I hear much about the Byzantines: new section)

19:18, 24 July 2017 (diff | hist). . (+81)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎What happened to the native Roman population of Italy after the Lombards invaded?) 23:04, 21 July 2017 (diff | hist). . (+129)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎How do people in East Asia approach Christianity?: new section)

22:05, 7 July 2017 (diff | hist). . (+164)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Companies other than Apple that are considered by some to be cult-like: new section)

15:02, 21 June 2017 (diff | hist). . (+281)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Democrats changing their stance on illegal immigrants: new section)

16:46, 17 June 2017 (diff | hist). . (+216)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎How do Islamic banks earn money: new section)

01:17, 16 June 2017 (diff | hist). . (+216)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Absolute monarchies that are fully industrialized: new section)

11:17, 3 June 2017 (diff | hist). . (+233)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Russian government and Brexit: new section)

10:13, 9 April 2017 (diff | hist). . (+99)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Jewish Plan for global domination)

09:57, 9 April 2017 (diff | hist). . (+221)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Trump administration and Syra: new section)

03:21, 7 April 2017 (diff | hist). . (+308)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Africa as the next manufacturing centre)

20:30, 5 April 2017 (diff | hist). . (+254)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science ‎ (→‎Extraterrestrial government and economy: new section)

20:45, 28 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (-62)‎ . . User:Uncle dan is home/sandbox ‎ (←Blanked the page) ‎   20:42, 28 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+46)‎ . . N User:Uncle dan is home/sandbox ‎ (←Created page with '{ {User sandbox}} ')

03:50, 28 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+140)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Majority of professors being conservative)

18:26, 16 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+201)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎What motivated people to vote for trump?: new section)

19:01, 13 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+199)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎What industry is Chicago: new section)

18:53, 13 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+92)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Buddhism in China: new section)

17:10, 9 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+113)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎President declaring martial law: new section)

18:35, 8 March 2017 (diff | hist). . (+186)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (→‎Counties requiring condoms in porn movies)


 * I am removing any questions by this user hopefully admins familiar with the case will block the user. It's midnight my time so I'll follow up tomorrow if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've undone all your removals, as your history has shown you are not capable of determining when Ref Desk Q's should be removed, and in this case your allegations lack any actual proof. For example, he is certainly allowed to blank out his own sandbox.  His account goes back to October of last year, so it seems unlikely a troll would go unidentified for this long.  StuRat (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the questions are not unlike those Boweii Huang used to ask, but more evidence is needed. A checkuser might be able to tell, except that Huang's various socks are probably too old to check. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced this is the same person... Boweii had some idiosyncratic language tics that I haven't noticed with this guy. I could be wrong, but we should use normal channels to determine if any connection exists before any one person summarily deletes all of these threads.  -- Jayron 32 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In a world of 7.5 billion people, I suspect there is quite a bit of overlap in behavior characteristics. It seems likely - almost a mathematical certainty - that we will sometimes see two people behave in the same way at the desks. We Some of us give far too much weight to that in judging sockivity. This is why we have SPI and checkuser. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Uncle dan is home IS not Bowei Huang 2, Bowei Huang 2's latest sock is:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.202.204.226 92.30.178.11 (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

How should I deal with threads like this?
This question appears to call for debate:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=795196385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.202.226 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The way I dealt with it was to remove the thread . ---Sluzzelin talk  18:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Could be a troll, or could be somebody who really doesn't know about the contributions to civilization made by other races. I might tend to Assume Good Faith and mention some of the contributions of other races, like Arabic numerals and monotheistic religions. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't criticize that approach. It's just that this particular individual has expended my personal good faith. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * StuRat has a habit of answering any kind of question without references, including this one. That response is problematic, because race itself is a sociological construct. Also, it can be argued that it is evolutionary advantageous to mix genes from different races of people to promote stronger offspring and less inbreeding problems. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sometimes StuRat assumes more good faith than the OP deserves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not talking about the amount of good faith. I was talking about answering a question without any preliminary knowledge on it. Anybody who has studied introductory sociology and biology would know that race is a sociological concept, and that species is a biological concept, and that evolutionary advantages and disadvantages are highly dependent on context. A century ago, having dyslexia was no biggie, because one could still make a decent living by trade. Now, it cripples the person from pursuing the good jobs. During the Middle Ages, Huntington's disease wasn't a big deal. But now it is, because there is the expectation that everyone should live past their twenties and retire at 65. If anything hinders that goal, then it gets viewed negatively. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Anybody who has studied ... would know" is not providing a source. That's an argument from authority. StuRat (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently the alt-right adherents never took introductory sociology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Race is more than just a sociological construct. (If you doubt that, read about what happened in Charlottsville, VA, yesterday.) Races are population groups, and isolated population groups can develop good or bad traits specific to them. Sickle cell anemia, to name an obvious one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are genetic differences in gene pools which are sometimes referred to as "race".  It's not entirely fictional, as we have laws and medicine based on it.  I didn't refer to "race" in my response as it's no longer PC to do so.  But, going back to the Q, if a primitive tribe had possession of a limited resource, say an animal they killed, and there wasn't enough for both themselves and the "outsiders", whoever they were, it would make sense to discriminate and keep it for themselves.  So, we have a basis for discrimination.  Now, if they had so much that it would spoil, then sharing it with outsiders might make sense, especially if the outsiders would agree to return the favor when the situation was reversed.  On the other hand, if they were at war with those outsiders, then starving them to death may be the wisest course of action to ensure their own survival. StuRat (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The trick is, I think, that while there are indeed statistically significant differences between variuous populations, one has to be very careful making individual predictions based on them. It's fine to say "women are, on average, lighter and less strong than men".  It's not fine to say "You're a woman, so you're not fit to perform this job." —Steve Summit (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine if the job is trying to beat men at sports. At least, that's the Olympic consensus. It's been wrong before. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a typical question raised by the Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why does one Nazi troll get merely deleted and the next super deleted? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe it depends on the severity of the bigotry in the troll's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not being able to read the thread in question, obviously my opinion doesn't matter. No one but Xi Jinping's opinion should actually be considered as mattering - he's the one who won the culture war. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Nazi troll?
Unlike Sluzzelin, I'm having a hard time believing that this is not the Nazi troll. With apologies to Sluzzelin, does anyone object if I delete the thread? --Viennese Waltz 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I do, absent an SPI result. The thread is completely innocuous so far (permalink), although that could change. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a dead ringer for Soft skin/the nazi troll. Per your objections, I have filed an SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Soft skin, but really that's excessive bureaucracy for its own sake.  This is classic, definitive, and direct WP:DUCK level behavior, which has been going on by him for at least 2 years, per this SPI from September, 2015 and dozens afterwards, to quote that SPI "A new editor or IP in the same mobile range appears and asks either a completely innocuous question, or a completely antisemitic question. If the question was innocuous, the editor waits for the question to be answered and then becomes progressively more antisemitic." (bold mine).  This is our guy.  Everyone who's been here knows this.  But, we can jump through your hoops if you want.  He'll be blocked shortly.  -- Jayron 32 12:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's definitely the Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't object. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The thread has been removed. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why I made it a point to say innocuous so far and although that could change. There was very little to lose by waiting for stronger evidence in the thread. If the SPI comes back negative, I will make a bigger issue of this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if a thread (1) is about Jews in some way and (2) is innocuous, we should assume it's Nazi troll before "it becomes progressively more antisemitic". Who else would ask two innocuous questions about Jews? I don't care if this SPI comes back positive, that's just a poor excuse for critical thinking, effectively closing the door to questions related to Jews (unless the questioner leaves after the initial question, with no follow-up). Without an SPI for each, nobody can know how many innnocent questions have already been turned away, and the questioners permanently alienated from Wikipedia.
 * You missed the part where he asked about some book that a respondent said was fabricated (which the OP likely already knew) and then jumped right into the possibility that the Anne Frank story was also fabricated. The questions weren't innocuous, they were calculated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that requires a mind-reading ability that I lack. You lack it too, but you don't know it. There is absolutely no objective evidence that the questions were "calculated". You would be laughed out of any court in the world, and then disbarred for incompetence. And that remains true even if this SPI comes back positive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a courthouse, it's merely a website. And experience tells several of us that we're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not often I can say this, but I agree with Baseball Bugs! --Viennese Waltz 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * experience tells several of us that we're right. That is exactly the kind of self-validating faulty logic I'm talking about. You have no clue how many times you have been right because you have removed and blocked before you could be proven wrong. (That's a plural "you", I'm well aware you don't personally have the blocking right.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't need "objective evidence" to know that a post is from a troll. Blocks are often made on the basis of what feels right. That's certainly the case here. The way he brings up Anne Frank in the follow-up question was clearly a set-up. --Viennese Waltz 08:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The SPI has been closed without a checkuser. So much for hard data. I'm done. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The troll has used the name "Soul Trainer" before, so the account name sounds close enough. Eliyohub (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

fox tv edited programs
(Moved to Reference_desk/Computing. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC))

Opinions on the need for a Wiki equivalent to Stack-Exchange...
I asked for some references in respect of math problem here. Reference_desk/Mathematics

I asked if posting the soloution I'd come to based on the advice given was appropriate, I was told correctly that it wasn't.

I am therefore wondering if they should be a Wiki equivalent to "StackExchange" where questions like this could be explored in more depth. It's something that perhaps Wikiversity would be able to host. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's OK to post a solution, just put it in a collapse box. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Anywhere on the refdesks would be fine, but I think OP was saying they were told not to put their solution in our article (which is correct). Rather than start something new, I'd say this kind of content could work well at wikibooks. The have a nice book on geometry, the volume of a cap solution could perhaps be added to a chapter on geometry of spheres here , at least until someone else starts this redlinked chapter . SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion concerning editor arising from question and responses left on WP:RDS
Just to let people know, I opened an ANI discussion requesting a block or topic ban here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this before it was closed and archived, but I should say that I feel a bit annoyed to have had my unsolicited safety worries used by someone else to support a ban without so much as a ping. I mean, if I'd wanted User:Plasmic Physics banned I would have started the process myself, and the same is true of removing his question.  I was a bit alarmed by the description of the research he wanted to do, but he gave a pretty reasonable sounding answer as best as I could tell, bearing in mind that he is thinking about research level chemistry whereas I just know what's in the basic undergrad coursework.  Initially I was surprised he used an uncommon name for one chemical involved, but that could be a regional variation - I have not toured the chemistry labs of the world.  The "emotional blackmail" strikes me as simply a statement of fact - if he is scheduled to do undergraduate- or graduate-level research on the topic in 2018, then he is, and I don't know differently.  I mean, the rules are that this is not a forum for advice at all - we tend to make an exception for giving a friendly heads-up on safety, but ultimately whether you want to do fundamental research with mercury is not our call.  Our role is to assume good faith. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Movies censored because of being deemed racist
←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Why was my question removed?74.138.45.254 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Question deleted by MarnetteD citing "rmv LTA post". LTA = Long Term Abuse


 * Deleted again by Viennese Waltz.


 * If the question were allowed, I see no problem in answering that the NAACP spearheaded an unsuccessful campaign to ban the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, see reference. Blooteuth (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Because the only reason you asked the question was to stir up trouble. --Viennese Waltz 13:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a general article about Film censorship and that links to individual articles such as:


 * List of films banned in India, Film censorship in Malaysia, Film censorship in South Korea, Film censorship in the United Kingdom, Film censorship in the United States, Film censorship in China, Film censorship in the Republic of Ireland, Film censorship in East Germany, Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union. The number of man-years put in by contributors to create all these articles is considerable and every one was given to understand that Wikipedia does not censure verifiable, factual information. To the OP who is an IP user in the USA, please may we hear in your words why you are interested? Blooteuth (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Because after reading about Gone With the Wind being censored from a movie theater in Memphis,Tennessee because of being deemed as racially insensitive, I've started to worry about other good movies being censored for being racially insensitive. Perhaps next, songs and novels will be censored if they're deemed to be racially insensitive. It sounds almost like communism.74.138.45.254 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are differences. Movies like Gone with the Wind reflected the prevailing attitudes of the times, while Birth of a Nation went beyond the prevailing attitudes, and was actually even more racist than the times when it was made. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Decades ago, the book Huckleberry Finn came under fire for similar reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's always a risk with satire that it will be taken seriously. There were probably those who thought A Modest Proposal was a serious suggestion that Irish children be cooked and eaten. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you User 74.138.45.254 for explaining the thought behind your question. Seeing that it has already led to answers with references here, does anyone still object to the question being restored to the Humanities reference desk with explanation? Blooteuth (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are not familiar with the Nazi ref desk troll. The "good movies being censored" and "sounds almost like communism" are their typical tripe. Not only should this not be moved back it should be deleted - or at least hatted - from here. Please stop feeding this troll people. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The exploits of your alleged troll seem as awesome as the reliability of your accusation by opinion. Far from being a litmus test for Nazi subversion, the report that Gone with the Wind is a "good movie that has been censored" is supported by very reliable sources. Legend even persists that the Hays Office fined Selznick $5,000 for the wording of Rhett Butler's exit line. Study that movie properly if you are not familiar with it. @MarnetteD no one has asked you to agree with their movie taste and if you think you serve a Greater Purpose by censoring an innocuous question that the ref. desk team can handle without your help then, being overwhelmingly unconvinced, Frankly my dear I don't give a damn. Blooteuth (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't, but some of us do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I know this had been hatted, but the user who posted the supposedly innocuous question, after being blocked, immediately jumped to a new IP address and tried to start an ANI discussion accusing me of pretty gross stuff. It has since been RevDeleted, but you can see it's existence here.  This is exactly the sort of behavior the Nazi Troll undertakes, to a T.  If the question left any doubt as to whether or not this is the exact same person as we're all familiar with, the behavior immediately following the block removed all such doubt.  This is one of the things he always does.  -- Jayron 32 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @User 74.138.45.254 Is this true? Blooteuth (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong question. The right question could be, "Do you believe Hitler was unfairly blamed for World War II?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can ask the admin who blocked 98.211.122.50 (being Floquenbeam) or you can ask any admin to read the deleted diff. I'd rather it wasn't repeated here, as it involved some pretty unreasonable things, but it's very much the pattern of how the Nazi troll operates.  -- Jayron 32 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Created because of RD discussion
Do we have a category for pages created because RD discussions revealed that the pages were needed? I thought we did, but I can't find anything other than Category:Wikipedia reference desk, which is for the desk and its archives only. I'd like to tag Talk:D.Œ.A.V. and Talk:D. Œ. A. V. for this category if it exists. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a long defunct Wikiproject titled WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration which has a tag you can add to the talk page WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration. I hope that helps!  -- Jayron 32</b> 23:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The complementary tag is WPRDAC attention on the RD question. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Allegedly inappropriate request for opinions
Let's make this simple, since it has been challenged. Should the discussion at WP:RDM titled "Why do schoolgirls wear short skirts in spite of their sex appeal?" remain hatted, be deleted, or be re-opened for full discussion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

discussion

 * Keep closed No need to delete, but also the discussion is not appropriate and outside the scope of the reference desk. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove hat. I was just adding sources when Jayron started deleting any additions to the hatted discussion: .  This exceeds his authority.  Not adding to a hatted discussion is a suggestion, not a command, since anyone can hat it. I've put my sources (in reply to a follow-up Q deleted by Jayron) on Futurist's talk page instead, to avoid further censoring by Jayron: User_talk:Futurist110. StuRat (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seems like request for opinions, and all of the responses to date have been opinions, but I would be interested to see the aforementioned sources before !voting here. Jayron, in my experience closed does not mean closed, period, but I'm open to being corrected by a link to policy/guideline. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See my link above. It was in reply to a comment that has now been deleted by Jayron, about the much greater coverage of undergarments in the past, making skirts less revealing than they are today. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * None of that has much relevance to the question asked. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure it does, since whether or not skirts are "revealing" depends on the accompanying undergarments, which have changed over time. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The sexiness of revelation comes from seeing something normally hidden, not the material. Adjusted for leg tolerance inflation, a bit of stocking is every bit as "revealing" as a bit of butt cheek. In the post-nuclear future, prudes will probably complain about seeing too far through those crazy kids' thin skins, and pervs will complain about not seeing far enough. There'll be genetically modified acetabulum in advertising, and I (for one) am already shocked and appalled. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, after Jayron stopped deleting contributions, I was able to make this point there (minus the humor). StuRat (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you were. I thought I'd checked to see if it was gone before I replied, but I checked the Humanities Desk. Should've known this was miscellany. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Close - Request for opinion. Responders need to refrain from giving opinions, as usual. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: Mandruss removed the hat and I restored Jayron's deletions. I'm not totally opposed to the hat, per se, so long as that doesn't become a justification for deletion of all further contributions. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Close, request for opinion and/or debate. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Filter 799
I was replying to a comment by Blueboar on the subject of Christianity and to do so I quoted a previous Humanities desk post. The filter rejected it claiming I am a "Ref desk Nazi". I fail to see why editors discussing Christianity should be categorised in this way. Maybe the filter should be retired? 92.8.220.234 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you got caught by the wrong filter. Nice to see you again Vote (X) for Change.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Does everyone have the right to hat discussions and then delete any further contributions to that thread ?
Jayron seems to think so. I strongly disagree, especially since the reason for the hatting is often that no sources have been provided, and if they are later added, Jayron would then feel free to delete them. Thus, while supposedly asking for sources, the result is to block them from being provided. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason why we're discussing it here is because you have contested it. If the above discussion has a consensus to undo the hat, then we will put the discussion back at the status quo ante bellum.  I have no problem with that.  However, multiple people have requested and/or closed the discussion (not one, and I was not the first).  Since you objected, I started the discussion above so you have the opportunity to prove me wrong by establishing consensus that I (and the people who objected before me) were wrong.  Please stop with the general whininess here, however, and let the discussion take its course.  If you were in the right, you'll win in a few days.  The immaturity you just now displayed in starting this here thread is beneath you, and you're better than this.  Don't do this.  It makes you look bad.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The thread above is about the hat, this thread is about your claim to have the right to prevent any additions to a hatted discussion. I've never seem such a claim before.  And since this would prevent fixing whatever alleged deficiency caused the hatting, it's also a bad practice from that POV.


 * You're also using the fact that Wikipedians rarely reach a consensus on anything, especially before it is archived and becomes moot, to get your way. Had you left the thread unhatted until there was a consensus to hat it, then it would likely remain unhatted permanently, but your way means it will likely remain hatted.  StuRat (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, if consensus is in your favor, I'll personally unarchive it and move it to the head of the line. If you're so sure you're correct here, you stand to lose nothing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My preference is to follow widely accepted process, not invent our own rules. The hat is a disputed edit and therefore requires consensus. There is nothing here to support a WP:IAR rationale. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As is mine. Which is why I started the discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please remove the hat pending consensus for it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't put it there. Not my hat to remove.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So the only legitimate reverts are self-reverts? I have reverted the hat. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've left the hat, but undid your deletions, as there is no precedent on your right to delete additions to hatted discussions. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "If the above discussion has a consensus to undo the hat"
 * You don't need consensus to un-censor something on a talk page. You need consensus to keep it censored.
 * First you boldly censor it. Then someone contests it by reverting the censorship. Then you discuss it.
 * I know BRD isn't, strictly speaking, policy, but it's one of those time-honored guidelines that might as well be policy.
 * ApLundell (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Calling it "censoring" is rather overstating it. One click and you can see it, if you're of a mind to. Rev-del is censoring. Hatting is not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Except that Jayron was deleting any further contributions to the hatted discussion. That is censorship. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did he rev-del them? If not, then they're in the history, uncensored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They're out of sight, so they're out of mind. History is full of that kind of coverup, where an audience could simply turn elsewhere as easily for the fuller story, but stay where they are because they're already there. It's partial censorship, and you're both right. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting comments without reporting at Talk
asked 'n' answered; WP:DENY - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

‎Big science equipment - rolled on wooden trunks?
I just removed this section from WP:RDS due to the nature of the username block on the OP. It's a shame, as it was a good question, but the new user posted it using the name of the perpetrator of yesterday's Las Vegas Strip shooting. It takes more than that to offend me personally, but I though it best for the public image of the ref desks that it be removed. I have no problem with the section being restored should that be the consensus. Cheers. -- ToE 19:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent block and removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography previously declined as a Wikipedia article
I updated my draft with outside references to publications where I have been published and to the two published books I have written. If I am notable, it is for what I have written about outside subjects, not what I have written about myself. Please review my updated draft and tell me whether it comports with Wiki's criteria. Jim Zirin (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)October 2, 2017


 * I added the title. Here's the draft: Draft:James_D._Zirin.  This isn't the right place to resubmit it, but maybe others can help you with that. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia discourages autobiographies, but you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and add some in-line references to establish your notability in the Wikipedia sense.   D b f i r s   08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD Removal of question
A user has removed this whole thread without any discussion, claiming a reason of medical diagnoses or legal advice. I have reverted/restored, because I think that is ridiculous. If something must be removed, our own guidelines encourage removal of offending responses over removal of questions. For example "outright removal of the question is discouraged" and "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions. ".

As I understand it, if you're reading this, you should not remove or alter the thread (other than good faith discussion there) unless consensus is reached here.

Thanks for your input, SemanticMantis (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I knew exactly who had done the removing before clicking on the link. 95% of our bogus removals come from the same username, plus a few by a couple of editors who occasionally imitate the bad behavior.


 * This has the same simple answer as the last twenty times this has happened; topic ban Medeis / μηδείς from editing, hatting, or deleting anything written by any other editor on any reference desk. There are plenty of other editors watching who will remove any actual problem posts. Just make the request at WP:AN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, except we can do it ourselves. Just automatically revert all deletions by Medeis, as she has never demonstrated the competence to know when to delete Q's. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, you're talking about banning Medeis, and at the same time you've been trying to get Betacommand unbanned - a user who did exponentially more damage to Wikipedia than Medeis could even think about doing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. I am NOT talking about banning Medeis/μηδείς. Medeis/μηδείς can make plenty of useful contributions while topic-banned from deleting what other editors write. And my !vote regarding Betacommand was neutral, not support. Arbcom has spent five years not making a decision. My RfC asks them to make a decision. I really have no strong feelings on what that decision should be -- whatever Arbcom decides is fine with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If they reinstate him, it's not fine. You started the RFC. Why couldn't you just leave it alone? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to discuss this with you here, because it has nothing to do with the reference desks. I advise other to likewise ignore your off-topic comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Until Maoon withdraws and disavows his attempt to get Betacommand reinstated, he has no moral authority to demand that someone else be banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Macon should withdraw his call for any ban on Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just let it go, ffs. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Macon first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't listen to Jack; he's becoming increasingly tiresome with his foolish insistence on decorum and adult behavior. By all means, continue with the irrelevant remarks and nyah-nyah namecalling. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Of what value was that deleted thread? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the wrong question to ask. That's a bit like saying: "That person's value wasn't immediately apparent to me, so I killed him."  Or if I went to your talk page and removed everything I didn't consider valuable.  Talk page contributions such as the Ref Desk can't be removed just because you see no value in them.  They need to actually violate some policy.  And, even then, boxing them up is preferred unless they are really bad. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It had considerable value. People do get diarrhea, and sometimes have to clean off in a shower. Should you clean the shower afterwards? I would use a spray bottle with a bleach solution myself. Also, the part about copper pipes and microbes was helpful, and the part about Islamic customs was pretty fascinating.


 * None of this changes the basic fact that WP:TPOC forbids removing what other editors write except in certain well-defined situations, and this wasn't one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there is some interest and value to both the question and the responses, but the issue of value is also completely irrelevant to the removal of the question and all responses.
 * We have no rules that questions or responses need to be valuable, none whatsoever. If anyone doesn't like to respond to questions of idle fancy, then I advise them to simple not do that. As you know, we are all volunteers here, and nobody is compelled to read or respond to anything on our ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is another: --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) Sign your posts, whoever you are; and (2) that was an obvious trolling question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's so "obvious" why did StuRat revert the deletion and why do I agree with his revert? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * StuRat is notorious for not recognizing bad-faith or trolling questions when he sees them. And he also restored that nonsense about the all-salmon diet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a guy who's trying to get Betacommand reinstated. Maybe you're unaware that trolling questions are subject to deletion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Liar. I !voted "Neutral" on that RfC. I am through talking to you until you cite a policy or guideline that supports your false claim that "questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't you start the RFC? As to your question, you already answered it. See the ref desk guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Rule of 10 and 5
In my head somehow I started thinking about the Reference Desks as having a Rule of 10 and 5. If a Desk regularly gets 10 questions a day, a split should be considered, if it regularly goes 5 days without a question, then a merge should be considered. Do other people have numbers for this?Naraht (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I do not. I do think other factors come in as well, such as topical reasons for and against splitting and merging. As an example: I think it is a good idea not to split up the Science desk any further (Biology, Chemistry, Physics e.g.), even when it gets a lot of traffic, because questions there tend to reach into more than one of these fields and a number of volunteers understand several fields of science too, as well as their interactions and overlap.
 * 5 days in a row without a question does sound extreme, even irregularly ... and yet this may have already happened, does anyone know? ---Sluzzelin talk  17:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No desk achieved ten questions a day in September (I didn't look further back).  If one other than science did, what would it be split into? 92.8.220.234 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sluzzelin, the Mathematics desk went through a recent dry spell, with no questions asked during the five days of August 16 through August 20, but that is the only time it happened to any of our desks this year. -- ToE 21:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks 92 and ToE. I couldn't find a day with 10+ questions on the Science desk during the past 2-3 years (I checked 2015, 16, 17). I didn't check the other desks (I did see one day in the Humanities desk archives carrying 9 questions, so it might have happened at WP:RD/H, though probably not frequently or regularly either). ---Sluzzelin talk  17:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I found that through the first nine months of this year, ten or more questions per day have been asked twice on the Computer Desk, seven times on the Science Desk, and eleven times on the Humanities Desk.
 * RDC: 10/May14 10/May15
 * RDS: 10/Jan19 13/Jan24 10/Feb03 14/Feb19 10/Mar17 12/Apr19 10/Jun11
 * RDH: 10/Jan19 10/Jan20 10/Jan25 10/Feb08 10/Feb23 11/Apr09 10/Apr14 12/Apr19 10/Apr20 12/Apr30 12/Jun06
 * I don't feel that any desk is in need of splitting at this time. -- ToE 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank, ToE. I used "10." as a search term, not knowing the search function would leave out the questions' index numbers. Ignore my research, and thanks again. I see no need for splitting either. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha! Same think happened to me on the first pass. -- ToE 19:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Original poster here. So even if we did have 10 and 5 as guidelines, neither guideline has been reached on a regular enough basis to cause split or merged discussion. Thanx to all!Naraht (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)