Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The May 25 pages have not been created: Special:Contributions/145.97.39.143, so for example Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2007 May 25 is a red link in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/May 2007, and likewise on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing from which the day has been excised. Similarly on other sections and the Help desk. I have no opportunity to work on fixing that for the next 12 hours.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Today, instead of taking the silently-fixing approach, I'm taking the make-more-people-notice-there-is-a-problem approach. Then I may fix the archives (but hopefully the archives and the bot will be fixed first!) Maybe it will work. Can we trust humanity? Hmmm. If I was working for some big bureaucracy or corporation and implemented a strategy like this I'd probably get fired. Good thing Wikipedia is nothing like that! Well, of course, my work is free, so they can't fire me, but they could kick me off the island. Root⁴(one) 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not that big a deal. I'm sure it will be fixed soon by whoever (

VectorPotential ?) maintains the bot. nadav (talk

) 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot,

Martinp23. VectorPotential (now operating as User:Vector Potential) has been a great help in fixing the effects of the uncomfortably common erratic bot behaviour.  --Lambiam^Talk

08:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But the recent bot edit was done by an IP. That's odd, no? nadav (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, the error is due to the bot not being logged in...whoa that is strange. nadav (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I've actually been around since before we had a bot, I used to do all of this by hand every day for about 2 months, after all that, even a quirky bot is better than no bot--VectorPotential^Talk 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did manual archiving for a while, too, and I agree, it is a royal pain. StuRat 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to fix everything tomorrow night, but in the mean time RefDeskBot needs to run as normal, even if it does edit as an IP. Which means the date headers need to be fixed. --VectorPotential^Talk 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens between now and tomorrow night, the date headers need to remain intact, altering them will just confuse RefDeskBot even more than it already is--VectorPotential^Talk 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if all of Martin's bots have become logged out, it's just that RefDeskBot is the only bot that actually has to create pages, a permission only assigned to logged in users--VectorPotential^Talk 22:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created the missing archive pages, and added page headers to older archive pages missing them.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that saved me a lot of time--VectorPotential^Talk 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the shortcut box (

For the laziest of all typists,

WP:RD/MA redirects there too. (No objection whatsoever here) ---Sluzzelin talk

14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No no no, I meant any argument as to the location of the shortcut box: aligned with the top of and to the right of the TOC. As for any other redirects such as /MA. /Ma. /ma... well feel free. I was just going to add the box at each desk with the original shortcut and then please go ahead and add whatever other existing or new shortcuts within that same box. OK? hydnjo talk 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but RefDeskBot doesn't seem to have read this thread yet. (diff) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Glad that I asked, that's probably happend to the /shortcuts in the first place. Guess I need to sync with Mr Bot before proceeding or /shortcut will keep getting sent to archive heaven. hydnjo talk 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

can wikipedias host flash documents? how? or Why not? A Greek wikiadict --91.140.54.114 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The question belongs more properly on the Wikipedia:Help desk. This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. For the video format supported by Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Media#Video.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Although User:Fir0002 and User:Mac_Davis would rather. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed an entry that struck me as soapboxing; while it used a question mark, I distinctly feel that it was not meant as a question. If anyone disagrees, feel free to restore it and let me know why I am wrong. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks reasonable; there wasn't any genuine, non-rhetorical question there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. There was no attempt to ask or answer a question in a ref-desk-appropriate way there. Friday (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think StuRat's response was interesting, and other responses could also be. A.Z. 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Be that was it may, this is (and will continue to be) the reference desk, not the "whatever anyone says is interesting" desk. Everyone who wishes to contribute here would do well to learn the difference. Friday (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that someone willing to contribute here is either stupid or acting in bad faith? Or maybe that the process of teaching people what this project is all about is flawed? A.Z. 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Friday asked me on my talk page what I mean by the questions above. Watch as I do not respond by calling him a troll nor by saying that he is deliberately alleging not to understand English with the ultimate intention of undermining Wikipedia.

What I mean is: you said that StuRat's answer was not appropriate. I said it was appropriate, and you said StuRat (and I) should learn what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, if we are people who wish to contribute here. One of the reasons why we would not learn what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate would be that we are stupid. Another reason could be that we wish to contribute with inappropriate content, which I called "acting in bad faith". A third possible reason would be that, despite our intelligence and good intentions, there's no available learning material or process for us to achieve the knowledge about the difference between what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. I was just asking you, Friday, if you meant any of these three reasons why I and StuRat do not know the difference. A.Z. 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried engaging in long discussions with you before, and I've not found it useful. So I won't tend to do it anymore. Now I'm just going to give my opinion and try to keep it brief. All I'm saying is, since this is the reference desk, arguing that content belongs because it's "interesting" is hardly compelling. Debates on controversial subjects are interesting to me too, but this doesn't mean they belong at the ref desk. All of this is already well-understood- check out the guidelines. Friday (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the content is interesting and appropriate. A.Z. 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

StuRat's comment is interesting and says a lot about Mr Phelps' flock. The issue is not with his reply, the issue is with the "question" (which is in violation of

WP:SOAP and not a meaningful question that can be answered). There is no point leaving StuRat's reply there when the question has been removed, hence both go. Rockpocket

21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think StuRat should not have replied in the first place?A.Z. 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, wouldn't have replied, as doing so gives the question a level of legitimacy and leads to a discussion like we are now having. But I don't have a major problem that he did, or with the content of his reply. Thats his choice. However, if you choose to make a comment on response to soapboxing, then you can't protest when your comment is removed too. Thats how it works. Rockpocket 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call, V-man. Rockpocket 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this back at the head of the list again? I don't even see a question here to answer. Bielle 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot that I was on the Talk page. Bielle 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. Perhaps you should read this section, Bielle. Rockpocket 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even have that excuse, Rockpocket. There are just some moments when the brain is not in gear but the fingers are still flying Bielle 02:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to know how many people read the reference desk? A.Z. 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look HERE. Or HERE, May's stats. Anchoress 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a lot less than I expected, though. The Humanities desk has just 1548 ± 35% views per day. What is a view? Is a view each time anyone loads the page? A.Z. 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as the pages themselves state, they're not a reliable source ;-) --Dweller 11:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the numbers on those pages are clearly wrong – look at how many counts are identical for different pages. --mglg_(talk) 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised at the numbers, however accurate they may be. I'd expect the reference desks have fairly low readership, compared to the rest of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are so many given the clamor from so few. hydnjo talk 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for those who make argument because of unfamiliar usage I'll provide some clamor:

1a: noisy shouting 1b: a loud continuous noise

2: insistent public expression (as of support or protest)  ;-) hydnjo talk 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I only found out after having been an active editor for four months there was such a thing as the Reference desk, and then only because I had a question to which I could not find the answer in the regular articles, had not received an answer to after posing it on the talk page of the most appropriate article, and looked for a more active spot to pose the question (see

Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/April 2006#How much does a flea weigh?). When I became an active Wikipedian the RD was not yet linked to from the main page, but even now it is, most Wikipedia users are casual users and probably not even aware of the existence of a reference desk on Wikipedia. And why should they, unless they have a burning question? The converse is more irksome. How come we get questions like "what is an epiphyte" from users who are apparently not aware this is an encyclopedia in which they can just look up the Epiphyte article and find the answer? How do they manage to find the RD instead? Maybe there should be a very prominent search box high up in the middle of the Main Page. And the left-hand search box should be on top of the marginal material, before the navigation links.  --Lambiam^Talk

09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth a try, and I wonder how many of the "epiphyte" questions would remain. Wikipedia's search engine isn't always helpful: a lot of RD-regulars seem to use google in connection with "en.wikipedia.org" etc to catch the relevant articles. Links to articles on sub- or side-topics, containing more detailed information on a question, are occasionally missing in the main-topic articles. Other times, users might get lost in long articles, so even pointing them to subsections can be useful. I sometimes see myself as a signpost (not the wiki-paper) at the desks. Including information on how the article was found might help as well. It's not as exciting as meandering on meaningful questions, but it seems to be one of the things readers ask for and one of the things an encyclopedia can provide. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was the original purpose of the desks; to act as a sort-of search engine for people who couldn't find things because the search function is so dismal, or because they didn't know enough about a subject to know what to search for. Skittle 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A banned user finally gets one to stick (

Geesh! Who would've guest guessed? ;-) hydnjo talk 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would he have to control himself? A.Z. 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, because we're here at the ref desk to provide useful answers. We're not actually here to entertain kiddies and trolls. Friday (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, no one said the regular "had to" control himself,

David D. merely stated an observation that the regular lacked this ability. Gantpupo

03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I learned interesting things reading that thread, and perhaps other people did as well. Maybe even the original poster did. A.Z. 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and look! You learnt that those crazy feminists were just looking for things to complain about! I thought the seeping misogyny had left the desks. Skittle 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no special desk just for algebra. You can post a question on the general Mathematics reference desk. I hope I understood your question properly? Best, nadav (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't Jackofoz get reprimanded for all of his POV RefDesk contributions?--71.185.142.181 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather deep question and I think we should discuss this more. You know, we should forget about voting on this and that for just a while, stop voting on which posts should be deleted and which should stay, which people should be reprimanded and which people should not. All this voting and talking doesn't ever get us anywhere. You should do a bit of introspection and find out the real reasons why you think some people should and some people shouldn't be reprimanded. Of course, you could as well say that I'm the one who really needs introspection, so I can find out that I am here for social interaction instead of building an encyclopedia and a good forum, which is what the reference desk inherently is, and all my other arguments are pure rationalisation. I can only hope Friday, Radiant, Eric, Rockpocket, Clio the Muse, Hipocrite and others somehow, for some reason, decide to reflect on the subject, and reveal to us their real motives, their real subjective and personal motives, which could take us somewhere perhaps better than where voting took us so far. A.Z. 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out at all what you're talking about. Who's advocating voting, and for what? I'm generally against voting, myself. Friday (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever someone deletes a post, people vote on whether the post should remain deleted or not. When that starts getting annoying, people start to make guidelines to solve the matter, whose content is based on the result of pools. A.Z. 02:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems silly to me. I've never wanted people voting on this. I've never advocated voting on guideline matters either. Has this really ever happened? Friday (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This [1]seems like voting to me. A.Z.

03:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend to A.Z. to read

Wikipedia talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#Unfortunately again, so that his memory is refreshed about how we came to use the procedure we used then.  --Lambiam^Talk

10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems with my memory, thank you. A.Z. 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we were temporarily reduced to something resembling voting. Unfortunate. Discussion is better than voting. Friday (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so now you can read my post again and perhaps accept the suggestion. A.Z. 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given this edit, 71.185.142.181 is in no position to be throwing stones at anyone. -- JackofOz 02:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it, Jack. It requires no high degree of intelligence to see this for what it is: a contemptible provocation. Clio the Muse 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think my reply means that I agree and am taking part in the contemptible provocation? A.Z. 03:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you? Rockpocket 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is a contemptible provocation at all! And this is by no means about Jack or an attempt to attack him in any way. A.Z. 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just read the IP's contributions, and perhaps they were after all trying to attack Jack... Nevertheless, it was never my intention to do so. I thought the question was about editors being treated differently, when their edits were not different, and JackofOz was just an example of such case. A.Z. 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it as a personal attack, just a vague reference to some unspecified "POV RefDesk contributions" I am supposed to have made. There being no detail to focus on, there's ... well, nothing to focus on. End of story. Your contribution, A.Z., to the above thread intrigues me far more, I must say, than the original question ever did. JackofOz 06:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have since left a message on his talk page, which I suggest you read if you wish, but please, nobody remove my question. Thank you. Edit: Another user proceeded to put a trollish response on my question. Please, nobody do that either.--71.185.142.181 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Diff of removal. I expect my personal opinion on this be rather predictable: it's a legitimate question. A.Z. 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to say that the responses removed by the original poster, as seen here, are also legitimate. A.Z. 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because he personally attacked me by calling it a "disgusting question" even though people's beliefs on this vary widely. I should probably have left the second comment, however, and for this I apologize.--71.185.142.181 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't remove things just because they are wrong. And, in this case, it wasn't wrong at all, if one interprets the meaning of "what a disgusting question" as "my personal opinion is that this is a disgusting question", which was my interpretation and probably the intended meaning of the author. A.Z. 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

IP shows no edits other than removals, vandalism, and ref desk trolling. Obviously just trying to cause trouble or get attention.

WP:DENY -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION!

20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See also this if you still might have any doubt. Earlier today I already reversed several destructive edits by this anon.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. The problem is with the editor's past behavior, then, which is in fact destructive. It is better to block them and talk to them on their talk page. A.Z. 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really hurts anything for not all of us to be able to recognize trolling. That is, as long as those who can't recognize it don't go out of their way to interfere with those who do. Friday (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume the reason it was removed is that some would find the question to be homophobic (I do not, however). I would have left it in. StuRat 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not removed because someone found it to be homophobic! As Feba explained above, "IP shows no edits other than removals, vandalism, and ref desk trolling. Obviously just trying to cause trouble or get attention." By the way, I disagree with the removal of a legitimate question even if written by someone who has vandalised Wikipedia before, even if written by a serial killer. A.Z. 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.185.143.145 has re-added the trolling. Corvus cornix 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk sections are archived quickly. It is rather annoying to click on a link such as this one only to find out that the section has been archived and now you're gonna have to search either in Google or directly in the archives, in order to have access to it.

An alternative to this style of linking would be this one. Permanent links never change, but one bad thing about them is that they show only the version of the page at a particular time. This could become a problem, since people might want to know what happened on the section after that time.

Besides the fact that sections are archived quickly, another particularity of the reference desk is that everyone can be sure about the name of the page where each section will be archived, so we can link to the archives even before they exist. An appropriate solution for the linking problem would be to link to sections like this: "Check out this section (archived version)." When the second link becomes blue, everyone will know that's the appropriate link to click. A.Z. 23:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought this issue up before as a reason in favor of my proposal to immediately archive every question, with a transclusion to the appropriate Ref Desk page. This would allow us to immediately link to the archive page, which should remain indefinitely. StuRat 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A solution (not 100%, but close) is to create the page [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/SECTION/DATE]], where SECTION = Computing | ... | Science, and DATE is the date on which the thread will be archived (corresponding to the lowest date heading found above the thread), as a temporary stand-in with content #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/SECTION]]. Such a temporary redirect will allow you to already have a link of the form [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/SECTION/DATE#TITLE]] even before the eventual actual archive page is created, the only risk being that the same TITLE also occurs earlier on the current page. According to RefDeskBot owner

Martinp23 this will not interfere with the operation of the bot – if there is already content on the page, the bot will simply overwrite it.  --Lambiam^Talk

01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WARNING. That claim is not correct. Rather than overwriting the page, the bot wraps the previous content between a header and the content to be archived: [2].  --Lambiam^Talk 06:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't StuRat's solution 100%? A.Z. 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It would mean that if you want to "watch" a section of the Reference desk, rather than just adding once, say, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities to your watchlist, you have to put every single day on your watchlist, and keep doing that every day: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 21, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 22, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 23, ... It is also confusing and disorienting, especially for casual and new users, to be thrown into an archive page after editing what looks like a continuous single page.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have my prefs set to watch any page I edit, and those are really the only pages I'd care to watch. For those who want to watch pages where they haven't made any change, they can, of course, still pick "Watch this page". StuRat 16:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing people getting too enthusiastic in removing suspect questions or jumping on people asking them.

I've seen people attacked for asking "homework" questions that appeared to me to be potentially legitimate. Remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Just now, a question on whether Canada should adopt the euro was removed on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the RD. OK, I understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but imagine the question had been phrased: "What would be the advantages and disadvantages of Canada adopting the euro?" Wouldn't that be OK? So why go to the extent of removing the question? -- Mwalcoff 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Diff? From your description, it should have been okay, and at the worst, rephrased. V-Man - ^T/_C 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[3].  --Lambiam^Talk 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind... It was written as a statement rather than a question. That's why it was inappropriate. Nonetheless, my comment about people jumping on questioners too quickly stands. -- Mwalcoff 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was always thus. Every so often someone or some group starts a campaign to "clean up" the RDs, then someone else complains because they feel they (or a third party) have been treated unfairly. This usually spirals into an unproductive debate. Gandalf61 10:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not! None of this was ever a problem prior to roughly November of 2006, the reference desk went the vast majority of its existence without stirring up any controversy whatsoever. This is easy enough to verify by checking the older talk page archives--VectorPotential^Talk 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Picking an archive at random, the Jan-Mar 2006 talk page archive contains long debates on use of templates to respond to "inappropriate" RD questions; appropriate standards of politeness and courtesy on the RDs; whether humourous responses should be allowed; how to handle questions about suicide - all started by someone posting an answer or taking an action that someone else objected to. I stand by my claim - it was always thus. Gandalf61 10:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And from Dec 2005 we have

David D. (Talk)

13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But look at the difference, those sorts of problems sprung up only once every few months, now there's a new issue practically every few hours--VectorPotential^Talk 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you view the problem? 1) More "Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions" than before; 2) Same level of "Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions" but less tolerance for them; 3) Same level of "Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions" but less tolerance for deleting them.

David D. (Talk)

18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (for the record, I think it is three)

Of course, nothing precludes you or the

WP:POINT perhaps). Such re-posting is not uncommon. Admittedly, it wouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but there you go. dr.ef.tymac

16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are still problems with inappropriate removals, the only way we can meaningfully discuss them is with diffs. Friday (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop this into this topic. Diff - [4]. I removed the first instance of the question, because it was User12's ONLY contribution to Wikipedia. User12 has put it back. Now it's time for You Make The Call. --LarryMac | Talk 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That reasoning escapes me completely, Larry Mac. At an early stage of their wiki-career, every Wikipedian has made only one contribution. What would happen to Wikipedia if everyone's first edit was removed on principle? -- JackofOz 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously nobody is suggesting reverting first edits as a general rule. I suspect that reverting racist trolling is less controversial. Friday (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my brain isn't operating on all 6 cylinders today (I have an ear infection and I'm on meds), but I can't see that the diff in question is racist. If anything, it seems to be wanting to find a way of not inadvertently appearing to be racist. What's racist about that? (It does seem a rather silly question, but that's hardly exceptional.) -- JackofOz 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a backwards way of making an excuse to mention the N-word just for a silent laugh. The question asked could be legitimate if 1) the poster left out the unnecessary example with the N-word and 2) the poster formed the question to be more palatable than "Why is this screwed up? Isn't someone going to fix this?" We get lots of those questions, and usually there isn't a correct answer to it (unless, of course, some large company actually is making a large effort to separate the B from the N on the keyboard to avoid nbigger problems). V-Man - ^T/_C 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous question that stretches credibility, and like VMan, I read it as a thinly-veiled "Heh, heh, I said the n-word". At best, it was an excuse to tell what the questioner thought was a funny story. Friday (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing the Devil's Advocate for a moment (assuming the poster is the Devil, here): if this specific finger-fumble was the very thing that caused them to ask the question they asked, how can they illustrate it without making reference to the word they actually typed? Are we getting a touch too precious here? -- JackofOz 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of User:User12's other "contributions", as well as those of the other socks User:User16 and User:User18, there can be little doubt that the intention was trolling. Therefore I consider the Devil's Advocate's question moot.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this ship has sailed, I honestly don't think that the average person's first (logged-in) edit to Wikipedia would be a trollish question to the RD. And I guess I was fresh out of good faith yesterday afternoon (GMT-5); let's just say I probably wouldn't be too surprised by the checkuser results on any of the involved names. --LarryMac | Talk 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A person's first contribution is likely to be a question, and they are also likely not to know the rules, like the apparent Jeopardy! rule ("every statement must be phrased in the form of a question or will be viciously deleted"), so will appear "trollish" to those who fail to assume good faith. StuRat 04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it was correct to remove this question. Sure, the first part of it is asking for medical advice, but perhaps the question could have been left and the standard disclaimer added, rather than the question being deleted. And the second part of the question could surely have been answered with reference to our article on

Well, it would have been extremely inappropriate to attempt to answer the question in any way other than the standard disclaimer, since it looks like the person was asking about the possibility of replacing their medication with herbs. If we could be confident that nobody would try to answer the question with anything other than the standard disclaimer, then I would support returning the question with that added. However, these things are irresistible to some. It seems safer to remove temptation from people's paths. I will, however, add a reply on the asker's talk page, if they don't have one already, explaining why they didn't get an answer. Skittle 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur strongly with removal - question would need to be directed to their own doctor who would be in a position to consder the specifics of the case and whether appropriate to try anything else (whether conventional or herbal).David Ruben ^Talk 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Two lunartics have recently flooded us (Re: Humanities) with questions, at the rate of either 9 or 18 at a time. This presents two problems: 1) It's homework, and 2) I think we are being somewhat abused. We ought to be used sparingly, as little as is necessary or possible.

As for homework, well people were warned at the top of the page, and that is sufficient grounds to ignore/delete/score out/give limited answers to. But there is nothing to say the RD is to be used sparingly. Perhaps we should add at the top:

"List one question at a time. Please don't post more than a few questions a time on the reference desk, as the service is free." --or something to that effect.martianlostinspace 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer getting one such posting, listing 18 homework questions, to getting 18 separately posted homework questions.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially when they're really bad questions. --Dweller 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem. There's no more or less work for us getting 10 questions from the same person as from 10 different people. Unless we're going to decide to tell people "The ref desk has already gotten 20 questions today, and that all we can have, come back tomorrow" I don't see how this helps. Friday (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't think I phrased that question properly. In other words, if people have 18 questions for it, not that they should list them all separately, but only a few ought to be listed.martianlostinspace 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a thread. Please see my post to ANI. --Dweller 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of the original posting and its removal.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you censoring the ref desk? (note sarcasm)

David D. (Talk)

18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

== United States Military Conflicts ==

Since, and including the American War of Independance, has the US armed forces ever 'won' a conflict when they have acted alone and without the active and in theatre support of an allied military presence?

By 'won' I would assume that this would mean a complete cessation of hostilities in favour of the victor, and possibly with a caveat that no future hostilities commenced within 3 years of a military withdrawal.

This would exclude domestic campaigns such as the Indian Wars in the 19th century.

I can only find reference to the Spanish American War of 1898 and the invasion of Grenada in 1983 (although there may have been some involvement by other carribean nations).

JonM267JonM267 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The above question was asked two days previously and received adequate answers, while provoking some wikidrama. Now it is asked by a user with a slightly different name in a slightly different form. I recommend the second occurrence be archived or moved to the user's discussion page, since it looks like trolling to ask the same contentious question after 2 days. Edison 20:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

go for it.

David D. (Talk)

21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to do it myself when I thought I should check the Talk page. We don't need it twice. Bielle 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been, sadly, too involved in drama related to it to take such an action as moving it somewhere. Edison 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say that it is not obvious to me (for a change) that the intention was trolling. Isn't it possible that the questioner couldn't find the earlier posting and then reposted it? I regularly see reposted non-trollish questions, and the tone and content of the question appear serious.  --Lambiam^Talk 03:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That may well be true, Lambiam, but we still don't need two of them, do we? Bielle 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So I've removed the duplicate. I just wanted to point out that we should be careful before publicly accusing a newbie of trolling.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Lambiam. But wouldn't someone at least take a look after 2 days to see if there were responses? Reposts of contentious or edgy questions, or ones with thinly veiled criticism are usually trolling. Time will tell what the posting habits are, and a new contributor should certainly be granted the benefit of the doubt. It could be the case that an original question had been archived by our too-swift bot, but in this case the original question was still there with over a dozen responses. Edison 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The duplicate question was posted at 19:35.[5] By 20:04, the poster had apparently discovered the original posting and was reacting to the responses there.[6] (This was before your posting pointing out the sameness of the questions.[7]) I've no idea how come the user could at first not find the original posting, nor why they did not then remove the duplicate, but for a first-timer grasping both the notion of a wiki and learning to use the specific wiki interface at the same time is not easy.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Completly unoffical but: - irc://irc.freenode.net/##wikipedia-desk —The preceding

Now #wikipedia-desk (one hash). Majorly (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do what you want on irc, but please do not advertise it here. Friday (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've mentioned it a couple other places but I removed the IRC line in the reference desk header. See talk [8]

RxS

16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also removed here [9] You can also see the above referenced talk page for more discussion.

RxS

17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is at

zany - fish

) 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Talk Pages. A.Z. 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, A.Z. Bielle 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the recommended treatment for these? Sometimes such queries are posted by a user with an account, but more often not (or are unsigned). I suspect that a well-intentioned, helpful act of moving the query to the

If moving, I highly recommend leaving a pointer to the new place in the original location, otherwise as you said, it may look to the questioner like it just disappeared. I also don't see the harm in a certain amount of answering the questions anyway, even if they're in the wrong place. The most unhelpful thing you can do is reply just to say "You're in the wrong place." If you're going to take the time to do that, you might as well answer the question or move it to the right place at the same time. Friday (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noted various treatments. As this is often an action by an inexperienced user of the RDs, perhaps the best intervention is to:

• make the move, keeping the OP's header, and
• note this as a response to the OP's original posting (where the OP will seek replies), with a int. link to the new location.

I'm willing to give this a try, just wanted to get the advice of more experienced RD staffers. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see a pattern forming here, here, here and here (though the last one is a bit outlandish, even for Hannity), and is it something we should be concerned about? Rockpocket 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've definitely seen the pattern. Not sure what kind of response it should get, although I liked where somebody said (on the most recent post) something like "we're not really a breaking news kind of place". As trolls go, this guy seems fairly benign. I've become accustomed to the fact that we attract both trolls and troll-feeders, when I see them, I just grab a cup of chocolate from the fountain and munch on a piece of spongecake wall. --LarryMac | Talk 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seen it, read it, didn't respond. Trolling? mmmmmmm, maybe the guy/gal just gets excited about FOX, right now, this is happening right now! and feels the need to share. I think either they will get bored with the appathy of the responses they get and stop (i personally think they have confused the Ref Desks with some kinda online forum, where people sit discussing stuff, waiting for breaking news to discuss, right now!) or we can always send the flying monkeys to get him/her :) Perry-mankster 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They are responding to messages left on their talk page, so maybe a reminder that "we're not really a breaking news kind of place" would be appropriate? I was going to leave a message after the border patrol question, but my "reminders" never seem to work out very well.—

eric

18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable question was removed, leaving only the responses.

Not quite. See below. --

scs

This is very detrimental to the Reference Desk. Even if the question was placed by a banned user from an IP address, as claimed, it is unhelpful and undesirable to remove a perfectly sensible question and leave only the answers. A diff: [10]. Edison 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. On the one hand, some people like to be firm about enforcing bans. I have mixed feelings- if LC is done acting like a monkey and wants to ask a question, I don't see a reason to object. On the other hand, he's never demonstrated an ability to refrain from childishness for very long. I can't say I disagree with people trying to make his ban stick- he was banned for good reason, and we don't need him around here. Friday (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not doubt the intention of the question was trolling. In the UK one would have no problem in obtaining isopropyl alcohol.

Indeed. (I know that, and I'm not even in the UK.) --

scs

Additionally, as you can read in our banning policy, any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. I don't see why enforcing the ban by reverting the trolling of a permanently banned troll should be detrimental. Encouraging trolls, however, is.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the answer as well, since it is gibberish to leave the answers without a question to give them context. Or leave the question but blank the name/IP of the questioner. Edison 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did leave a synopsis of the question, which left me wondering why you felt the need to restore the full question after that. (But it's not worth arguing about.) --

talk

) 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My own feeling here is to leave his legit questions up if someone has already answered with a good answer. If I see a question without an answer I'll revert it regardless of the questions quality. If it is a trolling question (obviously subjective) I'd delete the question and answers.

David D. (Talk)

15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Throwing out the contribution of a person who gave a legit answer is a rather serious step, as is making that answer meaningless by removing the question it answers. If people frequently find their answers are deleted or made meaningless, for whatever reason, they will stop contributing. This neither helps the Ref Desk nor Wikipedia. StuRat 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing was, I'd already removed the question twice, but then Graeme Bartlett happened to see and answer it just when LC had reverted it a third time (or something). And I didn't want to delete Graeme's good answer, so I redacted the question and left the answer. (And caught some flak, privately, for having done it that way, instead of just deleting everything, as Lambiam eventually did anyway.) No-win situations, these end up being... --

talk

) 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and my point is that Graeme Bartlett shouldn't be punished by having his post deleted or rendered useless, just because, unbeknownst to him, he responded to what looked like a serious question, but was actually from a banned user. Unless somebody told him, he likely has no idea why his post was deleted. StuRat 05:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that the question was restored a few minutes ago by the same troll: [11]. I assume that it is obvious to all that the intent is to troll, and that my removal of that question is uncontroversial. Please don't feed the troll, everyone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I'd like to ask this Ummit/SCS person to stop jamming his posts into the middle of other people's. Interrupting someone just to say "Not quite" or "Indeed" is kind of obnoxious. Is what you have to say too important to be relegated to the end of the line? Black Carrot 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do that myself, usually when I have a short response directly related to the post while the one immediately after the post is long and unrelated to that post. I use the same double indent to show that the post following mine is a response to the post prior to mine (and not a respone to me), too. This technique can certainly be overused, but I think it has it's place. Here's an example:

I think Lyndon Barnes Johnson said that.

Actually, the former US President's name was

Lyndon Baines Johnson

, not "Barnes".

No, I think it was said by one of the following politicians...

StuRat 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that some questions and answers have been copied across to the Wikiversity Help Desk. This appears to be done mainly by StuRat, presumably so he can provide answers that are not consistent with the purpose of our Ref Desks. This appears to be a happy solution to what has been a recurring issue over the last year or so on the desks. However, noting that some of the answers I have provided here have also been copied across, it occurred to me that this is probably violating the term of our GFDL license, from

"Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement.

If my understanding is correct, any question or answer copied across should probably link back to the source (i.e. the Ref Desk here) as per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations, since the questions and answers currently appear to be attributed to various Wikiversity editors and not those of Wikipedia. Rockpocket 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can provide a link back to the original Ref Desk question, if you like (but, of course, that link will be broken as soon as the Ref Desk Q gets archived). StuRat 06:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

True. I (personally) don't really care that much. Its more of a Wikiversity copyright problem IMHO, I just thought I would point it out after it occurred to me. Rockpocket 06:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let's just wait and see if anyone at Wikiversity complains. StuRat 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)