Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 18

message: Here is an example of excellent responses from the Ref Desk regulars: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Anglo-Dutch_Wars.3F.  I particularly like how everyone had a slightly different interpretation of the question, but we all worked in a collaborative way to provide better answers than any one of us could have provided alone. StuRat 11:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent responses 

message: *Support allowing OR here.  An example was a question I had on the Computer Desk about a USB thumb drive which was losing it's connection.  Having had the exact same problem and solved it by using a short extension cable to relieve strain on the connector, I was able to suggest the same and solve the user's problem immediately.  I see no justification for refusing to provide that answer just because I discovered it myself, rather than reading about it at some web site. StuRat 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EricR has a good answer here.  Also, I have to wonder if these repeated "votes" are just to make a "I can call for votes if I want to" point.  Getting your friends to "vote" and declaring that the issue has been decided after a few hours is, well, silly.  And, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, this isn't the right way to do things.  I don't know if those repeatedly trying to pass "motions" via parliamentary procedure simply don't understand this, or if they're just willfully going against established practice.  Why would you barge into someone's house and rearrange their furniture? Friday (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: EricR, you have a good point about making it clear when something is OR and when it comes from a reliable source.  But, doesn't the presence or lack of a cited source pretty much make that distinction clear ?  What do you think ? StuRat 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parliamentary procedure fails here due to the lack of such basic requirements a quorum determination. Also, I have seen proposals posted and assumed to become consensus in a very few hours, with only a couple of persons posting comments. I would think 5 days is a minimum period for comments even on well viewd areas such as articles for deletion. Edison 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next item for consensus: Is "original research" allowed ? 

message: :EricR has a good answer here.  Also, I have to wonder if these repeated "votes" are just to make a "I can call for votes if I want to" point.  Getting your friends to "vote" and declaring that the issue has been decided after a few hours is, well, silly.  And, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, this isn't the right way to do things.  I don't know if those repeatedly trying to pass "motions" via parliamentary procedure simply don't understand this, or if they're just willfully going against established practice.  Why would you barge into someone's house and rearrange their furniture? Friday (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EricR, you have a good point about making it clear when something is OR and when it comes from a reliable source.  But, doesn't the presence or lack of a cited source pretty much make that distinction clear ?  What do you think ? StuRat 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parliamentary procedure fails here due to the lack of such basic requirements a quorum determination. Also, I have seen proposals posted and assumed to become consensus in a very few hours, with only a couple of persons posting comments. I would think 5 days is a minimum period for comments even on well viewd areas such as articles for deletion. Edison 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There appears to be a consensus here that original research should be allowed on the Ref Desk.  I have, therefore, updated Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guideline to reflect this: 
*Is original research allowed: Yes, but it should be clearly identified as such, i.e., "I've found that...".
StuRat 10:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: What do we think about StuRats answer on the cow-eating question and the answers on the Sonic 2 question. StuRat, instead of answering the cow question, pointed at what would be a starting point for the OP to figure it out for himself. On that one I say better to answer the question as answers, not clues, are what we claim to provide. On the other I think Friday is gently pointing out that the question is inappropriate and the other editor is pointing at something that might itself point at an answer (or not). On that one, if it is an inappropriate question can we please say so clearly and if it is not then what is the point of Friday's answer? I have no problem with the question but can understand if others may think game-related questions of that sort are inappropriate. Oh, and with a nod to Clio, I felt free to name the editors that are participating here and that I imagine have no problem with being named (as I would have no problem). --Justanother 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering the question is useful- we all agree on this.  I think that helping people understand what Wikipedia is or is not for is useful also, but I accept that not everyone may see it that way.  Wikipedia is not google, and if questioners give no indication that they've reasonably tried to find the answer, they may find people suggesting very basic things, like "try googling".  Part of the expectation of helping people is that they have to be able to reasonably help themselves too.  Friday (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is subtlety in human communication that perhaps is being overlooked here.  There's a big difference between saying "Wikipedia is not a game guide" and leaving a note on the user talk page saying "You're abusing the reference desk, stop it."  I think perhaps the overlooking of such subtleties is why some people want a set of exact rules about what is or is not allowed.  Friday (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: On the cow eating question, I was on the fence as to whether I should give an estimate myself.  The site I referenced seemed to do an excellent job, so I decided to leave it at that.  But, if somebody else wants to do the "original research" to give an actual number of days, I'd have no objection to that.  Of course, if this was a homework question, a sort of test of the students' abilities to estimate things, then we definitely should leave it to the student to find the actual numeric solution.  As for the Sonic 2 question, I don't recall that, is it at the Computer Desk ? StuRat 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Stu. Sorry if I was ambiguous but the "other editor" was one that I have not seen over here on the talk page so I saw no point in naming him as one can just peek at the question to see what I mean. --Justanother 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, here it is; Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Sonic_Adventure_2_chaos. StuRat 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forget that this talk page covers all the RDs. --Justanother 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob.  User:Skarioffszky's answer looked good to me.  If somebody actually knew the answer, I wouldn't object to them giving it either, but this is likely the best answer we could give under the circumstances. StuRat 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beg to differ but I think that answer was inappropriate and would not be considered appropriate if the question were a "serious" one on, say, quarks. Anyone that has kids knows that that question on Sonic might be as serious to him as any question on quarks might be to another. So yes, WP:AGF and either do the research and find the answer or leave it alone. The guideline to answering says "Please be thorough." --Justanother 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see your point.  But, what if nobody knows the actual answer ?  In that case, isn't a link that could lead to the answer better than no answer at all ?  That makes it look like we are ignoring them.  StuRat 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One thing I would say on this is that if a question is asked in the wrong place, we probably should not just say "Go ask over there instead" rather than answering it.  There's no harm in answering it anyway, and expecting the questioner to ask it twice is undesirable, in my opinion.  Friday (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But Wikipedia does not have firm rules.  It's not about what's "prohibited"- very little is prohibited here.  Part of WP:AGF is assuming intelligence- we should assume that normal communication will be effective, until shown otherwise. Friday (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS normal to be confused when someone you don't know and can't see and are just hearing one line out of is being "subtle". Please be obvious. So if the question is not prohibited then what is the point of discouraging it? --Justanother 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see that my answer was unclear.  But, whoever does is welcome to improve upon it.  There's nothing wrong with more than one person answering, if they think they can add something helpful to the response.  Friday (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All due respect Friday but your answer looks to me like a brush-off. The "Go Google it" response is never the correct one, IMO. They are here. --Justanother 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I propose that "Go Google it" be outlawed as a response unless you yourself go google first, refine the search, and then link to a specific useful search. And in that case I still do not consider it an "answer" but at least an effort worth adding to the answer stream. --Justanother 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I try to do. StuRat 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See above, where I said " if questioners give no indication that they've reasonably tried to find the answer, they may find people suggesting very basic things, like "try googling".  Part of the expectation of helping people is that they have to be able to reasonably help themselves too."  Friday (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Friday, based on your taking something to my talk page, I sincerely hope that you are not taking this personally. I just saw three examples of "not answering" and I wanted to discuss it. Re outlawing "Go Google", I am serious. If we can talk about outlawing certain questions then we can talk about outlawing certain answers. --Justanother 21:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal? No- it was a general comment about how Wikipedia works, and thus was off-topic for this page.  Whoever's talking about outlawing anything is almost always missing the point.  Friday (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it outlawed or call it inappropriate, same difference. We have no problem saying inappropriate, why the problem with blunter terminology? --Justanother 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can keep this here instead of my talk page. Many things are "outlawed" at wikipedia. Disruptive sockpuppetry. Original research (in articles). Personal attacks. It is totally OK for the community to decide that some questions and some answers have no place here, i.e. they are outlawed. We just don't use that term. --Justanother 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, call me Justa (laff). --Justanother 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Did I put it in the right place? --Justanother 22:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. StuRat 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendency to "not answer" the question?? 

message: I'm not sure that everyone *is* aware of what the real issue is here: User:Friday/Misc#Reference desk. -THB 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reference desk does not further the purpose of building an encyclopedia then these pages should just go away. I think we could convince Friday otherwise, that there are ways the desk helps out the project. However, so far, we haven't been making a very strong case.EricR 14:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I've already concluded that a well run reference desk is helpful.  A chat room disguised as a reference desk is less helpful. Friday (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "real" issue

message: The concept is alright, but much of what actually happens there is crap.  Relationship advice?  Ideas for some school play?  Please.  Why are editors wasting their time on such rubbish?  The RD could be conducted in a useful way that doesn't reflect poorly on the project, yet somehow in many cases this is not happening.  A certain amount of irrelevant chatting might be unavoidable- as long as it doesn't hurt anything, it's not worth arguing over.
*It's called the miscellaneous desk for a reason--172.145.22.246 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's from User:Friday's Misc page. -THB 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, back in the day, when I was actually an editor, the misc desk was the place to ask those sorts of questions. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Desk needs help

message: I also wonder who he's calling idiots on that page. -THB 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link to that comment ?  It's a huge page (he must have a lot to rant about, LOL). StuRat 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's right below the one I already posted, subtitled "Judgment".  I tried to post a link but it's the second section with the same subtitle.  The whole page is worth a read, anyhow. -THB 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he means us by "lovable idiots", I think he hates everyone here, and would block us all if he thought he could get away with it. StuRat 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This one's good too: User:Friday/Misc#admins, and the one right below it. How ironic. -THB 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's one thing Friday and I agree on: User:Friday/Misc#Trolling. -THB 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure how we got on this subject.  For what it's worth, the relevant place to discuss User:Friday/Misc is User talk:Friday/Misc.  Friday (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Friday, when your stated goal is to eliminate the Ref Desk as well as many of the editors who contribute to it, it belongs here.  That page goes a long way to explaining your actions. -THB 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your continued rubbing of this quote, now retracted, in Friday's face is not helping move consensus forward - it is divisive and in bad faith. Please stop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not retracted, it's still right there on his page, with no retraction offered. StuRat 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he didn't retract it, but he changed it.  I posted the text from this morning above.  Along with some hidden. -THB 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless you two can stop sniping at Friday and start discussing the issues, the discussion is going to start moving forward without your input. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific about how "things will end badly for all concerned"? -THB 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not helpful to consensus for you to continue sniping. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *A joke, I see.  Well, Friday was a cannibal, maybe we can get him to eat a few of the other Admins trying to block progress towards developing guidelines here ?  Then, maybe if we put some BBQ sauce on his arm ... :-) StuRat 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason is that he said here that he saw no value in the Ref Desk, and wanted to delete it.  Then he claimed to have changed his mind, but we found a very similar statement on one of his own pages.  Thus, we suspect his true motivation is to destroy the Ref Desk. StuRat 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lovable idiots

message: We've moved the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Discourage_.22Go_Google.22_as_an_answer. Your comments and opinions are welcomed there. StuRat 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What's STFG ? StuRat 11:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Search The F**king Google? -THB 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next item for consensus: Is "just Google it" a valid answer ? 

message: Hipocrite seems to be suggesting that the "answer stream" on this question ("medicine") has degraded into chat for chats sake. I disagree. While there may be a bit of banter, I do not see it as excessive and most of the other dialogue is in the interest of providing a more complete answer to an assumed question about non-illegal aphrodiacs.
Hipocrite is using hidden comments to tag the remarks that he objects to - good idea.
See 
Here is the specific comment he uses:

Comments? --Justanother 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also preface this by noting that APHRODISIAC is a street name for a specific "brand" of MDMA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that but we do not know what the asker had in mind and we were WP:AGF a legit question. --Justanother 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm 100% amenable to that kind of feedback. I'm going back to find that thread and if I have any tagged comments I'll remove them. Anchoress 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I will remove those responses of mine that were answers to removed questions. This could get cumbersome. Don't you'all think that visible "Please stay on-topic" reminder would do better? --Justanother 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, if he's asking about aphrodisiacs, we've answered, if he's asking about how to get an illegal drug, then we didn't answer, but that's OK. StuRat 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can answer with good sources, we should do so.  Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a worldwide resource- if a particular thing happens to be illegal in some particular place, this isn't that much of a concern to us.  We can't assume the laws in our local corner of the world apply to everyone else.  Friday (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that Wikipedia policy?  Does it apply to copyright?????? -THB 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, see WP:FAIR--172.145.22.246 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good sources on where to find drugs? Let's not and say we did, as my dear old used to say. --Justanother 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anchoress, your opinion & judgment are far above the average.  You needn't second-guess yourself except for an oversight.  -THB 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hipocrite and "chat" 

message: And still no one noticed due to the almost 400 KB of bickering, and it's been down since the 9th, so that's almost 3 days of downtime before anyone even noticed --172.145.22.246 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''{{User|RefDeskBot}}'s dead again.....''' 

message: Agree yes/no?--172.145.22.246 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who ARE you??? -THB 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm me, who are you?--172.145.22.246 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess I'm not you, I'm me. -THB 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you correcting everyone's spelling??? -THB 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No particular reason--172.145.22.246 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you don't correct British spelling to American spelling on a talk page. That's rude. -THB 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was unintentional, firefox doesn't know the difference and I was going through a bit too quickly--172.145.22.246 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it at all, especially not in haste.  You could at least go back and undo the American spellings from the British.  -THB 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did go back and fix it, and as far as I can tell it only happened in one section, and if you've noticed, I have stopped--172.145.22.246 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a feasibility study in typo correction, and not so surprisingly, it turned out to be infeasible, as far as I can tell, any instances of changing British spellings to American have been reversed--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the overly-dense discussion has been about editing others' comments.  Please read the BS before you archive it! -THB 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If we stay on topic, this may help cut down on the ridiculous size.  Maybe there should be a reminder at the top or something. :) Friday (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, right now, I think the conversation needs to be visible.  It's only a few days' worth, there's just been a lot of activity.  Also, I question 172.145.22.246's motives, not knowing who he or she is. -THB 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point, it's only been a few days since the last archive, and already the page is so bogged down that it's getting in the way of the technical aspects of actually keeping the desks functioning.  None of this discussion actually leads anywhere, it just accumulates until this page starts pushing WP:SIZE and someone comes along and archives it. I'm just suggesting that we start a program of regular archives like most other large talk pages on WP so that inactive discussions can be removed.  Since most archive bots only remove discussions that have been inactive for XYZ number of days, only older content would be archived--172.145.22.246 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're a sockpuppet, it would be helpful if you identified yourself. -THB 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And see, this is turning into one of those discussions already, it's a simple question, archivebot, yes/no?--172.145.22.246 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not that simple.  If you're a sockpuppet, you should identify yourself. -THB 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally only log in when something I'm doing requires the ability to create a new page, or edit something that's sprotected, that having been said, I'm a student, so I don't really get much of a chance to edit these days anyway, not until the end of the semester really--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While I would tend to agree with THB and strike my above support, I do not know enough about "technical aspects of actually keeping the desks functioning". Would Mr. 246 care to elaborate? --Justanother 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is an IP, not a sockpuppet. --Justanother 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're correct.  But he appears to be a regular around here not signed in.  There've been enough hidden agendas around here to do for a while.  Perhaps all of the evil needs to be exposed to the daylight. -THB 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not evil, just not big on logging in--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I did see that you're AOL but that was useless because obviously you're American from your spelling edits. Please feel free to archive but leave the last few days even if it's too much.  People tend not to read the archive and there have been some interesting things happening. -THB 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is 7 days worth of inactivity a reasonable amount of time?--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think it's even been that long yet.  Things have been hoppin'. -THB 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I was tempted to set age=2 days, since werdnabot only archives sections that haven't been editing in X=days # of days, it would take an eternity to actually reduce the size of the page--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 days of inactivity sounds fine, but that's not what it says at the top, it says things 7 days old will be archived, (whether active or not).  Also, sorry we jumped on you about not logging in, but we have recently been the victims of 2 Admin-sponored sockpuppet attacks, so are a bit wary of "strangers" with a keen interest in the Ref Desk. StuRat 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote it to clear up confusion, also, I changed the date of inactivity from 7 to 2 days. At this rate if we waited for 7 days of inactivity per section the desk would grow by about 300 KB for every 20 or 30 KB removed. Also, Werdnabot is probably down for good, so it really doesn't matter much at the moment --VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page needs to be archived more often 

message: This talk page frequently pushes the boundaries of WP:SIZE, and this way inactive discussions only, could be cleared from this page after a specified amount of time--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{User|Werdnabot}} for this talk page? 

message: he just trashed the page, substituting 2 days worth of posts for one red link to an archive that doesnt exist. Philc TECI 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It did this twice last week, I corrected it by hand both times. The problem is the bot is dropping pages, linking to archives it doesn't seem to be making--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Specifically, I had to create Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 December 8 myself, even though the bot had already indexed and transcluded it--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref desk bot 

message: Please give your opinion here:
Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Discourage_.22Go_Google.22_as_an_answer. StuRat 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is both appropriate and educational, when someone asks "Did Thomas Edison ever develop something called a 'pyromagnetic motor'" and Wikipedia provides no answer,(actually it does) to say "If you Google Edison pyromagnetic you will find references such as the Edison Papers Project at Rutgers University, where it says ...." This is along the lines of "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is like a real librarian telling a person what reference might be useful, such as a terminal connected to a database, then showing how to do an initial search, and is not being a dick   like if they just said "Why don't you go look it up?" Edison 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being that you actually did some work and got him started so fine. --Justanother 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, we aren't saying telling them to use Google is bad, but JUST doing that is.  You should first establish that Google provides good results and then provide a link to those results, both of which you've done in your example.  So, we appear to be in agreement. StuRat 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more input on: Is it OK to just say "Google it" as an answer ? 

message: How many days should we set it for? Keeping in mind that despite the header, it only archives pages that have been inactive for that long--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least four day's prior discussion should be visible.  Frankly, things have not been moving too fast.  -THB 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that in the case of that last four days, that represents about 200 kB, or the equivalent of 3 or 4 normal talk pages, also, the various archive bots only remove discussions that have been inactive for X number of days. --VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would certainly defer to your judgment as you seem to have experience with this.  As long as the archiving process does not misrepresent the discussion it does not archive there should be no problem. -THB 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the EssjayBot III for my talk page and it works well. The EssjayBot II one is used on several wikipedia domain nitoceboards and talk pages; see User:EssjayBot_II for more info. In my experience it seems more reliable than werdnabot.  David D. (Talk) 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jumping in here, is the bot being asked to archive this talk page, or the RD itself? (Confused because I can't imagine this talk page getting 200KB worth of commentary in a four day period, but maybe I'm wrong.) It's no problem to set it up to do either, I just need a whole-day length after which to archive and a max archive size. The bot only archives full conversations, so there should be no problem with misrepresenting anything; as long as the discussion is contained within a single section, nothing will be left behind. The bot archives by the newest (not the last in the section, but the most recent in the section, regardless of placement in the top-to-bottom sense), so come up with a whole-day limit after which a discussion should be removed. If someone would be kind enough to drop a note on my talk page when that's settled, I'll set it up. Essjay (Talk) 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we're talking about archiving this talk page. StuRat 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As hard as it is to believe, this page has grown by over 100 KB since start of this discussion (2 days ago)--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming werdnabot ever starts working again.. 

message: The meta-meta conversation should go on the talk page's talk page. -THB 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-meta conversation

message: There's another masturbation joke on the Misc. Desk. -THB 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the meat joke? That was removed already. If not, could you supply a diff? Anchoress 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still there.  It's rather subtle, but unmistakeable.  I would need guarantees that the editor will not be blocked or have other punitive actions taken against him in order to point it out. -03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's the most recent question answered about the urination after masturbation thing...no pun intended. I wouldn't be too surprised if I got banned from the RD anyway. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still there.  I just realized that only North Americans might understand it, it may be that Briish speakers aren't familiar with the particular way of referring to male masturbation. -THB 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masturbation joke

message: Trolling? Or a question that could be re-worded to make it actually answerable? Anchoress 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling is a difficult word in many ways- it asks us to make assumptions about the mindset of the person making the edit.  I think we should instead ask ourselves "Will this question and the subsequent answers serve any educational purpose?"  My best guess is that someone is being silly and maybe even trying to promote the usage of a new word.  But how do we know?  In this case, I don't see the question going anywhere useful to the project, so I'd advise removing it.  (Since I've been seen as being too heavy-handed with some of my removals, I'll not remove it myself, but that's my opinion on what should be done.)  Friday (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why is some flatulence accompanied by expulsion of fecal matter and other is not?" See, you can make almost any troll question sound legit. Problem with this one is it really is a "valid" question if worded like that and one that Anchoress could probably answer! What to do, what to do? --Justanother 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, taking it at face value and answering it like a straight question is an option.  Friday (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 1. What are you talking about JA? and 2. That's the problem with that question, tho, it presupposes. It's like asking someone 'when did you start beating your wife?'. The way it's asked is assuming the louder they are, the messier they are. See, to me, the way it's worded right now is going to end up being a side discussion. Are the loud ones messier, or the SBDs? Anchoress 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should point out the logical fallacy of the misplaced antecedent or some such (smile). --Justanother 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In an effort to disprove the perception of me as a humorless robot, I will point out that Wikipedia policy says, in a nutshell, original research stinks.  Friday (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) I almost want to say that the way you tell the difference between a troll and a question is that trolls say trollish things, like "big crumping farts". And askers ask and manage to do it without troll-speak. I think we can all tell the difference or at least in most cases. To be honest, this question is not asked in a manner that deserves an answer. I have a solution for that too. New Policy for Questions: "Be Respectful - Ask the question as if you were asking it of an elder person that you respect. You will get a better answer that way." --Justanother 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your intent, but in practice such a policy would do no good. We already know that people aren't paying good attention to the bits under "How to ask a question".  No objection whatsoever to anyone adding it there, though, it's a good idea.  Friday (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the OP hasn't gotten back to the respondent to clarify what 'crumper' means (to me it sounds like a portmanteau - either crap+rump or crap+thump), and nobody's chiming in with anything juvenile, so maybe this particular little bug will make its way through our system without any significant upsets. Anchoress 02:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent observation.  If folks don't respond in a juvenile way, my original suggestion to remove the question entirely becomes pretty irrelevant. Friday (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Big Muffins": I suggest that ignoring troll-speak questions be unofficial secret RD cabal policy and the codeword be "Muffins". --Justanother 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I made it much less interesting by consolidating and removing redundant. --Justanother 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that- seems like a reasonable thing to do, thank you.  I notice it doesn't comply with the recent "rules for deletions" that have been proposed here.  I think this is a good indication that the rules for deletions don't have good consensus.  Friday (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really want to delete those rules any way you can, don't you ?  We had a very strong consensus on those rules. StuRat 11:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crumpers" 

message: I see a pattern emerging here where people are posting questionable questions here for group discussion of what to do with them.  This can only be a good thing.  If I see something questionable, I'll do that too, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.  Friday (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a way for us to take collective ownership of the board without individuals feeling put-upon. Anchoress 02:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason not to discuss questionable answers in a similar way.  Friday (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, discussing questionable answers here is part of the process, after you've discussed it with the author, gotten unsatisfactory results, and believe the problem to be severe enough to justify escalating further. StuRat 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's much preferred to unilaterally deleting the question or answer and blocking the editor without adequate warning. Much much. -THB 11:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page discussion of "is this a legit question?" is good 

message: I'd like to request some clearer documentation for how the automatic archiving process works. I recently went to make an edit to a thread on the Mathematics RD, Probability. When I saved the edit, I discovered I'd edited the section on this archive page instead. I reverted the edit, thinking I must have clicked something wrong and believing editing archives to be a bad idea, and went back to WP:RD/Math to try again. This time I was paid attention, but I still ended up at the edit page for the archive. When I gave up editing the section and tried to edit the whole page instead, I discovered the section was transcluded (which I then went to learn about) and it appears to be intentional.
Is this how things are supposed to work? Should I just edit this archive page and let my changes be transcluded onto the main Reference Desk? It doesn't appear to have registered on my watchlist for the RD/Math that I've edited & reverted the archive page, which suggests that if it is supposed to work like this, it's a flawed system.. Can anybody advise me as to what is going on? If it's misbehaviour on the part of RefDeskBot then that's fine, but if it's an intentional system we need to consider these issues and provide documentation for editing sections that are transcluded from archives. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should post this on the Computing/IT desk where it will be understood even though it's meta-discussion. They don't often stop by here. -THB 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does all of this have something to do with why when you answer an old question on the ref desk and save it you end up in an archive?  It is a bit aggravating. -THB 11:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the cause.  I think there was a need to do it this way, though, as there was a problem with the automatic archiving tool when we didn't use it.  The prob was, the size of the page got to be too big for it to handle, once we did want to archive a page and completely remove it from the current Ref Desk.  The solution was to "semi-archive" much earlier, so the page wouldn't get too large for the program to handle, and provide transclusions.  There are some obvious downsides to this, however.  I think a better solution would be to upgrade the automatic archival tool so that it can handle larger pages, and stop doing transclusions. StuRat 11:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case we need to do it by hand until we can get an archiving bot that can handle the page. You shouldn't automate a system at the expense of crippling its usability. This automatic archiving seriously reduces the usefulness of the watchlist for tracking RDs and some of us rely heavily on the watchlist. At the very least, the bot should only archive sections that haven't had any changes for a period of time. It should not indiscriminately archive and transclude everything more than n days old. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the writer and operator of , I feel I should defend it here :).  As far as I know, the reason I was asked to transclude pages after two days was because the page was getting too large for a user to edit as a whole page - the bot can easily cope with it, I promise :D.  Really, I'm happy to code the bot to archive with no tranclusion when a day section is 4 (or 7) days old.  What I frankly will not do (sorry) is archive sections that haven't had any changes recently (as suggested above).  The only way to do this and transclude would be to make an archive page for each question (or not archive them in an organised manner, of course).  Perhaps some users aren't fully aware of what the bot actually does (which is "special") aside from annoying their watchlists - it creates monthly indicies of questions, which are really easy to skim down looking for the question you want in each month - this is the thing that the bot does which others (like werdnabot) can't, and which take shumans a long time to do.  Should there be a consensus for change, I'm happy to make it (if feasible)!  Thanks, Martinp23 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would a user ever need to edit a whole page? They can just edit the section they want to answer. I'm not disparaging your coding work here, Martinp23 (no need to "defend" it), but the current system honestly makes the RDs harder to use (breaks watchlists) and a lot more confusing when trying to answer. At the very, very least, we need to properly document what is going on with the transcluded archives so people don't get confused the way I did when they go to answer a question and get an archive page. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maelin, you have some valid points.  If you would care to make specific suggestions, like "stop adding transclusions and leave the material directly on the Ref Desk until it is archived", we would be glad to discuss them and hopefully reach consensus on your proposal.  I suggest adding a new section at the bottom (since that will get more people's attention) and then linking to this section for the background discussion.  While your suggestion to only archive sections which haven't been modified for a certain amount of days also makes sense, I believe there are some technical limitations that prevent this approach from working, at present, with our current archive structure.  Documenting how transclusions work is also a good idea, but I doubt if we could put the documentation anywhere that would get editors to actually read it before the confusion arises (we have so much text at the Ref Desk page tops already that the majority of editors ignore most of it). StuRat 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maelin, I was defending the concepts, not the bot itself.  The concepts which were coded came about from, as I understand it, a consensus here, and I'm fairly happy to change them if the consensus changes.  Sorry if I sounded annyoed in my last post - people are saying the bot needs fixing, when there's absolutely nothing wrong with it (apart from internet connection problems)!  The benefit with transclusions is that when one gets an edit conflict, you don't get a 100KB page to edit, but rather a 20-30K page (at least, this is as I understand it - I didn't make the rules!).  So, basically, I'm open to ideas for change, if a consensus is reached first.  Martinp23 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RefDeskBot and automatic archiving 

message: See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Sharing_Weed_pipes.  The first two answers look like good efforts at answering.  The subsequent ones look like irrelevant chatting.  Do people agree or disagree? Friday (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Particularly when the Oscar winners and supermodels got involved. Personally, I wouldn't want to share a toke or a lip lock with any of those women, and I think getting into that kind of personal preference discussion is pointless and exclusionary. Anchoress 04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anchoress, what if it were Rupert Graves and Jake Gyllenhall?  Would you feel differently?-THB 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Partially because I don't dig either of those guys, but mostly because I think it's divisive to start to talk about that kind of stuff in that kind of thread. The person who posted it said 'you', as if he was talking to JustAnother or other readers, and said 'you'd feel differently (as in, not yuck).' IMO it's exclusionary, because it makes a divide between people who feel that way and people who don't. And it's completely unnecessary. BTW if you're curious, I'd lock lips with Jude Law, Alfred Molina, or Denzel Washington. But I'd still prefer the thread stay off the topic of exchanging saliva with celebrities. :-) Anchoress 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PS I don't even know who Rupert Graves is lol. Anchoress 04:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 'e was the under gameskeeper in Maurice, 'e was, and 'e made me ears hurt.  I am willing to bet you've seen some of the movies he was in. -THB 10:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen one, 20 years ago lol. Anchoress 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sharing Weed pipes" 

message: THB recently included an external link in a response.  I think this link was a bad idea- aside from the popups, it had no educational value that I can see.  I think we should be conservative in our use of external links and we should preferably include relevant, educational material from a reliable source.  What do others think?  Friday (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think, who appointed User:Friday judge, jury and executioner??? Doesn't he have anything better to do with his time than act as hall monitor??? -THB 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Executioner?!?  Huh?  Not only did I not kill anyone, I didn't even remove anything. I'm only giving my opinion and asking for other people to give theirs.  Friday (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was about farting and used a funny term for it, so the answer seemed in the spirit of the question. Our standard seems to be to provide a serious answer before any levity. That should have been done first. Link to an article on farting ( I am not even going to look and see if there is one) or a medical article. Then some levity befits the troll.Edison 06:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, our job as refdesk editors isn't to say that "WIKI PWNZ ALL J00R KNOLEDG LOL." If we can't offer an appropriate response, or if, in the opinion of the editor, Wikipedia's response to the question at hand is lacking, we should give an external link. Our job is to hand out answers to questions via whatever means necessary. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I don't understand this question- I don't see a painting at Susan Sarandon. Ned Wilbury 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they've even removed the history.  It was L'Origine du monde (see thumbnail at right) covering the width of the page in both instances. -THB 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Courbet]] 

message: Please add your opinion to the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Can_Ref_Desk_volunteers_ask_Ref_Desk_questions_.3F. StuRat 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next item for consensus: Can Ref Desk volunteers ask Ref Desk questions ? 

message: Since Ref Desk questions may eventually come before the arbitration committee, and Radiant has been here long enough for us all to form well-informed opinions on his qualifications, I feel we should all vote in this election: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Radiant!. StuRat 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean, if we can't decide on the answer to a question, that eventually the question might be given to the Arbitration committee so they can answer it?  Ned Wilbury 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom might also be asked to rule on the behavior of ordinary editors or even Administrators. -THB 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And on the issue of whether a project, like the Ref Desk, can decide how Wikipedia rules apply, or whether that interpretation should be left up to each individual. StuRat 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individuals always interpret rules- the project could not function without this.  Ned Wilbury 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but some very basic questions, like whether opinions are allowed on the Ref Desk, should be decided by consensus, so we don't get one person giving his opinion, only to have it deleted by somebody else who thinks opinions are not allowed.  Incidentally, your opinion on these rule interpretations is welcome.  The item we are currently discussing is here: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules#Next_question_for_consensus:_Avoid_using_abbreviations_like_"OP"_?. StuRat 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Radiant!]] running for Arbitration committee 

message: We've had a problem with non-consensus deletions of rules agreed upon, by consensus, at: Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline.  I therefore suggest we leave that page to be edited by anyone, and make a new page which will only reflect consensus.  I've created the new page at: Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules.  Hopefully, once both are completed, we can decide which to link to from the Ref Desk page top templates.  StuRat 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A curious use of the word consensus, considering.EricR 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Obviously, a page containing only the users agreeing with a certain POV is by definition not consensual. Thus the decision which page to link should be obvious. (Radiant) 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, everyone is welcome to discuss and vote on items for consensus there.  They are not, however, welcomed to delete anything they don't personally like unilaterally, as you did on Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline.  And, since you have placed your opinion on the new page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules, you are fully aware that your opinion, as well as everybody else's opinion, is allowed there. StuRat 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules]] now contains '''consensus''' rules 

message: *Original Grant of Land from John Ingram dated 1416 A.D
*Hello,
I am trying to find a document or more detailed information on a document that I currently own, which I believe to be a historical document.  The document is in in its original state, well intact and has the original wax seal with it.  The document appears to be written in latin and and the caption that is with the document states that it is an "original grant of land from John Ingram dated 1416 A.D. during the regin of King Henry V.  Along with the document is a photograph of King Henry V, a photograph of the battle of shrewsbury 1485 a.d. and also a photograph of a judge in wardrobe form the 1400's.  I am not sure the correlation of all the items that are containted in a picture frame for the preservation of them all.  
I would like to see if I can find out any further information on these items, if at all possible.  I would welcome any valid information or some guidance as to where i can do further research on them.
please if anyone can help me with my research on these items, please contact me at <email address removed>.  Thank you in advance for any and all help in this.  I look forward to hearing from someone soon in the near future.
Sincerely;
Staceysangel
:Er, photographs of the fifteenth century? Sam Clark 08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds to me like a troll. 3 photographs from the 15th century? Er, yeah right... IIRC & AFAIK, photography wasn't invented to the 19th century. Perhaps the 18th century. But I'm very sure there was no photography in the 15th century. If you really have a photograph of King Henry V, a photograph of the Battle of Shrewsbury and a photograph of a judge from the 15th century, well you need to hire a very high end security team ASAP since your collection must be worth a few billion dollars or more and is going to make reverbations throughout the world. If you're not a troll, and simply made a mistake and actually mean a painting or a photograph of a painting, of a photograph of a reconstruction then do try to be clear about what you are actually saying Nil Einne 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOOK! At King Henry V  there is a DIGITAL PHOTO of him! It says it is a "Henry5.JPG‎ (14KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)." But they didn't even HAVE digital cameras in the 15th century! So how is that possible? Oh, right, it is a photograph of a PAINTING! People, do not BITE the questioner. Do not call the questioner a troll on a basis like this. The question clearly means there are photos of paintings. And as for looking at a digital image of the document, how could you tell whether it was a  scan of an original or a scan of a good reproduction? Typeface analysis like the Dan Rather documents about George Bush's Texas Air National Guard service?  I have seen much older documents in museums and cathedrals in England which still have their wax seals. All we can really do is what some have attempted, i.e. check for anachronisms, then perhaps check for what similar random legal documents of minor historical figures have sold for recently at auction, and perhaps look for any reports of similar fraudulent documents. Antiques Roadshow ran a segment where someone had found a genuine letter from George Washington in an old box of junk, and their kid took it to school for show and tell, and the teacher announced it was clearly a fake. That is what some of the uninformed responses sound like. The questioner probably should take it to someone qualified to examine and evaluate it, to make sure it is authentic, find out the value for insurance purposes, and make sure it is framed with archival materials, or whether it should be kept out of the light. Edison 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like Clio's handled the question, Edison.  Certainly that response is contrary to the spirit of WP:CIVIL.  I wouldn't replace it. -THB 15:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I wouldn't accuse them of being a troll, but would ask for a clarification politely.  I don't think it was such a serious violation of WP:BITE to demand immediate removal, either, however. StuRat 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a template to post to the project page and the users' pages, so that they are informed? Edison 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edison: I thought that the agreed procedure was that, in cases where a post might be inappropriate, the poster should be politely asked on his or her talk page to remove it, before any further action like moving the posts off the page was taken. I've been following this procedure myself, and I would have appreciated you doing so. In any case, my remark was not 'biting', not even slightly mocking. It was a friendly invitation to the questioner to reread what she'd written. I do agree with you about Nil Einne's post, but again, you should have asked on his/her talk page first. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I'd like you, please, to put my post back. Yours, Sam Clark 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is not so severe of an issue to demand a "speedy delete" and ignore the formal procedure. StuRat 16:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no procedure. Users should feel free to edit pages with the intent to improve the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that was absolutely the proper thing to do, so long as you were polite about it.   By "the biter", do you mean User:Nil Einne  ? StuRat 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. () --Dweller 16:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sam Clark that HIS remark should not have been deleted, I'm thinking maybe that was an oversight, I'll put it back, did anyone notice his comment above? -THB 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, THB. Sam Clark 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (3 edit conflicts later) Sorry to have removed Sam Clark's post and I agree with putting it back. But as to the other reply, a troll accusation because of the wrong term used in a question by a probably sincere newbie seems to violate WP:no personal attacks, and I would rather move it here immediately for discussion rather than leave it on the project page for the questioner to come back and read it and possibly abandon Wikipedia in disgust, then later the accuser reads his talk page and comes back and modifies it or removes it too late. I sincerely doubt there were little oil paintings in the big frame, and I do believe they were photographs of paintings, which the questioner called "photos" rather than "photos of drawings." I would have used the longer phrase, but hey, I am pedantic. I agree it is always better to ask the accuser to remove/reword the post, but how long are we supposed to wait for a reply? 1 hour? 5 days? That is too long to leave a questionable troll accusation on the project page. Edison 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First reply OK; second clearly a nip. IMO. --Justanother 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humanities desk biting of questioner removed to here pending discussion

message: There's a strange box around a question that User:Hipocrite apparently place there referring discussion here for ??? reason but he made no comment here.  Is that box a usual tool here at the reference desk?  I didn't want to get into a revert war with User:Hipocrite so am soliciting input from someone familiar with that type of box. -16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to stop you from rewarding trolls with extra attention. It is apparent that the "reference desk regulars" believe rewarding trolls with attention is worthwile. Please do not reward trolls with attention. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it would be appropriately deleted then just delete it, IMO. But it was worded like an AGF question. I, for one, would rather that no editor indicates that his is the final answer on any topic. --Justanother 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not to you to unilaterally dictate what everyone else should do.  If you think someone is doing something wrong, discuss it with them.  Your methods are absolutely contrary to maintaining good relations with your fellow editors. -THB 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you review the contribution history of the troll. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How was this comment posted 15 minutes before its parent? ... --⁪frothT C 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even a troll can write a perfectly good reference desk question.  WP:AGF and all all of that.  It's quite a legitimate question. I firmly believe User:Hipocrite has gone overboard like User:Friday did. -THB 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   is oftimes a vandal - this was the question asker. Review , among numerous others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well then the inexperienced editors should watch how the rest of us handle things before they jump in and muck things up. -THB 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Each question must be judged individually on its own merits. -THB 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I like the way the box sets off the question from the answer.  I propose that all questions get a box. -THB 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:SPADE. Vandals vandalize. Trolls troll. Why would someone ask how they can make home narcotics in the midst of this? To troll you when I deleted his innapropriate question. You are being played for a fool. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good sir, perhaps you are mistaken, and you are being played for a fool instead. -THB 16:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's certainly possible, which is why I only removed the question once (once again by mistake, but you promptly corrected that). If people insist on answering things, they will do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My interaction with the questioner was no different than my interaction with any other questioner except that he or she was nice enough to actually read the answer and post a follow-up.  Perhaps you should review the definition of a troll.  In my opinion, anyone who wastes my time with foolishness is a troll. -THB 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Box on Misc Desk

message: A little friday-style metacomment here, I didn't make this heading separate someone else did --⁪frothT C 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that those users who are more experienced in dealing with problem editors may be the ones who're more likely to check contributions.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to check contributions when we see a questionable edit.  Sometimes this helps tip the scale if we're trying to decide whether it was done in good faith or not.  If other users don't believe in doing this, well, nobody's forcing them.  I for one am glad to have people around who are doing this- if trolling questions are removed, this puts our emphasis where it should be, on helping good-faith questioners.  Ned Wilbury 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I take actions that I believe are in the best interest of the encyclopedia, like marking trolling questions from obvious trolls as trolls. If what happened at the RD was "answering questions, period," then we would not be having this discussion. I do not intend to hold my horses. I will fix this reference desk.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: froth is one of the more reasonable frequent editors on the Mis. Ref. Desk.  Speaking that way to him is unecessary and unproductive.  You would do well to heed his words.  Statements like "I will fix this reference desk" are insulting to all. -THB 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, thanks. I agree that "I will fix..." is extremely unhelpful --⁪frothT C 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Hipocrite, and I would suggest that those who haven't checked contributions ought not to generally second guess those who have- let's let whoever has the best information make these calls.  If some people would rather not bother dealing with problem editors at all, that's perfectly fine.  Not everyone has to do every job.  Ned Wilbury 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: THB, this is not helping anything. Please knock off the personal bit. That is not what we are about here. --Justanother 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, you're correct.  -THB 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool --Justanother 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though we disagree on many of the issues, so long as you don't try to disrupt the work we've done to build consensus here, your opinion is welcome, Ned.  And, I've seen no evidence so far that you are here to disrupt things.  The reason others, like THB, may be a bit on edge, is that we've been the victim of a couple of sockpuppet attacks here in the last week, which has left us all a bit wary of new voices.  StuRat 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, Froth. StuRat 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Froth comments here 

message: Meta comments, as experienced editors know, belong on the talk page.  I moved some here, but left them as they were posted, hidden.  If the poster replaces them I won't revert.  I thought this was a wikipedia-wide consensus. -THB 17:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you review prior discussion regarding my hidden tags. If you insist that I criticize your innacurate, speculative answers where everyone can see it, I am happy to do so. Please don't write innacurate speculative answers.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, these hidden comments need to be neutral, polite and signed. Like "unsourced possible speculation - please provide source - signed" or "possible off-topic - please consider removal - signed".--Justanother 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Review -  Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it's "inaccurate", not "innacurate".  Just returning the favor. -THB 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta comments

message: Hipocrite, have you used another username? -THB 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I was JBKramer as the result of a permablocked vandal stalking me. As a result of a different permablocked vandal stalking me, I claimed JBKramer and returned to this username. I am in the process of getting the JBKramer edits moved to this account, though I believe that will probably not happen. Obviously, the accounts have never overlapped, and I had admitted the both of them to relevent parties at various times. You may wish to review my contribution history from before this debate - specifically those I made to User:JBKramer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this desk may editors prefer that all editors are open about their username to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. -THB 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your concern. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What aspects of your behavior do you believe make you the frequent target of permablocked vandals? -THB 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread should go to a talk page. --Justanother 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I solve metaproblems, like the one here. Oftimes, metaproblems are caused by permablocked vandals. I do not suspect this is one of those times. I believe that everyone is acting with sometimes misguided good intentions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you tend to find that the methods you employ are the most effective? -THB 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy to discuss this on my talk page, if you would like. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need, it was purely rhetorical.  -THB 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm, your theory of "sometimes misguided good intentions" reminds me a bit of User:Friday's "lovable idiots" theory.  -THB 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you rather that I say I think you are actively trying to make the encyclopedia worse? I don't believe that to be true. I believe you don't realize the damage you are causing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aliases

message: :I should think that if someone had a problem with someone's behavior they would address it with them directly, much as I have done with you.  What has happened on this board over the last week or so was perceived as a series of attacks on editors by administrators misusing their power.  I have tried to assume good faith with everyone involved until they have slapped me in the face with their lack of it.  I also do not believe that you are acting in bad faith but that you do not realize what has happened here recently and that heavy-handed tactics may not be the best to use right now. I think you will find that the intelligent, well-educated, experienced editors here are quite reasonable when treated with the respect that they deserve. And I daresay that many of them have had quite enough of people dropping in to explain how things are so godawful on the RD. A more effective technique would be to carefully observe and assess the situation before attempting to change it. -THB 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am fully aware of the situation. You cannot have a walled garden here, where "outsiders" are required to conform before commenting. The walled garden that was here before is why the outsiders are here. The culture of the desk is broken, and needs fixing. I have treated every editor here with a good deal of respect - more, honestly, than they have treated me with - to wit,  within moments of my arrival on the scene. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The repeated bringing up of this misguided notion of "admins versus reference desk" is not helpful.   Surely we all share the common goal of improving the encyclopedia.  Trying to turn this into "us v. them" is needlessly divisive.  I agree with Hipocrite above that he was treated poorly shortly after arriving here, so I hope that this does not continue.  We're all volunteers and we're all trying to help- fighting amongst ourselves is not productive.  Ned Wilbury 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:TINC.  No doubt the RD has more "outsiders" going through than anything but the front page.  I chose my words quite carefully above and there has been a degree of unwarranted extrapolation and interpretation. I am quite sure that the editors at the RD have and will treat you as you treat them. -THB 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Criticism that's constructive should be welcome, as in "here's something we need to do better".  It's when criticism turns into bickering that it needs to stop.  We all need to be able to disagree with other editors without demonizing them.  We all need to be able to criticize each other's actions without anyone taking it personally.  Ned Wilbury 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Heart of the Matter

message: What do y'all think of adding an item to the instructions to the effect of "If you've received an answer that helps, leave a note!  The reference desk editors like to know when they've been of assistance, and it can also help us provide even better service going forward." - Right now, there doesn't seem to be any type of feedback requested, and it'd have the double benefit of both making the answerers feel warm and fuzzy in addition to closing the loop on feedback.  If 3/4 of the people getting answers were walking away unsatisfied but not saying anything (for example) there would be no way to track that, even partially. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  It doesn't already say that somewhere in the instructions ? StuRat 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have missed it, but I didn't see anything.  Specifically, I was looking at the instructions at the very top of the RD pages. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah!  I did indeed miss that.  Consider my suggestion retracted, the matter is already well in hand.  Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested modification to instructions 

message: I logged on today to find a bunch of discussions about things happening on the ref desk, but there were no diffs provided, so I have no idea what was being discussed. Could folks who bring up things on is page please include a diff so those of us not immediately aware of what's happening can get caught up? Thanks in advance. Anchoress 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  Are you all caught up now ? StuRat 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, there were several discussions that there were no diffs for when I read them, and I haven't looked back since. Anchoress 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions about items on the ref desks 

message: Please give your opinion on this issue here: . StuRat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline seems to be more active than Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules.  I recommend discussing this at the other page.  Ned Wilbury 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Per previous at agreement (#Are Ref Desk specific guidelines needed ?), please give opinions related to proposed rules at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline, and just so everyone knows, I've nominated Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules for deletion.  We don't need the same discussion going on in three different places.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any discussion there is liable to be immediately deleted by those who disagree with it. StuRat 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put that discussion back, and also note whoever deleted it --⁪frothT C 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have people really been deleting discussions they disagree with?  This seems like a bad thing to do.  Anyway, I agree that having the same conversation in multiple places is bad, so we should try to consolidate where ever we can.  Ned Wilbury 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like? If'n I remember correctly, that's a violation of some sort of Wikipedia guideline. I probably don't remember correctly, though. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  If there is a policy or guideline that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, by, for instancce, preventing us from removing a question that is merely a giant picture of a penis with the question "What is this?" Then we should - actually, are required to ignore it, per WP:IAR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next question for consensus: Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ? 

message: Can we please stop with the "The reference desk is not/We are not here to answer your questions about/Wikipedia is not" stuff? This technically isn't the pedia itself, it's the pedia reference desk (which is why we're allowed to pseudo-disregard things like WP:V and WP:NOR here). I can understand the whole "not a chat room" bit here, that's appropriate, yes. But biting posters with stuff like "Wikipedia is not a/an x" isn't exactly in line with WP:BITE, is it? I can understand redirecting stuff like video game questions to the misc. section from the science section or what not, but telling people outright that "this isn't the kind of question we answer, go look for it somewhere else" isn't what we're supposed to be doing. (Yes, I know it's confusing, no I don't really care.) Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Example? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a question about chao breeding sometime...uh...lemme check here.... And I probably should have mentioned that I was paraphrasing. @_X Cernen Xanthine Katrena 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a particularly strong example, but I take your point that telling people who come here for an answer that "we don't accept such questions" (paraphrased) has a definite WP:BITE to it.  You might want to review the two sets of proposed rules under Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules and comment on each associated talk page as to which rules will be more likely to bite the user. StuRat 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding answers to questions 

message: I am concerned because User:Hipocrite has stated above "I will not hold my horses. I will fix this reference desk."  It almost seems that he has taken on a crusade.  This is not compatible with the purposes or spirit of Wikipedia in general or the Reference Desk in particular.  It does not bode well for cooling down and moving forward. -THB 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds to me like he's saying he will improve the reference desk.  Isn't this what we ask of everyone?   The idea of "just fix it" is absolutely compatible with the spirit of Wikipedia.  Maybe you're reading things into his statement and assuming he's going to do bad things you'll disagree with?  Maybe your objections should wait until someone ACTUALLY does something you disagree with.  Ned Wilbury 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the concern is over the use of the word "I" as opposed to "We should work together to improve the Ref Desk", thus implying unilateral action.  Also, the word "fix" implies that it is now broken, which many dispute. StuRat 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may make a few enemies by saying this, but yeah, there's something fundamentally wrong with the reference desk right now. And it's going to take all of us to fix it; we have to work together. Filing RFCs and beating people over the head with 2x4s is not going to solve anything. If anything, it'll make matters worse, because then, all this drama behind the scenes will spill out into open-ended flame wars at the reference desk itself, which is something we can't have. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the part about working together and not being divisive.  However, I feel the Ref Desk works fairly well as is, although slight improvements could be made, so long as we don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater". StuRat 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we just need to apply normal standards to solve this.  In case anyone does NOT know, civility toward others and assuming good faith are standard expectations here.  Also, a simple recognition that the reference desk is part of wikipedia would go far toward helping bring it back on track.  Ned Wilbury 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on being civil and assuming good faith, but the statement "the reference desk is part of wikipedia" could be misinterpreted as meaning "all Wikipedia policies which apply to articles also apply to the Ref Desk", such as the no original research policy.  So, it's probably best to avoid saying that, as it confuses the issues. StuRat 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cernan, what do you see as being fundamentally wrong with the RD? --Justanother 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll answer even though I'm not Cernan. The reference desk discourages new users who reach the reference desk from using the encyclopedia as it is designed for three reasons. Firstly, many responders fail to link to wikipedia articles when they could in their responses. Secondly, the repeated chat-room behavior leads new users to believe wikipedia is a chat-room - this is a regular and serious problem in article, user, user-talk and article-talk space. Thirdly, off-color humor (penis jokes, among others) drives users away. As a second issue, too many answers given are just plain wrong, or useless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hipocrite explains it well.  I have seen new users using Wikipedia as a chat room too, and if the reference desk is encouraging this misconception on their part, this needs to change.  The reference desk needs to help SUPPORT the goals of the project, not work against them.  Ned Wilbury 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this prevailing atmosphere of bureaucracy is what's dragging this whole thing down. We're so caught up in establishing rules and guidelines that we've forgotten the primary purpose of the reference desk. Keep in mind we're essentially ambassadors to the outside world here; if people come by the reference desk to ask a question, they may decide to stay and help the project. We don't need to be chatty per se, but we also don't need to be blunt, prostrate robots when it comes to doling out responses. This is a place for helping people, not angering other Wikipedians. It's like I've heard said before: you can't hug with nuclear arms, but it seems there are a select few of us with our fingers poised in Kim Jong Il fashion over big red buttons. If the reference desk editors can't get along, then -- excuse my language -- just how in the hell are we supposed to serve others? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many us have been arguing all along that we should be less bureaucratic.  There's no consensus that I can see that we NEED specific guidelines.  Many of us think that using normal adult judgment is sufficient.  However, there's been some disagreement- certain things were removed for obvious reasons, and a few people objected strenuously to this.  I just want to remind everyone that the goal of making the reference desk a useful education resource is FAR more important than providing a forum for "free speech" to editors.  Ned Wilbury 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completly that there is no need for beurocratic guidelines. However, when users attempted to remove questions and answers that were not helpful to the project, a whole mess of such was thrown at them. I would be happy to go back in time to SCZens' ideas - just getting rid of eggregiously damaging questions and answers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ned - until a couple of weeks ago I would have agreed with you. But recently I have seen a whole series of incidents where over-zealous editors have gone on a campaign to "clean up" the RDs and caused all sorts of disruption by doing so. I have seen at least two editors blocked for asking or answering questions in the "wrong" way; arbitrary deletion of questions and answers; revert warring; assumptions of bad faith; hidden comments and sarcastic answers. And the typical justifications for such behaviour are "I will do what I like if I think it improves the encyclopedia" and good ol' common sense. So, sadly, I came to the conclusion that we do need to codify good practice on the RDs - including guidelines on how to handle inappropriate questions and answers in a way that does not cause gratuitous offence to other editors. And then, just when I thought we were making some progress towards that objective, Hipocrite goes nuclear with his RfCs, which takes us right back to square one. Gandalf61 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Gandalf, I agree. StuRat 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking disruptive users is not, by itself, disruption.  Excessive and unreasonable complaints about such may well be disruptive.  So, let's seperate these issues.  We have ways of discussing blocks- we do not need to keep doing it here.  Ned Wilbury 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that blocks resulting from Ref Desk behavior should be discussed here, as that effects us all. StuRat 00:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A concern

message: I have filed an RFC regarding the behavior of StuRat and THB here. This is seperate from any discussion about the reference desk - it is only about the conduct. Those with input are invited to comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Everyone else seems to have their fingers in the fondue, and I'm out here with my little cheese on a toothpick trying to get a dip in, so lemme share with you just where I stand on the reference desk:
#It's not a hangout, but it's not a library, either. There needs to be a non-confrontational "ask and answer" atmosphere; people need to be aware that at the reference desk, they should be able to ask any question and get an answer, no matter how absurd or out-of kilter.
#We are the salesmen and saleswomen of the whole project. A lot of times, I'll recommend my friends and family ask questions of the reference desk. I don't know if any have done so, but I would hate to think that someone's impression of the Wikipedia editors comes off as stiff-necked accountants. We're real people, and we need to be able to demonstrate that. If people come to the reference desk and get a useful answer, they may notice how easy it is to contribute to the Wiki itself, thus adding yet another editor to this grand compendium of human knowledge.
#We cannot allow WP:V and WP:NOR to bias the reference desk. If we deny original research and make verifiability a requisite, we lose the ability to answer a very wide range of questions.
#WP:IAR has worked in the past. Common sense was what I remember the reference desk having before; since when did that change? Who decided that we needed rules to govern appropriate and inappropriate responses to questions? We should know our limits through common sense, not consensus.
#External links aren't a last line of defense. There's no reason to tout Wikipedia as a supreme end-all-be-all. Links to other websites may provide essential answers that Wikipedia cannot, just as Wikipedia may be able to provide answers that external websites don't have.
Cernen Xanthine Katrena 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have with this, though, is that we're human. Who determines if an answer is wrong? It's attitudes like that that put us in this position to begin with. We have disclaimers for things like offensive material. If that's what "popping the collar" is, then so be it; people can see that, accept or reject it as an answer as they see fit. It's not really our place to net-nanny the reference desk. Blatant vandalism should be shot on sight, but all questions should be given a chance. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's be clear, here, in case you're just not fully informed. Popping the collar is turning up the collar on your shirt. The individual who brought up his penis was a regular contributor here making a penis joke. Those had become common. That is a disfunctional sitaution. If common sence does not allow us to remove that response and block people for making it, common sense does not work. This is why we've been forced to demand reliable sources, and hop through these dumb hoops - common sense failed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Totally and completly false. Find a WP:RS for your absurd arguement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For crying out loud sturat! This is making your case indefensible.  Even urban dictionary does not have your definition.  Not to mention that a google search gives nothing except this discussion here. Are all your answers this reliable? David D. (Talk) 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I could not agree more.  David D. (Talk) 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I thought that was an alternate meaning, and I did put "I believe" in front, showing it was only my opinion.  Since User:DirkvdM suggested that meaning, and he is Dutch, it may only have that meaning in Dutch. However, I now accept that it does not have that meaning in English, and have thus struck out my earlier comment. StuRat 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where I Stand 

message: This reminds me of that Star Trek episode, The Menagerie (TOS episode); based on the originally unused pilot The Cage (TOS episode). Remember these aliens saved a girl badly mangled in a crash but since they had no idea what a human was supposed to look like they made something quite unpleasant-appearing out of her. My point being that we really have no policy as to what the RD is "supposed to look like". That means that any efforts to fix it at this point are premature. Let's keep the "fixing" on the RD down to the barest, gentlest, kindest minimum until we hammer out some common ground between ourselves. Otherwise what you think is a perfect 10 might to others look like the Bride of Frankenstein. Carry on. --Justanother 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. StuRat 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as it stays internal, I'm fine with change. But I don't want new users noticing any big changes until this is all "hammered out" and I definately don't want to deprive OPs of information they could have gotten from the RD before some users came along and decided that we can't share that info with them --⁪frothT C 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Useful Analogy? 

message: Can we fix the archive bot first? Since when did we only have four days at a time? I always thought it was seven days. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so to.  What's your suggestion as to how we fix the archive bot ? StuRat 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually is how the bot is supposed to work, it keeps the desks dial-up-friendly by keeping the page size to around 60 or 70 KB per desk--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand how transclusions help dial-up users.  Since the info is still displayed on the page, doesn't the same amount of info need to be sent over the dial-up connection ?  And, since people should only edit one section at a time, that doesn't seem like an issue either.  Oh, I think I may know the prob, if you get an edit conflict and it "escalates" to an edit of the whole page.  I hate that behavior for other reasons, as well, and wish we could fix that.  But, is that the reason why transclusions are needed ? StuRat 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my comment was more directed at the number of days that stay on the desk at any given time, as I assumed that was what the original questioner had asked.--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference desk was plenty dial-up friendly before. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly, during the weeks immediately before the bot was brought online there were pages that were over 2.5 MB in size, assuming a 56 K modem, that's about 46 seconds to load a page, not counting edit conflicts--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh...maybe I was just a very patient man. It's been a while. I do remember having a discussion once before about turning the reference desk into something like that page where you vote for Featured Articles, where you have subpages...but...I don't recall what happened to that. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When I first wrote the bot, it was about 7 days before archival, but for the busier desks, archival now takes place after four days (as you have no doubt noticed).  The pages to get out of control with anything over that, so I doubt it's something that there'll be consensus to change.  Martinp23 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive bot 

message: We just need to reach a consensus on the number of days old posts should remain on this talk page and everything will be ready to go?--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''User:EssjayBot II''' - Continued 

message: Think of it as a speed bump, if it gets anywhere near 300 KB take that as a sign that things need to slow down just a bit--VectorPotentialThe Reference Desk 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template at the top of the page 

message: Everyone's comments and opinions are welcomed here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/rules#Next_item_for_discussion:_.2ACan_we_address_another_responder.2C_or_only_the_original_poster_.3F. StuRat 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next item for discussion: "Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ?" 

message: Begin copied section. Edison 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is not about history. It is about helping the questioner come up with an idea for his homework. This is not the purpose of a reference desk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see "Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. " This Q sounds like 'help with a specific part or concept of your homework.'" It looks like this is appropriate for the RD Discussion page. Edison 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a request for help with a part or concept of your homework, it's an entirely off topic request to help him brainstorm what kind of diarama he's supposed to make. Use some common sense, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So my question is, how far does the questioner have to go before we are allowed to assist? For instance, if he had said "What should a Salem witch execution look like in a diarama? Hanging, shooting, dunking, stoning or burning?" would that be enough to allow the posting of the question? Or was the original question a legitimate one? I have seen other questions answered where they are "looking for ideas," which seems to be more legitimate than saying "Do my homework," because we can direct them to resources. A student might well place the identical question to a real life reference librarian and get assistance, since ideas are the fruit of collected knowledge. Edison 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The goal is to try to get the Reference Desks focused on being Reference Desks, not help kids brainstorm for their diarama desks. I posted a polite apology to the user (twice). He readded his question to two refrence desks, a total of 4 times. The only way to stop getting questions that are not helpful to our goal of providing information is to stop answering questions that are not helpful to our goal of providing information. The only way to stop questions that are not helpful from being answered is to remove them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, User:Hipocrite, it seems that you are so caught up in your crusade that you have lost sight of the ultimate goal of Wikipedia:  to make knowledge freely available. -THB 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review WP:NPA. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Hipocrite's Talk page: Deleted RD question

message: User's first question is about hemhroids - . Dissapointed he gets no answer, he goes for a dumb santa question , which I delete for being transparent trolling (see, cause I check those edit histories when I think something is transparent trolling, I find out it often is). The user responds with this bullshit diatribe . I remove this nonsense trash, and, if the user trolls again, would promptly report them to AIV. However, Reference Desk "regular" Justanother, insists that I "Assume Good Faith" in the face of obvious bad actions, and RESTORES THE QUESTION.
You wonder why I think there need to be rules here? This is why. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that those who are completely unable to recognize trolling should probably defer to the judgment of those who ARE able to recognize trolling.  And I'm even saying we can be a bit lenient.  But, when it's obvious, it's obvious.  Ned Wilbury 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legit question about piles (which Hypocrite sloughed off and gave a "no answer", BTW, and I gave the real answer to and, yes, there was a real answer) followed by the Santa question. OK, looks strange; delete. OK. IP comes back with a totally plausible explanation (I have kids). We blow him off. Please knock off the crusade. If this guy was trolling then he won that round. Big deal. If he trolls again we will have him. And I think my troll radar is just fine; I just don't judge with insufficient evidence. --Justanother 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, clearly not a troll. See recent "questions." Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, new users don't know how to read edit summaries. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: edit summary, it says "history" right at the top of the page - its not rocket science to click there. And the fact that you were right does not change the fact that you were premature. I never really doubted that you were right. You gotta leave the slack there as the false positive is more damaging to the RD, IMO, than the false negative and I think you want to go in the direction of false positive. --Justanother 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring trolling is totally 
unnaceptable
 unacceptable 

message: While I can see hypocrite's reasoning in pulling the Santa question, the "parent" came back with a good explanation that we, under WP:AGF, must accept. Must. It is important to distinquish between askers and answerers when thinking about "cutting slack". We have to cut the askers all the slack they need. If, with that much rope, they show that they are trolling then fine. But not before. --Justanother 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF trumps WP:DFTT if there is doubt. -THB 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa's slacks 

message: Is this removal of an unsourced answer wholy based in personal experience without reference intentional or accidental? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accidental, of course. We would never knowingly remove something like that ;-) --Justanother 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed answer? 

message: Moved: I think this is more on-target at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline since that page exists, so please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Disrepute. Ned Wilbury 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, Ned.  Much better there. -THB 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disrepute 

message: Just wanted to remind everyone that we probably shouldn't respond to trolls.  Not much, anyway.  I ask everyone to be very conservative in this regard.  It IS possible to reply in a no-nonsense way that discourages further mischief though, so those that prefer that approach are welcome to use that instead, of course.  Please excercise good judgment. Ned Wilbury 00:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned, could you please point out a few of the Reference Desk answers you've given so we can use them as a model?  Thanks. -THB 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding in kind to trolling is not a good idea either 

message: Anyone particulary object if I delete the WP:POINT troll threads from the two IPs? --Justanother 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you mean the ones I'm thinking of, I highly support their removal.  Great idea. Ned Wilbury 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Which ones?  The last one, asking about the trolling? -THB 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THB, all the Santa stuff is trolling. It is all to prove a point. The point was made now it should go poof. --Justanother 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're going to delete, the one asking about how long it takes to detect a troll should be deleted as  well.  You don't think the editor is planning to kill Santa Claus? -THB 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete [[WP:POINT]] troll threads 

message: This suggestion (my emphasis) was made by Admin User:MrDarcy on Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vote_stacking_on_MFD:
::And probably worth noting he's ignored your comments. Honestly, everything on the ref desk these days is being decided by a small group of editors who harass anyone with a different opinion. I've half a mind to make a nomination to delete the whole project, it has become quite disruptive to Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. Seems like it's outside the scope of Wikipedia and if the users there want to continue providing the service, they should do so via a separate project. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good suggestion there, maybe the Ref Desk has somewhat outgrown Wikipedia.  What steps should be taken to make this happen ? StuRat 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  The RD has not become disruptive, those who do not particpate there and want to make it over into the way they think it should be are the ones who have become disruptive.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your support, Zoe.  Still, I hate to see such unnecessary conflict, no matter what the cause is, and, if moving the Ref Desk outside of Wikipedia into a separate project would accomplish that, I would be willing to do any work necessary to accomplish that goal. StuRat 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What would it be, though?  ref.wikipedia.org? en.referencedesk.org? Cbrown1023 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the only two rights on wikipedia is the right to fork.  This means the data and the software are available.  Anyone with a web server could make their own wiki-based reference desk, very easily.  See also Wikipedia:Free_speech.  Ned Wilbury 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about www.wikireference.org? -THB 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems it already exits.  In German. :) Cbrown1023 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not unless you want to deal with what you've been dealing with recently. -THB 01:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure, I think some projects under Wikimedia are given some autonomy in how they run, like Wikiinfo.  Oh, wait, they are hosted by ibiblio. StuRat 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you may want to check out Wikia.  Ned Wilbury 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also check out www.wikirefdesk.org. StuRat 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Very well said, Alteripse! I could not agree more.  Clio the Muse 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree. Good luck guys, but I'm staying here. And if 'here' ceases to exist or radically changes, I'll just contribute more in the Mainspace. Anchoress 01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, Carcharoth. -THB 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I can understand people being disturbed by the recent bickering about rules, but somehow Wikipedia has survived rabid bickering on  articles about 9/11 conspiracies, George W. Bush,and middle East politics. Wikipedia has a reputation  for hating experts and expertise, so a dislike of people who have the ability to answer difficult questions  and the willingness to help people find info they need would not be surprising. Not a great suggestion, in my view, but if it disturbs people to have a reference desk, put it up for a vote and let the consensus prevail. There are already other websites with a Q & A format.  Providing a reference service  is claimed to be outside the scope of Wikipedia? A high quality real life paper encyclopedia, Britannica at least used to have a reference service which would look up the answers to question from owners of the sets.    Edison 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a valuable service which, as far as I can tell, a self-motivated cabal are either trying to play politics with, or to destroy, for the very reasons you have identified, Edison.  Clio the Muse 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree with Sluzzelin - the Ref Desk contributes a good deal to Wikipedia. In recent weeks I have seen the quality of answers go up markedly, contributors are making an effort to answer questions factually and well with little unneccessary chatter. An answer or a question on the Ref Desk led me to explore an article or two I had never seen before, make minor improvements, or add information which came out of the answer on the Ref Desk. The Ref Desk serves as an excellent way to point newcomers in the direction of articles they would be interested in. I see no reason why it should be moved out of Wikipedia, and I personally feel it would be better for contributors to focus their energy on providing better answers than changing the structure or workings of the Ref Desk. Sometimes we get so caught up in trying to establish rules, purviews, areas of responsibility and delimitations that we forget the main purpose of it all. — QuantumEleven 12:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StuRat, I agree with both purposes and see them as mutually inclusive, even mutually conditional. Helping the person who asks the question serves Wikipedia, and everyone (including the asker who is, after all, a user and editor) can benefit from improvements on Wikipedia.  We can easily try to fulfill both purposes as often as possible. The schism is an artefact, time for de-construction. ---Sluzzelin 14:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There appears to me to be at least one additional group: those that feel the primary purpose of the RD is to serve the people who hang out there chatting.  I think we'll find there's not much disagreement between the two groups above, compared to the disagreement between either of them and that third group.  Ned Wilbury 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't identify that third group, Ned Wilbury. Perhaps there are users who like to help out and spend time at the desks, and who have become familiar with each other and perhaps some of them have indulged in in-jokes and chatty comments. But I don't think they see serving themselves as the reference desk's primary purpose. ---Sluzzelin 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stu, I see yours as a false dichotomy. There is no black/white dichotomy here (and any good Scientologist like myself will tell you that the concept that black/white dichotomies exist at all is an abberation - laff). What there is, is a gradient scale of opinion of how formal/informal the RD should look and how much chat/banter should be allowed with the extremes being "questions? What questions? Now about that penis) and the other extreme being a totally moderated desk (or elimination of the RD as incorrigible). Ned, there is no third group either. I myself consistently provide good, referenced answers yet I also like the banter and engage in it a bit myself. I *think* I use good sense but if allowing banter is degrading the desk I have no problem with eliminating banter not directly related to answering. --Justanother 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two kinds of editors; those who divide editors into two groups, and those who don't. Edison 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an excellent point. I find myself bouncing off the Reference Desk in this way as well, and getting ideas to expand and improve Wikipedia. Well, the ones I follow through on, that is. Carcharoth 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Powers That Be at Wikipedia like to keep lots of data highly secret, with the stated reason that page view stats would slow down the machinery, or seldom viewed pages would be vandal magnets. Now that some admins say they want to eliminate the project, which would certainly tend to drive some contributors away from Wikipedia, it is time to collect such data as part of the debate over keeping or banning Reference Desk. Clearly such data can be and are collected, because I have seen listings of the most often viewed pages, and if it does not slow down the machinery to keep stats for them, it would not slow it down to keep stats for seldom viewed pages. I expect there are lurkers far exceeding the questioners and answerers.  What is the best way to get readership stats for Ref Desk? I know I for one read Reference Desk before I became an editor, because the questions and answers were often informative and thought provoking. I specificially exclude from those categories most in-jokes between editors, nudge-nudge-wink-wink juvenile masturbation jokes, and other unfunny repetitive seagull/mask/bagel memes, or religious/political/pseudoscience soapbox diatribes, or rude and curt directives that a questioner should "just look up the answer himself."  Edison 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *They are, and it's in response to constantly referring complaints to the Administrators' noticeboard which would be better handled internally, here.  Your latest post there: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vote_stacking_on_MFD, for example, appears to have convinced pschemp and Mr. Darcy to take that position. StuRat 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: **So you're saying that if somebody is vote stacking MFD, that issue should be handled on the reference desk? I'm afraid that doesn't make a lot of sense. (Radiant) 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical suggestion - Move the Ref Desk outside of Wikipedia 

message: This is the last item on my list of "disputed items".  So, if we can decide on this, I can stop bothering everyone for their opinions (for a little while), LOL: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/rules#Next_item_for_discussion:_.2AAre_poorly_written_questions_allowed_.3F. StuRat 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last question for discussion: Are poorly written questions allowed ? 

message: Why would someone post this? Why would someone respond with this? Why not just post a picture of a giant penis on the reference desk for extra lolz? Use some common sense. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using my common sense, I don't understand why anyone would make such a fuss about those remarks, unless they were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction.  Gandalf61 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is the place to talk about RD questions and answers.  Bringing this up here is "trying to provoke a reaction" exactly the same amount as making any other relevant comment on a talk page.  In this case, I hope the reaction most people have is "Hmmm, Hipocrite is right, it looks like people are starting to just chat."  Discussing it here isn't really "making a fuss"- that's what this page is for.  I hope people continue to give their opinions on questionable remarks, it helps us keep the reference desks on topic.  Ned Wilbury 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adopting a shocked tone, asking rhetorical questions and mentioning a giant penis is, in my book, making a fuss. If Hipocrite was genuinely interested in feedback he would have calmly said "I have just removed these remarks. I think they are inappropriate. What does anyone else think ?". Gandalf61 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It means that mainly young boys like to discuss bodily functions, like farts.  Your deliberate misinterpretation is a personal attack on me (WP:NPA). StuRat 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it does insinuate child abuse. It could be interpreted other ways (eg. StuRat is less than 12 years old, or acts that way), but I agree that it is a jokey and not very helpful comment. Precisely the sort of thing that the latest round of discussions were trying to avoid. Carcharoth 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am absolutely sure it does not insinuate child abuse. Hipocrite, you have gone way over the line. Gandalf61 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Stu saying he wants to talk about bodily functions with 12- year old boys doesn't insinuate child abuse?  Can I have some of what you're smoking? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm well over 12, I wouldn't be in the room, so wouldn't be talking about anything with any of them. StuRat 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a better way to put it. Can we all agree on this and avoid the rumpled feathers a few lines up? If you must joke, do it on talk pages only. Carcharoth 17:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we reach a consensus that humor is not allowed, then yes, I will do just that.  The only issue here is the intentional and absurd misinterpretation of a comment to try to make it into something offensive. StuRat 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologized if I misinterpreted your comment. I suggest you remain vigiliant in your attempts to remain clear on the reference desk, lest others misinterpret your comments in similar ways. I suspect they have, and I suspect they will, much as misinterpretation of Dirk's comment about his penis led to his depature, and misinterpreations about Light Currents' methods of arguing led to his extended block. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear the wolf pack baying in the forest, calling "Run little deer, as fast as you like, but we caught your brothers and we will catch you too". Gandalf61 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honestly, now. 

message: Here is another example of a question where the answers expanded beyond the strict remit of a Reference Desk. This might just be chit-chat, but it seems to be useful chit-chat. It is educational to read that thread, and suggestions have been made on how to improve Wikipedia. Strictly, those discussion should take place on article talk pages, but does it harm the Reference Desk to have these sorts of threads. I'd say not. Carcharoth 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, as soon as an article improvement idea emerges, it should either just get done, or if there's need for further input, it should be brought to the relevant talk page.   I bet nobody would object to a pointer from the RD to the relevant discussion.  There are so many people on Wikipedia with so many ideas on how to improve things, that it's REALLY in our best interests to keep pages on topic.  People watching Scrip won't have an obvious way to know about the discussion here, whereas they would, if it were on Talk:Scrip.  Ned Wilbury 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone said "idea factory". Lets AGF that one of us in that discussion will bring it up on the appropriate page. --Justanother 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that moving stuff like this to some appropriate talk page is a good thing, and whoever wishes to do so should be encouraged.  Ned Wilbury 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I would not even object if you or any other editor moved it for us and left a note in the void (not on the talk page please) that you had. This is a wiki, after all (laff). --Justanother 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it would be better to copy than move, so the flow of the conversation is not disrupted. StuRat 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of topic drift 

message: :Please note by the posting date that this is a re-posting of a previous comment  --hydnjo talk 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome this experiment if you feel it would be helpful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just posted something - but feel free to delete it, as it follows on (branching) from many other previous discussions - archive away and make a new start83.100.174.70 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever works is desirable. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I don't think "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" is going to work here.---Sluzzelin 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It could work but only if there is a cessation to personal attacks, rude orders, and general nastiness. -THB 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And I was thinking more like bury the hatchet rather than "Out of sight, Out of mind".  addendum: Or are some so invested at this point that there is no going back. By going back I mean to the RD as it had existed for so long without the codification of "common sense" rules, I'm pessimistic about that. The reason for my pessimism is a gut feel that some here have decided to make a point because of a feeling that their rights have been stepped upon or even more entrenched because they have taken that position based on someone else's rights needing defense.  --hydnjo talk 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temptation...

message: This has come up before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_12#New_ref_desk_division and I would like to re-propose it. Reading the previous discussion it seems that there were no major objections to it but mostly differences on the exact nature of the division.
I'd suggest using the same divisions as suggested before with the inclusion of geology, geography, split of language into english/foreign. anything else I've forgotten - but in general a tree structure.
Also under the science section I'd suggest a homework questions section - I know we are not supposed to do homework - but people could still ask for hints if they are stuck - that's legitimate as far as I can see.
I'd also hope splitting it up into more specialised sections might encourage a general level of improvement in the standards of answers (I especially don't like to see people giving incorrect answers on the science desk). Maybe it will also discourage the 'off topic' chatter as well, who knows. Plus pages will be smaller, archiving can be less frequent. Can there be some agreement here?83.100.174.70 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better. Have a general noticeboard where people can stick questions. Then Wikipedia editors can do the work of moving questions to the right desk and leaving a link behind. Carcharoth 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes agree totally - on the first page of the reference desk - have links to the branches and a place for questions as well. We don't want to put people off by making it too difficult to ask a question.83.100.174.70 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.. I just thought the science desk was getting more homework questions than the others. There's no real reason why the others shouldn't have one if needed - please suggest which ones.83.100.174.70 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: human relationships include sex - so it's still in. If you want to include the word sex as well say so.83.100.174.70 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Foreign languages obviously?83.100.174.70 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Language desk doesn't receive so many posts as to warrant a split, IMO.  A lot of posters seem to have as much trouble with their native English language as others do who request translations from/to other languages.  The proposed split would produce desks that receive no posts at all for days at a time.  Also the proposal creates work as we'd spend a lot of time redirecting questions to the right desk.  That could be obviated by not splitting the desk.  JackofOz 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes good point - I was thinking of 'modern world' for stuff about world affairs, very recent history etc, whereas 'popular culture' would be films, music etc. A current events section would be good though - maybe 'modern world/current events' - in fact I've changed that.
*The "trivia desk" might violate rules we have on limiting chat. StuRat 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of generic 'guiness book of records' type questions, it's probaly a redundant section. I've altered it - suggest it's optional..83.100.174.70 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback - I didn't expect it to be perfect first time.83.100.174.70 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the benefit. Many editors look at several desks now. I look at humanities, science, and language. How would it help the questioner or answerers to have more desks to open and close? It would lessen the chance that someone able to answer a question would see it. It would make searching the archives for an old asked and answered question more tedious than it already is. This is a solution in search of a problem. Edison 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting may reduce the need to often archive, and should increase the chances of getting and informed answer rather than some jokey quip/uninformed answer from one of the many regulars. that's my hope anyway.83.100.174.70 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: split the desks

message: Ten, is has been suggested in the section below that I merge Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules into yours.  Some questions for you:
*Do you agree to allow that ?
*Where would we put the merged version ?
*Where would we talk about the merged version ?
StuRat 10:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StuRat, I respect the amount of work you've put into this, but using phrases like "yours" and asking permission of other people to edit "their" stuff is very much breaching the spirit and letter of WP:OWN. Users are welcome to write essays and develop guidelines in their userspaces, but if you want to work on something in the Wikipedia namespace, or move something from your userspace into the Wikipedia namespace, or the main article namespace, then the collaborative wiki-process takes over. Anyone can edit, and contested changes are discussed in the normal way. Once you (literally) release your edits under the GFDL, anyone can edit them. If you create something in the Wikipedia namespace, or move something there, it is implicit that anyone can edit it. This applies equally to you and to Ten. Carcharoth 10:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, a helpful rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't sign something, then anyone can edit it. I wouldn't change signed comments on a talk page like this, but I would change guidelines where needed. And not everything needs to be discussed first. See WP:BRD. Carcharoth 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am responding to the statement in the section below by User:Justanother "take Ten's as a start and add what you think is missing and let's go from there".  I realize that it's inappropriate to edit Ten's version, in his personal namespace, directly, without permission.  I don't know if he wants to give me that permission or have me make a copy and edit that, this is exactly what I'm asking about.  I am reluctant, though, to make yet another copy (that would be the 4th or 5th now, I think) of the proposed rules.  StuRat 10:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. 1) This is a wiki. We do not own our content. You can take it and use it as you please. I would not disturb his userspace. Just copy it to /Proposed. 2) Ten knows this and has already told us to use what we want of it. So have at it! --Justanother 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the last time I did that, they filed an AFD on Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules, so wouldn't they just do the same on Wikipedia:Reference desk/proposed ? StuRat 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is more than sufficient momentum here to handle any AfD. Just be sure to comment on the /rules AfD that it should be deleted as consensus is to carry on with /Proposed and be sure to WP:PROD /guidance with the same reasoning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanother (talk • contribs)  StuRat 15:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that, but we would need to remove both the Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules and Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline pages (copy them to our userspaces, actually), to eliminate having a "content fork" or "POV fork" between either of those and the new Wikipedia:Reference desk/proposed page.  Can we form a consensus to do this ? StuRat 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stu, cover the existing /rules and /guidelines along with their talk pages (or archive all talk) with that archive box that hypocrite used on the RD page and note that further editing is to be done solely in /proposed and /proposed-talk. --Justanother 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with you that there is a consensus against having specific rules.  There were many people who voiced their support for this approach.  Also, you didn't address the question of having to also remove  Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline when I remove Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules, so that the new Wikipedia:Reference desk/proposed will not have an AFD filed against it as being a "content fork" and/or "POV fork" of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline. StuRat 15:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could avoid the whole issue.  Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline seems to have the most support and activity.  If you think you can improve it by adding specific rules, why not try to?   Keep in mind, people may well revert you, and you may have to make your case on the talk page.  Or maybe I'm missing something- what would a new /proposed page do that /guideline isn't already doing?  Ned Wilbury 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mention below, there is a slot for those rules -- retitled as "interpretations" -- in a proposed outline of a restructured set of guidelines, suggested here.  (That proposal has received a certain amount of support.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree that Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline has the most support.  It does have the most activity, but this is mainly in the form of complaints about it.  Ten's proposal is a far more reasonable starting point. StuRat 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am i allowed to edit the proposed guidelines, or am I in danger of being blocked for doing so?--Light current 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Certainly; anyone may edit any proposal, as this is part of the "wiki process" and helps consensus-building. (see also WP:POL and Wikipedia:How to create guidelines). (Radiant) 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules]] ? 

message: I think we have the rough sketch done, now I'd like everyone to take a look here:
Wikipedia:Reference_desk/rules and comment here
Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/rules#Finalizing_the_Wikipedia:Reference_desk.2Frules_proposal.  After we have it all finalized we can discuss ways to merge the two versions together. StuRat 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stu, I don't see the point of working on two docs at once and discussing in three places. Why not just do the best you can to cram everything in one doc or, easier, take Ten's as a start and add what you think is missing and let's go from there. --Justanother 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of us have spent days working on the original rules version, now at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/rules, so we don't just want to throw it all out.  Have you looked at them ?  They look pretty good to me. StuRat 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are detrimental to the reference desk and badly-focused.  It's all about what's allowed rather than what we're actually trying to do! What TenOfAllTrades wrote is much better in this regard. -- SCZenz 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Anchoress 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I maintain the position that we should hit restart on this whole matter, I concur that if we need to have a written structure to codify common sense then Ten's thoughts make the most sense. --hydnjo talk 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that plan except that I think the discussion should be held on the talk page for the /Proposed page, not here, as any discussion here gets lost in all the other discussions (splitting the Ref Desks into more, archive bot discussions, particular ref Desk question and answer discussions, user behavior discussions, etc.) and then it gets even more lost once it is archived off the page in only a few days. StuRat 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just so long as no-one starts or continues threads over here that belong over there. If someone starts a thread over here it needs to be moved. --Justanother 13:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. StuRat 13:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I should add that the consensus seems to be that we use Ten's as a starting rallying point (yours was the starting point). You always said that yours needed prettying up. Well, his is prettier so merge yours in, ect. --Justanother 04:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a potential place for those rules -- retitled as "interpretations" -- under #4 of the outline at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline#Trying again. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree that User Ten's points are thoughtful, balanced and impressive.  I do, however, have one small personal caveat to add to this desideratum: I really, really wish we would stop hitting young kids with 'do your own homework.'  I know if I came back to find this attached to a question I had posted I would leave with a deep sense of grievance.  As I have said elsewhere, even the fullest answer any of us gives can only be a general guidance to further research, and would never do as a homework answer in itself.  I must confess when I see a D.Y.O.H. response now I go out of my way to supply a greatly expanded answer, possibly even more than I would have considered strictly necessary.  Clio the Muse 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The so-called 'supermajority' was artificially canvased.  Clio the Muse 08:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, I feel avoiding it "because it's contentious" just leaves us with the same conflict every time one editor removes something somebody else said, just because they didn't like it.  So, if we can't decide on a process for removing things, this conflict will continue indefinitely. StuRat 17:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this problem is already solved... [comment continues in subsection below"deletion issues" thread, separately archived (and still active as of 2006-12-16) —scs] Ned Wilbury 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't see how. StuRat 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finalizing the rules proposal 

message: There is no consensus that providing a HomeWork specific section to the RD would benefit the questioners requesting help with homework nor any benefit to the WP project itself. There would also be the added burden of perhaps needing to slice the RD:HW into multiple disciplines which would not be our initial intent but may grow to such proportions so as to require HW specialty sub-sections. I'll admit that I hadn't thought that far out and upon reflection, understand that the incumbent overhead would indeed be too burdensome for this voluntary project.
In the meantime, should we perhaps suggest to the questioners requesting HW help to disguise the source of the question and be admonished with the "Aha, seems like HW to me but I'll provide some guidance anyway" or should we suggest that they be up-front about it and avoid the embarrassment of exposure. --hydnjo talk 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course most (if not all) RD editors can smell a HW Q at 1000yds even if it is heavily disguised. If the OP says its HW, fair enough. If the OP tries to hide the fact, we say: " Aha, seems like HW to me but I'll provide some guidance anyway". Simple! 8-)--Light current 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure is.  --hydnjo talk 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion from the responses above

message: Do people excise there in Japan? - Are you asking about an excise tax or exercise ? StuRat 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. StuRat 05:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Sharp' comment