Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 34

message: The May 25 pages have not been created: Special:Contributions/145.97.39.143, so for example Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2007 May 25 is a red link in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/May 2007, and likewise on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing from which the day has been excised. Similarly on other sections and the Help desk. I have no opportunity to work on fixing that for the next 12 hours.  --LambiamTalk 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, instead of taking the silently-fixing approach, I'm taking the make-more-people-notice-there-is-a-problem approach.  Then I may fix the archives (but hopefully the archives and the bot will be fixed first!) Maybe it will work.  Can we trust humanity?  Hmmm.  If I was working for some big bureaucracy or corporation and implemented a strategy like this I'd probably get fired.  Good thing Wikipedia is nothing like that! Well, of course, my work is free, so they can't fire me, but they could kick me off the island. Root4(one) 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, it's not that big a deal. I'm sure it will be fixed soon by whoever (VectorPotential ?) maintains the bot. nadav (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot, RefDeskBot, is maintained by Martinp23. VectorPotential (now operating as User:Vector Potential) has been a great help in fixing the effects of the uncomfortably common erratic bot behaviour.  --LambiamTalk 08:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the recent bot edit was done by an IP. That's odd, no? nadav (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is interested, I've actually been around since before we had a bot, I used to do all of this by hand every day for about 2 months, after all that, even a quirky bot is better than no bot--VectorPotentialTalk 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did manual archiving for a while, too, and I agree, it is a royal pain. StuRat 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to fix everything tomorrow night, but in the mean time RefDeskBot needs to run as normal, even if it does edit as an IP.  Which means the date headers need to be fixed. --VectorPotentialTalk 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happens between now and tomorrow night, the date headers need to remain intact, altering them will just confuse RefDeskBot even more than it already is--VectorPotentialTalk 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if all of Martin's bots have become logged out, it's just that RefDeskBot is the only bot that actually has to create pages, a permission only assigned to logged in users--VectorPotentialTalk 22:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, that saved me a lot of time--VectorPotentialTalk 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot did it again, or actually did it NOT! 

message: I've added the shortcut box (WP:RD/Math) to the /Math desk to the right of and aligned with the top of the TOC and asking if there is any objection to adding shortcut boxes to the other desks.  hydnjo talk 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the laziest of all typists, WP:RD/MA redirects there too. (No objection whatsoever here) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no, I meant any argument as to the location of the shortcut box: aligned with the top of and to the right of the TOC.  As for any other redirects such as /MA. /Ma. /ma... well feel free. I was just going to add the box at each desk with the original shortcut and then please go ahead and add whatever other existing or new shortcuts within that same box. OK?  hydnjo talk 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but RefDeskBot doesn't seem to have read this thread yet. (diff) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! Glad that I asked, that's probably happend to the /shortcuts in the first place. Guess I need to sync with Mr Bot before proceeding or /shortcut will keep getting sent to archive heaven. hydnjo talk 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut boxes

message: can wikipedias host flash documents? how? or Why not? A Greek wikiadict  --91.140.54.114 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question belongs more properly on the Wikipedia:Help desk. This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. For the video format supported by Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Media#Video.  --LambiamTalk 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: A banned user finally gets one to stick (Hairy_Armpits). A regular can't control himself. Same old, same old. David D. (Talk) 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geesh! Who would've guest guessed? ;-)  hydnjo talk 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would he have to control himself? A.Z. 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, because we're here at the ref desk to provide useful answers.  We're not actually here to entertain kiddies and trolls.  Friday (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, no one said the regular "had to" control himself, David D. merely stated an observation that the regular lacked this ability. Gantpupo 03:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned interesting things reading that thread, and perhaps other people did as well. Maybe even the original poster did. A.Z. 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and look! You learnt that those crazy feminists were just looking for things to complain about! I thought the seeping misogyny had left the desks. Skittle 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duo strike again

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

message: Why doesn't Jackofoz get reprimanded for all of his POV RefDesk contributions?--71.185.142.181 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rather deep question and I think we should discuss this more. You know, we should forget about voting on this and that for just a while, stop voting on which posts should be deleted and which should stay, which people should be reprimanded and which people should not. All this voting and talking doesn't ever get us anywhere. You should do a bit of introspection and find out the real reasons why you think some people should and some people shouldn't be reprimanded. Of course, you could as well say that I'm the one who really needs introspection, so I can find out that I am here for social interaction instead of building an encyclopedia and a good forum, which is what the reference desk inherently is, and all my other arguments are pure rationalisation. I can only hope Friday, Radiant, Eric, Rockpocket, Clio the Muse, Hipocrite and others somehow, for some reason, decide to reflect on the subject, and reveal to us their real motives, their real subjective and personal motives, which could take us somewhere perhaps better than where voting took us so far. A.Z. 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure out at all what you're talking about.  Who's advocating voting, and for what?  I'm generally against voting, myself.  Friday (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever someone deletes a post, people vote on whether the post should remain deleted or not. When that starts getting annoying, people start to make guidelines to solve the matter, whose content is based on the result of pools. A.Z. 02:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems silly to me.  I've never wanted people voting on this.  I've never advocated voting on guideline matters either.  Has this really ever happened? Friday (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This     seems like voting to me. A.Z. 03:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend to A.Z. to read Wikipedia talk:Reference_desk/guidelines#Unfortunately again, so that his memory is refreshed about how we came to use the procedure we used then.  --LambiamTalk 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems with my memory, thank you. A.Z. 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we were temporarily reduced to something resembling voting.  Unfortunate.  Discussion is better than voting.  Friday (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so now you can read my post again and perhaps accept the suggestion. A.Z. 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Given this edit, 71.185.142.181 is in no position to be throwing stones at anyone.  --  JackofOz 02:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore it, Jack.  It requires no high degree of intelligence to see this for what it is: a contemptible provocation.  Clio the Muse 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think my reply means that I agree and am taking part in the contemptible provocation? A.Z. 03:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you? Rockpocket 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it is a contemptible provocation at all! And this is by no means about Jack or an attempt to attack him in any way. A.Z. 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just read the IP's contributions, and perhaps they were after all trying to attack Jack... Nevertheless, it was never my intention to do so. I thought the question was about editors being treated differently, when their edits were not different, and JackofOz was just an example of such case. A.Z. 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see it as a personal attack, just a vague reference to some unspecified "POV RefDesk contributions" I am supposed to have made.  There being no detail to focus on, there's  ... well, nothing to focus on.  End of story.  Your contribution, A.Z., to the above thread intrigues me far more, I must say, than the original question ever did.  JackofOz 06:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack OfOz - moved from misc desk by Anchoress 

message: I have since left a message on his talk page, which I suggest you read if you wish, but please, nobody remove my question.  Thank you.
Edit: Another user proceeded to put a trollish response on my question. Please, nobody do that either.--71.185.142.181 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff of removal. I expect my personal opinion on this be rather predictable: it's a legitimate question. A.Z. 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to say that the responses removed by the original poster, as seen here, are also legitimate. A.Z. 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them because he personally attacked me by calling it a "disgusting question" even though people's beliefs on this vary widely. I should probably have left the second comment, however, and for this I apologize.--71.185.142.181 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't remove things just because they are wrong. And, in this case, it wasn't wrong at all, if one interprets the meaning of "what a disgusting question" as "my personal opinion is that this is a disgusting question", which was my interpretation and probably the intended meaning of the author. A.Z. 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IP shows no edits other than removals, vandalism, and ref desk trolling. Obviously just trying to cause trouble or get attention. WP:DENY -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See also this if you still might have any doubt. Earlier today I already reversed several destructive edits by this anon.  --LambiamTalk 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The problem is with the editor's past behavior, then, which is in fact destructive. It is better to block them and talk to them on their talk page. A.Z. 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume the reason it was removed is that some would find the question to be homophobic (I do not, however).  I would have left it in. StuRat 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not removed because someone found it to be homophobic! As Feba explained above, "IP shows no edits other than removals, vandalism, and ref desk trolling. Obviously just trying to cause trouble or get attention." By the way, I disagree with the removal of a legitimate question even if written by someone who has vandalised Wikipedia before, even if written by a serial killer. A.Z. 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Feba removed my legitimate question 

message: Reference desk sections are archived quickly. It is rather annoying to click on a link such as this one only to find out that the section has been archived and now you're gonna have to search either in Google or directly in the archives, in order to have access to it.
An alternative to this style of linking would be this one. Permanent links never change, but one bad thing about them is that they show only the version of the page at a particular time. This could become a problem, since people might want to know what happened on the section after that time.
Besides the fact that sections are archived quickly, another particularity of the reference desk is that everyone can be sure about the name of the page where each section will be archived, so we can link to the archives even before they exist. An appropriate solution for the linking problem would be to link to sections like this: "Check out this section (archived version)." When the second link becomes blue, everyone will know that's the appropriate link to click. A.Z. 23:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought this issue up before as a reason in favor of my proposal to immediately archive every question, with a transclusion to the appropriate Ref Desk page.  This would allow us to immediately link to the archive page, which should remain indefinitely. StuRat 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A solution (not 100%, but close) is to create the page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/SECTION/DATE, where SECTION = Computing | ... | Science, and DATE is the date on which the thread will be archived (corresponding to the lowest date heading found above the thread), as a temporary stand-in with content #REDIRECT Wikipedia:Reference desk/SECTION. Such a temporary redirect will allow you to already have a link of the form Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/SECTION/DATE#TITLE even before the eventual actual archive page is created, the only risk being that the same TITLE also occurs earlier on the current page. According to RefDeskBot owner Martinp23 this will not interfere with the operation of the bot – if there is already content on the page, the bot will simply overwrite it.  --LambiamTalk 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WARNING. That claim is not correct. Rather than overwriting the page, the bot wraps the previous content between a header and the content to be archived: .  --LambiamTalk 06:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't StuRat's solution 100%? A.Z. 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would mean that if you want to "watch" a section of the Reference desk, rather than just adding once, say, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities to your watchlist, you have to put every single day on your watchlist, and keep doing that every day: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 21, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 22, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 23, ... It is also confusing and disorienting, especially for casual and new users, to be thrown into an archive page after editing what looks like a continuous single page.  --LambiamTalk 06:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my prefs set to watch any page I edit, and those are really the only pages I'd care to watch.  For those who want to watch pages where they haven't made any change, they can, of course, still pick "Watch this page". StuRat 16:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On linking to reference desk sections 

message: I'm seeing people getting too enthusiastic in removing suspect questions or jumping on people asking them.
I've seen people attacked for asking "homework" questions that appeared to me to be potentially legitimate. Remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith?
Just now, a question on whether Canada should adopt the euro was removed on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the RD. OK, I understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but imagine the question had been phrased: "What would be the advantages and disadvantages of Canada adopting the euro?" Wouldn't that be OK? So why go to the extent of removing the question? -- Mwalcoff 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff? From your description, it should have been okay, and at the worst, rephrased. V-Man - T/C 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  --LambiamTalk 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, never mind... It was written as a statement rather than a question. That's why it was inappropriate. Nonetheless, my comment about people jumping on questioners too quickly stands. -- Mwalcoff 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was always thus. Every so often someone or some group starts a campaign to "clean up" the RDs, then someone else complains because they feel they (or a third party) have been treated unfairly. This usually spirals into an unproductive debate. Gandalf61 10:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not! None of this was ever a problem prior to roughly November of 2006, the reference desk went the vast majority of its existence without stirring up any controversy whatsoever. This is easy enough to verify by checking the older talk page archives--VectorPotentialTalk 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Picking an archive at random, the Jan-Mar 2006 talk page archive contains long debates on use of templates to respond to "inappropriate" RD questions; appropriate standards of politeness and courtesy on the RDs; whether humourous responses should be allowed; how to handle questions about suicide - all started by someone posting an answer or taking an action that someone else objected to. I stand by my claim - it was always thus. Gandalf61 10:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And from Dec 2005 we have Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions.... David D. (Talk) 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But look at the difference, those sorts of problems sprung up only once every few months, now there's a new issue practically every few hours--VectorPotentialTalk 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you view the problem?  1) More "Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions" than before; 2) Same level of "Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions"  but less tolerance for them; 3) Same level of "Trolls, flamebaits and non-questions" but less tolerance for deleting them. David D. (Talk) 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I think so too; since roughly November of 2006 we have had some people getting too jumpy whenever an inappropriate posting was removed. BTW, I like this small print; it saves space on the talk page.  --LambiamTalk 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, nothing precludes you or the OP from jumping in and re-asking the question with a suitable alternate phrasing (although some might gripe, stating WP:POINT perhaps). Such re-posting is not uncommon. Admittedly, it wouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but there you go. dr.ef.tymac 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll drop this into this topic.  Diff - .  I removed the first instance of the question, because it was User12's ONLY contribution to Wikipedia.  User12 has put it back.  Now it's time for You Make The Call.  --LarryMac | Talk 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reasoning escapes me completely, Larry Mac.  At an early stage of their wiki-career, every Wikipedian has made only one contribution.  What would happen to Wikipedia if everyone's first edit was removed on principle?  --  JackofOz 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously nobody is suggesting reverting first edits as a general rule.  I suspect that reverting racist trolling is less controversial.  Friday (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe my brain isn't operating on all 6 cylinders today (I have an ear infection and I'm on meds), but I can't see that the diff in question is racist.  If anything, it seems to be wanting to find a way of not inadvertently appearing to be racist.  What's racist about that?  (It does seem a rather silly question, but that's hardly exceptional.)  --  JackofOz 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like a backwards way of making an excuse to mention the N-word just for a silent laugh. The question asked could be legitimate if 1) the poster left out the unnecessary example with the N-word and 2) the poster formed the question to be more palatable than "Why is this screwed up? Isn't someone going to fix this?" We get lots of those questions, and usually there isn't a correct answer to it (unless, of course, some large company actually is making a large effort to separate the B from the N on the keyboard to avoid nbigger problems). V-Man - T/C 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a ridiculous question that stretches credibility, and like VMan, I read it as a thinly-veiled "Heh, heh, I said the n-word".  At best, it was an excuse to tell what the questioner thought was a funny story.   Friday (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing the Devil's Advocate for a moment (assuming the poster is the Devil, here): if this specific finger-fumble was the very thing that caused them to ask the question they asked, how can they illustrate it without making reference to the word they actually typed?  Are we getting a touch too precious here?  --  JackofOz 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of User:User12's other "contributions", as well as those of the other socks User:User16 and User:User18, there can be little doubt that the intention was trolling. Therefore I consider the Devil's Advocate's question moot.  --LambiamTalk 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this ship has sailed, I honestly don't think that the average person's first (logged-in) edit to Wikipedia would be a trollish question to the RD.  And I guess I was fresh out of good faith yesterday afternoon (GMT-5); let's just say I probably wouldn't be too surprised by the checkuser results on any of the involved names.  --LarryMac | Talk 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A person's first contribution is likely to be a question, and they are also likely not to know the rules, like the apparent Jeopardy! rule ("every statement must be phrased in the form of a question or will be viciously deleted"), so will appear "trollish" to those who fail to assume good faith. StuRat 04:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People are getting too jumpy 

message: I'm not sure that it was correct to remove this question.  Sure, the first part of it is asking for medical advice, but perhaps the question could have been left and the standard disclaimer added, rather than the question being deleted.  And the second part of the question could surely have been answered with reference to our article on herbalism. --Richardrj talk email 10:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would have been extremely inappropriate to attempt to answer the question in any way other than the standard disclaimer, since it looks like the person was asking about the possibility of replacing their medication with herbs. If we could be confident that nobody would try to answer the question with anything other than the standard disclaimer, then I would support returning the question with that added. However, these things are irresistible to some. It seems safer to remove temptation from people's paths. I will, however, add a reply on the asker's talk page, if they don't have one already, explaining why they didn't get an answer. Skittle 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur strongly with removal - question would need to be directed to their own doctor who would be in a position to consder the specifics of the case and whether appropriate to try anything else (whether conventional or herbal).David Ruben  Talk  20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another questionable removal?

message: Two lunartics have recently flooded us (Re: Humanities) with questions, at the rate of either 9 or 18 at a time.  This presents two problems: 1) It's homework, and 2) I think we are being somewhat abused.  We ought to be used sparingly, as little as is necessary or possible.
As for homework, well people were warned at the top of the page, and that is sufficient grounds to ignore/delete/score out/give limited answers to.  But there is nothing to say the RD is to be used sparingly. Perhaps we should add at the top:
"List one question at a time.  Please don't post more than a few questions a time on the reference desk, as the service is free." --or something to that effect.martianlostinspace 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer getting one such posting, listing 18 homework questions, to getting 18 separately posted homework questions.  --LambiamTalk 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when they're really bad questions. --Dweller 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I've removed a thread. Please see my post to ANI. --Dweller 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diffs of the original posting and its removal.  --LambiamTalk 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you censoring the ref desk? (note sarcasm) David D. (Talk) 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanities Ref Desk 

message: == United States Military Conflicts ==
Since, and including the American War of Independance, has the US armed forces ever 'won' a conflict when they have acted alone and without the active and in theatre support of an allied military presence?
By 'won' I would assume that this would mean a complete cessation of hostilities in favour of the victor, and possibly with a caveat that no future hostilities commenced within 3 years of a military withdrawal.
This would exclude domestic campaigns such as the Indian Wars in the 19th century.
I can only find reference to the Spanish American War of 1898 and the invasion of Grenada in 1983 (although there may have been some involvement by other carribean nations).
JonM267JonM267 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: go for it. David D. (Talk) 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been, sadly,  too involved in drama related to it to take such an action as moving it somewhere. Edison 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that it is not obvious to me (for a change) that the intention was trolling. Isn't it possible that the questioner couldn't find the earlier posting and then reposted it? I regularly see reposted non-trollish questions, and the tone and content of the question appear serious.  --LambiamTalk 03:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be true, Lambiam, but we still don't need two of them, do we? Bielle 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I've removed the duplicate. I just wanted to point out that we should be careful before publicly accusing a newbie of trolling.  --LambiamTalk 12:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Lambiam. But wouldn't someone at least take a look after 2 days to see if there were responses?  Reposts of contentious or edgy questions, or ones with thinly veiled criticism are usually trolling. Time will tell what the posting habits are, and a new contributor should certainly be granted the benefit of the doubt. It could be the case that an original question had been archived by our too-swift bot, but in this case the original question was still there with over a dozen responses. Edison 20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Completly unoffical but:
- irc://irc.freenode.net/##wikipedia-desk
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShakespeareFan00 (talk • contribs) 21:42, June 16, 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!
:Now #wikipedia-desk (one hash). Majorly (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what you want on irc, but please do not advertise it here.  Friday (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've mentioned it a couple other places but I removed the IRC line in the reference desk header. See talk  RxS 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed here  You can also see the above referenced talk page for more discussion. RxS 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask. ([ →]zelzany - fish) 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC Channel...  

message: Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village pump %28proposals%29#Talk Pages. A.Z. 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Pages 

message: What's the recommended treatment for these? Sometimes such queries are posted by a user with an account, but more often not (or are unsigned). I suspect that a well-intentioned, helpful act of moving the query to the Humanities Ref Desk (or similarly, from the Miscellaneous Ref Desk to a more topic-appropriate RD), might make it confusing for the OP to retrieve responses. I've noted other users adding a remark such as "This might be better placed on the [X] Reference Desk"—though I doubt an inexperienced OP would know how to do that, besides the admonishment not to post to multiple desks. Advice appreciated! -- Deborahjay 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If moving, I highly recommend leaving a pointer to the new place in the original location, otherwise as you said, it may look to the questioner like it just disappeared.  I also don't see the harm in a certain amount of answering the questions anyway, even if they're in the wrong place.  The most unhelpful thing you can do is reply just to say "You're in the wrong place."  If you're going to take the time to do that, you might as well answer the question or move it to the right place at the same time.  Friday (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. StuRat 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature queries on the [[WP:RD/L|Language Ref Desk]] 

message: Anyone else see a pattern forming here, here, here and here (though the last one is a bit outlandish, even for Hannity), and is it something we should be concerned about? Rockpocket 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've definitely seen the pattern.  Not sure what kind of response it should get, although I liked where somebody said (on the most recent post) something like "we're not really a breaking news kind of place".  As trolls go, this guy seems fairly benign.  I've become accustomed to the fact that we attract both trolls and troll-feeders, when I see them, I just grab a cup of chocolate from the fountain and munch on a piece of spongecake wall.  --LarryMac | Talk 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen it, read it, didn't respond. Trolling? mmmmmmm, maybe the guy/gal just gets excited about FOX, right now, this is happening right now! and feels the need to share. I think either they will get bored with the appathy of the responses they get and stop (i personally think they have confused the Ref Desks with some kinda online forum, where people sit discussing stuff, waiting for breaking news to discuss, right now!) or we can always send the flying monkeys to get him/her :) Perry-mankster 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are responding to messages left on their talk page, so maybe a reminder that "we're not really a breaking news kind of place" would be appropriate? I was going to leave a message after the border patrol question, but my "reminders" never seem to work out very well.—eric 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling, or am I failing to be [[fair and balanced]]? 

message: I have noticed that some questions and answers have been copied across to the Wikiversity Help Desk. This appears to be done mainly by StuRat, presumably so he can provide answers that are not consistent with the purpose of our Ref Desks. This appears to be a happy solution to what has been a recurring issue over the last year or so on the desks. However, noting that some of the answers I have provided here have also been copied across, it occurred to me that this is probably violating the term of our GFDL license, from WP:C: 
 
If my understanding is correct, any question or answer copied across should probably link back to the source (i.e. the Ref Desk here) as per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations, since the questions and answers currently appear to be attributed to various Wikiversity editors and not those of Wikipedia. Rockpocket 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can provide a link back to the original Ref Desk question, if you like (but, of course, that link will be broken as soon as the Ref Desk Q gets archived). StuRat 06:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. I (personally) don't really care that much. Its more of a Wikiversity copyright problem IMHO, I just thought I would point it out after it occurred to me. Rockpocket 06:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, let's just wait and see if anyone at Wikiversity complains. StuRat 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying questions from here to Wikiversity