Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 14

message: Maybe no one should make funnies until the 'Question answered tag/note' has been placed? This may make it easier for any refatoring later. It 'could' also act as a dividing line between serious and not so serious comments. Comments? There Ive said it again! 8-)--Light current 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misread the proposal, which is suggesting a tag for questions that have been responded to but not answered.  And I also fear you may not be understanding the general thrust of this entire conversation over the past several days which is that the RD is not your own private source of mirth fodder.  Spinning jokes off of questions has to be a relatively rare occurrence.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I predict that if any Rules are drawn up regarding Reference Desk behaviour, they will be respected by about three people, for about two days. Not to say that your suggestion isn't a good one, of course. -- Chris 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much Chris for that compliment! You are probably correct and that means that all this effort by admins will probably have been wasted? Like sloshing your hands in a bucket of water: take em out-- what happens? 8-)--Light current 22:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway thats not a problem. If mirthfull answers start appearing before the mirth warnog tag, the 'mirth warning' tag can always be moved to separate the mirthfull answers fron the ummirthfull! 8-)--Light current 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL... what can I say. Things were nice yesterday. We'll see about today. -- Chris 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different (additional) proposal 

message: Why is joking on the RDs considered vandalism, and can anyone point to any policies or guidelines saying that it should be so considered?--Light current 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: n.b.: Only non-joking answers will be considered, feel free to delete any joking replies. It has been decided that questions regarding joking aught not be responded to with a joking type response. Oh, and no "smilies" please.  :-(  --hydnjo talk 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman !--Light current 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, adding context to Lc's comment).  --hydnjo talk 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah even serious physicists can have a laugh. Ha Ha.!--Light current 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing policies or guidelines 

message: Please put your comments here. Please try to be constructive
#I certainly agree with this. JackofOz 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this rule. For example, sometimes questions are anecdotal or personal rather than general, and in these cases it might be helpful to be able to address the questioner for clarification (What country do you live in? How old are your children? ...) ---Sluzzelin 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: #I dont like this as a strict rule, and agree with Jack's statement above.---Sluzzelin 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: #I completely agree with this one. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF should apply everywhere on WP.---Sluzzelin 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the proposed guidelines 

message: I think your answers on the RDs are really great and sometimes hilarious. But do you really think that last one was appropriate. Do you think you could you reconsider it please?--Light current 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which post is that ? StuRat 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not directed at anyone. Just testing a non offensive response that could be used. Did you feel offended?--Light current 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Until you added the header, I thought it was directed at Sluzzelin. StuRat 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah! you know me. I dont criticise anyone! At least, I dont intend to unless they really get my goat! Im a pussy cat! Meeeow!--Light current 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Light current, I absolutely agree it's important for one to be polite when requesting someone reconsider something they've said.  But if the response is "Ok, I've reconsidered and I think it was just fine," what then?  -- SCZenz 00:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we apply the big hammer! 8-)--Light current 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example chiding post 

message: ...reader and question asker, not answerer so much. I've just come to the talk page for the first time and noticed all the controversy about making jokes, and wanted to add my thoughts. Part of the reason I enjoy the reference desk is for the humor. I really like the fact that the answerers show their individual personalities. Could I suggest that if you want to make a joke, you do so, but first try to find the answer yourself, if it hasn't already been stated? I really think it's only a problem when jokes substitute for serious answers. And cheers to everyone for all the good work you do. --Grace 23:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you for that comment 8-)--Light current 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well basically, I think we have to bottle it up until some serious answers have been forthcoming. I know its painful but....--Light current 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a regular... 

message: There really aught to be a hatnote at the top of the page directing people who though WP:RD meant Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, what does everybody else think ? StuRat 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never occured to me. Never seen anyone confuse RD with resolving disputes either (at least, no one posting on the RDs requesting for dispute help). But no harm adding it. --`/aksha 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sure, add another piece of boilerplate that will never be read to respond to a problem that doesn't exist.  --hydnjo talk 03:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly do you think is a good idea?  --hydnjo talk 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a note at the top of the page saying WP:RD redirects here, you may have been searching for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --WikiSlasher 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Resolving disputes 

message: Anyone think its a good idea to recruit some normal Wikipedians (editors) to act as mystery shoppers to evaluate the quality (or lack of it) on the RDs. This would involve normal editors possibly acting under sock puppet accounts to pose questions: (some serious some stupid) to the RDs. After a few weeks (say) of tests, we would gather the opinion of these 'mystery shoppers' to try to ascertain the quality of service and the general reaction to the RDs service. Comments? --Light current 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would take time-wasting navel-gazing to a new extreme, to put it mildly. Shimgray | talk | 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I dont know!. Since the recent spate of criticism, I think it would be good to have a sample view point of wikipedians in general. Also we dont ask you personally to waste your time if you dont want to! 8-)--Light current 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we have to take that on board. After all, any ordinary user could come to the RDs at any time to ask a question. I think it would be good to get the real truth of the situation rather than what is percieved by a limited number of narrow minded admins! --Light current 02:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I hadnt actually noticed "mysterious" shoppers. Too busy answering questiond I guess. 8-)--Light current 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean socks? Yeah but we cant measure it properly like this. We need trusted  mystery shoppers to tell us exactly how were doing.--Light current 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, OK Lc, you're our designated MS. Have at it. No fair editing as Lc until the MS section has been archived though.  --hydnjo talk 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people may be able to guess my style 8-)--Light current 02:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't know about that, but your absence for those few days would be a dead giveaway.  ;-)  --hydnjo talk 03:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he used a normal smiley I'd be dead fooled :p --⁪frothT C 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeesh Bri, when you make posts that makes us pee laughing it seems also to be a thread killer.  ;-)  --hydnjo talk 20:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just doing my part :) --⁪frothT C 20:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;-) just testing! --Light current 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery shoppers 

message: On the off chance that anyone might be interested in a comment not about the humor content of these pages, per a suggestion at WP:HD I've added an HTML anchor just past the table of contents (now at all the RDs), so links of the form Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Contents skip past the boilerplate. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rick, the link isn't working for me. Safari browser, empty cache, restart etc. Address box looks to be OK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Contents goes to top of RD/M page.   --hydnjo talk 15:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me on Safari, but only sometimes.  I have noticed some weirdnesses with Safari and links within a page, which I can't precisely characterize.  It's so random (opening the same link repeatedly sometimes does and sometimes doesn't follow the "within page" anchor) I suspect it's probably a timing issue.  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, sometimes reload works but mostly not. The link in my post above worked 2 -3 times after I saw Lc's post so I thought you touched up something, but then it stopped working. Maybe it only will work for me after an Lc post!  --hydnjo talk 16:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Works ok for me. Firefox as is.--Light current 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, works perfectly every time with Firefox.  --hydnjo talk 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep firefox works. Too bad it panders to corporations.. spread SeaMonkey! --⁪frothT C 18:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking straight to the contents 

message: Hi - you may (or may not) have noticed that the bot didn't complete it's archival last night.  I've taken a look at the error codes, and it turns out that my internet connection failed.  To stop this from having an effect in the future, I'd like to look for some volunteers to run a version of the bot, should mine fail.  Being in the TC time zone, I'm not always awake when archival takes place, so ideally whoever (preferably more than one person) has the backup would be in this time-zone.  If you're happy to do this, please could you say so below - I'll then email you a link to the files.  Thanks, Martinp23 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the West coast of Canada, so I don't know if it would be of any use to you, but I'd be happy to help if I can. I have an extremely reliable DSL connection and my computer is always on. Anchoress 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks - I'm emailing a link to you now.  There was another (sigh) problem tonight, but that was a mediawiki bug (I'm pretty sure), but we'll see if there are any errors when you run it.  I'll write a version of the bot to carry out certain archivals on demand, for when it fails on some desks.  Martinp23 10:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the email and it's installed. I sent a reply email with a couple of questions.  Anchoress 10:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's no problem, really :-).  Nothing should ever get deleted permanentley, this being a wiki, and if the bot misses one part of the process, it is always fairly easy to fix.  Nevertheless, I've just finished coding a version of the bot which archives certain desks on demand, by means of passing a command line arguement.  If anybody wants this as a backup, shoul the normal bot fail, just say :) -- Martinp23 15:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bot 

message: [wikt:inane]
Etymology: Latin inanis 'empty, vain'.
Pronunciation * IPA:/ɪneɪn/
Rhymes: -eɪn
Adjective: inane
   1. Lacking sense or meaning; silly.
(Note: no copyvios please, Random House doesn't want us violating their copyright! ~Kylu (u|t)  01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote policies or guidelines please!--Light current 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice attempt to wikilawyer. Its called disruption, and its a blockable offense. Look it up yourself. You are capable. pschemp | talk 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a gross topic, but we handle those all the time.  Do you think LC just made up the question and is trolling ?  If not, I don't see what your objection is. StuRat 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: (Indent reset) The problem with the reference desk is that it is not serving the function of a reference desk, which is the function given to it by the community.  I have outlined some details of why it is failing in this task.  And I'm very far from the only community member who has voiced concerns about it. -- SCZenz 08:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely IS functioning as a reference desk, since questions are being asked and good answers are being given (many by me).  Next to this, any other concerns are secondary. StuRat 08:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes yes, but not always.  I was wrong to say it was failing entirely.  However, the places where it is failing need to be addressed.  You appear to be actively opposed to this, despite a large number of requests. -- SCZenz 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to changing, if you can give me an example of where my behavior has prevented a good answer from being given.  StuRat 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Similarly mine!--Light current 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not putting a list of grievances against you personally on this page—if really want me to, I'll send you some specific concerns privately, though.  You might think about the fact that there may still be problems even if an answer is eventually correctly answered; intermediate wrong answers are not desirable, neither are opinions that may be confused for facts, nor is extended discussion/argument acceptable.  The reference desk will not be a soapbox or debate page for anyone; that is not it's intended purpose, and you may not claim the right to use it in that manner. -- SCZenz 08:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps part of the difference between us is that I consider myself an inclusionist (one who only believes in deleting things which almost everyone agrees are truly horrid) and you appear to be a deletionist (one who believes in deleting anything they don't personally like). StuRat 08:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not encyclopedia content, and even if it were your analogy is irrelevant; both inclusionsts and deletionists agree that articles should contain only relevant and verifiable facts, and have other things removed.  This is a public face of Wikipedia, and it must highlight our best capabilities, not demonstrate our capacity for anarchy.  -- SCZenz 09:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main difference on articles would be that inclusionists would leave in articles that deletionists would remove as "not notable".  We tend to ask "what harm does it do" ?  If we can't come up with a tangible, measurable way that it harms Wikipedia, we would leave it in. StuRat 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not apply to text that is bad for the article; irrelevant content makes articles worse, and it makes the reference desk worse too.  This is not a difference wikiphilosophy.  You are, rather, proposing that the reference desk should ignore Wikipedia's core policies.  -- SCZenz 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the RD is much like a talk page: it has a specific purpose for the good of Wikipedia, but it is not a formal article.  You are mistaken about how talk pages are to be used, however.  Below I start a new section with some talk page guidelines and other general rules that apply to this discussion. -- SCZenz 09:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've included relevant portions which describe how talk pages, and, by extension, the Ref Desk, should be used as an open forum for discussions. StuRat 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misinterpret the pages.  I explain more below, but nothing you quoted contradicts the statement that irrelevant remarks may be removed from talk pages (and by extension, the Ref Desk). -- SCZenz 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't "interpret" them at all, just reprinted portions here, as you did.  And one of the rules most definitely does contradict your contention that other editors contributions can be removed for merely being "irrelevant": Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).  The standard for it to be acceptable to remove other's comments is thus "libel or personal details", a much higher standard than what you personally find to be "irrelevant". StuRat 10:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did interpret when you said talk pages "should be used as an open forum for discussions" just above.  That's not what the text says.  See below. -- SCZenz 10:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation..." says just that. StuRat 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, as long as the "speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge" are relevant and answer- rather than argument-oriented. -- SCZenz 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Indent reset) 

message: *There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation...
*Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia, just like you - unless, of course, you have objective proof to the contrary, which can be validated by a third party. Someone's disagreeing with you is no such proof!
*Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps convincing others and reaching consensus.
*Be positive: ...should be used for ways to improve [the Ref Desk], not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of [the Ref Desk]. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.
*Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.
*Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).
*Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through looks like this and ends up like this.
StuRat 09:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these seem to more comment on your feeling that I and other users have unjustly treated you in our requests that you modify your RD statements, but in any case...  I agree that communicating, assuming good faith, being positive, and being concise are all important.  Not editing others' comments or changing the text is of course fair, but it being unacceptable to change your remarks in no way prohibits their complete removal if irrelevant. -- SCZenz 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's precisely what it means.  They don't want you removing your own comments, as that may leave orphaned responses to your comments, or confuse people who try to find your comments.  They therefore suggest striking out text which you no longer believe to be correct, so as not to disrupt the flow of the conversation.  Another suggestion, for something really bad, is that it be removed, by the author, with a comment added in it's place explaining what was removed and why. StuRat 10:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're simply wrong about what the text says.  Orphaning comments is bad; it should be made clear that they're removed so everyone knows the context is altered.  But this does not change the fact that they can be removed, which is stated clearly on the very guideline page we're discussing.  The suggestions given are about not changing your own text, or changing others'; to say they contradict the part about removing irrelevant remarks requires twisting the words severely. -- SCZenz 10:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong, what it says is quite clear: "Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so". StuRat 10:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says, as you quote, "your own words."  However, others can remove your words to insure complaince with talk page guidelines, as per the statement (for example) that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."  If you want to do a close reading of the text, that's what it says.  -- SCZenz 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make any sense, you can't remove your own words, but others can ?  They must be talking about something completely misplaced, like a discussion of Bush (the President) on an article about bushes (the plant), in which case the comment should be moved to the correct talk page, and a suitable note left behind.  Going off on a tangent, on the other hand, is allowed.  For example, we frequently get "How do I..." questions, and respond that "Doing what you want is unwise because...".  This isn't a direct answer to the question which was asked, but is still related, and thus allowed. StuRat 11:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing your own comments is only misleading, so there's no reason to do it.  Others, however, may take it upon themselves to enforce the talk page guidelines, and this is explicitly allowed.  Tangents are certainly removed in some cases; for example, on Talk:0.999..., arguments about the truth of the statement "0.999...=1" are routinely removed as being irrelevant to discussing how to improve the article.  Whether to remove a particular tangent is a judgement call, and factors to consider in making that judgement might include whether the tangent has other problems as well (e.g. it being an argument or opinion rather than a fact, or a potentially-offensive and unhelpful joke). -- SCZenz 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get that at all.  Knowing whether 0.9999... = 1 would seem to be critical for that article, so such discussions should be encouraged on the talk page. StuRat 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is well-sourced as a proven and undisputed mathematical fact.  Further discussion serves no purpose. -- SCZenz 11:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree.  If someone claims to be able to disprove it, their proof should be examined, and any flaw explained to them, so they learn something, rather than feeling humiliated by having their comments summarily deleted, and learning nothing, as a result.  This is another good illustration between the difference in an inclusionist, like me, and a deletionist, like you. StuRat 11:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, in fact, a separate "arguments" page for this purpose, and removed comments are put there.  But the main talk page is kept on task, per the talk page guidelines. -- SCZenz 11:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  However, that makes this case an ideal example of my suggestion, that, at most, misplaced discussions should be moved, and doesn't illustrate your point, that tangents can be freely deleted by anyone, at all. StuRat 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More talk page rules that are critical for the RD 

message: *Having followed the debate so far with interest, I have moved from an original position of "no, we don't need yet another set of guidelines" to a position of "yes, perhaps we do need some RD guidelines", so I am putting my tick here in the Yes section. I have seen so many different opinions on which parts of existing gudielines do and do not apply to the RDs and which RD rules apply in which circumstances that I now think the only way to resolve these debates and achieve some sort of clarity is to develop a new set of guidelines that is specific to the RDs. These guidelines could include the existing RD rules (or some variation of them) but should also cover:
:#In what circumstances is it legitimate to edit or delete a question or a response.
:#In what circumstances is it legitimate to place a comment or notice on an RD about a question or a response (e.g. use of the DYOHW tag).
:#How to raise any concerns with a contributor's behaviour on the RDs.
:and probably a lot more stuff besides. Gandalf61 10:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: * ---Sluzzelin 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: * SCZenz 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a poll its a gauging of feeling. 8-)--Light current 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. It appears they are NOT working well enough for some users! 8-(--Light current 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, so the RD pages are talk pages? 8-)--Light current 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are much like talk pages, in that they are used for discussion/replies rather than being articles. StuRat and I discsussed above the implications of the talk page guidelines, and generally agreed that comments that are irrelevant or argumentative may be removed by analogy with those guidelines.  I also argued that, because the Ref Desk is a very public page, common sense dictates that civility violations and newbie biting be removed; StuRat emphatically disagreed with this.  -- SCZenz 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I shall have to go thro the previous correspondence carefully. 8-|--Light current 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I'm by no means saying we should intentionally violate the WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL policies.  What is at issue is whether we should permit any single user (or Admin) to decide, on their own, that a comment "might possibly be offensive to some potential reader somewhere" and decide to remove it.  The talk page guidelines do not allow for this, I believe in order to prevent this type of ultra-PC second guessing on everything that's ever written here; and the predictable edit wars, hostility, and tit-for-tat deletions such a process will inevitably cause.  StuRat 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't know what this means