Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Repeated vandalism by "Looie496"

Three of my posts have been deleted by this person, with the explaination being that I am a "banned user". Yet I am not a banned user, and the questions are perfectly reasonable and unremarkable. Looie496 added to one post I had un-deleted that he thought I was someone called "Lightcurrent". I am not "Lightcurrent" and I've never otherwise heard of him or her.

The deleted questions were "Colourful butterflys" from the Science desk, "Length of time of feelings of jealousy" from the Humanities desk, and "Reflection" from the Language desk.

Can Looie396 please be prevented from deleting any more of my posts? Thanks

Edit: I have now seen and skimmed the posting about "Lightcurrent" at the top of this page. While LC might have ISPs starting in 92, that does not mean that all ISP addresses starting with "92" are his/hers. I use a large ISP and the ISP number changes every time I log on. Wouldnt it be better if you just deleted individual questions on their own merits? 92.15.1.9 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not really been following this whole thing, but the banned user comes from the ISP "OPAL TELECOM DSL" whereas the OP of this thread is from "CARPHONE WAREHOUSE BROADBAND". They do appear to be different people. 82.43.89.63 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if you've been inadvertently harmed by overzealous attempts to fight banned users. I will leave a note for Looie. Also, I suggest you sign up and get a name here, to make this less likely to recur. StuRat (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in Britain - a comparatively small island with a population of 60 million. So saying I am near some bad person is not informative. Also a very large number of people use the same national ISP - millions, probably. "Opal Telecom" seems vaguely familiar by the way - Carphone Warehouse probably rent other ISP services as well as having their own. 92.15.1.9 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, either it's a really incredible coincidence or I have a serious misunderstanding of how Geolocate works. This IP geolocates to the Isle of Man, as do many that are clearly associated with LC. The population of the Isle of Man is 80,000. What are the odds that there are two different editors from the Isle of Man who both ask large numbers of trivial Ref Desk questions? Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

80,000 is enough people that having two Ref Desk posters from there isn't all that surprising. However, I also expect that the Isle of Man is just where the ISP is located, and that they serve customers from a broader area. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting Isle of Man from? According to geobytes.com the ip is located in Norwich 82.43.89.63 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstandings on how geolocate works? Oh that's easy. I can tell you how Geolocate works. It works poorly.

Seriously, some ISPs have access points with far reaching sphere's of influence, but still just geolocate to the big city they're located in. Or occasionally to the small town conveniently located between two big cities.

On top of that, every once and a while it's completely wrong. Occasionally you'll find IP addresses that you know for a fact are on one continent, but geolocation services show them on another. I don't know why that happens, but I assume it's something to do with out of date databases.

All that said, however, I'm suspicious of this post by 92.15, (it hit's all the right points and uses all the right lingo, weird for a first-time user.) but I don't care. If it is him, and he wants to crow about tricking someone into answering question about butterflies I don't know why we should spend any effort depriving him of that pleasure. APL (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a note I left on a desk a few days ago: oh no, an internet vandal has maliciously enticed us to discuss things we are interested in! I really don't understand the hassle that erupts over this stuff. Nimur (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of principle. What's the point of going to the extent of banning an editor, something that's not done lightly, if nobody cares when they come back under another guise? We may as well never ban anyone. Such a policy may have merits, but it's not our current policy. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's far more important to not delete questions from innocent bystanders than the catch every post from banned users. I'd apply the "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the absurdity of this before,^[1] but some people assured me that LC could be recognized - despite his personally making up 1/16384th of the Internet - because he only asked questions about sex, feces, and racism.^[2] And butterflies, and jealousy, and reflection, I guess. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I said, and I will thank you not to misparaphrase me. Let me boil this down to simple terms, since you don't understand (or refuse to understand by choice) the situation. It is obvious you cannot recognize LC when he appears. If that is the case, then don't get in the way of the people that can. Let me repeat that: if you are not good at recognizing him, leave that job to the people that are. If we have to explain every permutation he makes to his editing patterns to you every time he makes them, it would lead to stupid discussions like this where you feed this troll every time he edits. Plus it lets him know how we know it is him, so he can change his patterns intentionally, which just sucks you Wnt into his trap again. Just stop it. Answer questions, work on articles, and leave the sock hunting to the big boys, because you obviously don't get it. --Jayron32 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32, Wnt provided a diff that contains exactly what you did post. Neither that post nor the one above exemplify the civility that one reasonably expects from a "big boy". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, you are using the "appeal to authority" argument, with you as the authority. Why should I believe that you know when it's LC, and WNT doesn't ? If you can't prove that it's LC, I'm not going to be convinced that it is solely because you say so. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that this is LC. I'm just tired of Wnt prolonging the drama. You should know by now that everything I say is always wrong. You can be assured that if I think something is true, then it is false. --Jayron32 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Do whatever is necessary to enforce all rules" has never, ever, been a "principal" of Wikipedia. In fact, IAR and other related guidelines, were invented specifically, not to cause chaos or to generate an excuse to do whatever you want, but to force people to think pragmatically about their actions instead of following the rules blindly. In this case, blind following of the "rules" is allowing LC to manipulate you and Bugs like puppets into whipping up a fury every two weeks. It is against Wikipedia's most fundamental principals to blindly follow the rules when they have obviously failed.

Relax. Enjoy life. The world will continue to turn if you don't play the part of Internet Cop for a while. No one will be hurt if we answer a couple of pointless questions about butterflies or sex. And if LightCurrent gets pleasure out of it, that doesn't bother me, and it shouldn't bother you either. APL (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly who are you addressing, APL? I introduced the issue of principles, which you've misquoted back at me as "principals". But then, I'm not one of those who are "whipping up a fury every two weeks", on this or any other issue, so I don't know who that sentence is addressed to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize completly.

I intended to refer to people, as a group, that justify demonstrability disruptive deletions with the "principle" that banned users must not post under any circumstances, as if that single concern should be elevated above all others.

"Principals" was, of course, a spelling error. APL (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite surprised if 92.15.1.9 isn't LC. There are at least connections between 92.15.1.9 and LC that seem unlikely to be coincidental. The ISP of LC's DSL line generally shows up as Opal Telecom, which is currently a brand of Talk Talk. 92.15.1.9's ISP shows up as The Carphone Warehouse, which Talk Talk started out as a subsidiary of, although it looks like Talk Talk and Carphone Warehouse demerged about a year ago. Traceroute says that 92.15.1.9's immediate router shows up as being Opal Telecom's[3], just like LC's immediate router. IP2Location says that 92.15.1.9's latitude and longitude are 54.166997, -4.482106,[4] which is on the Isle of Man, and is the exact same latitude and longitude that IP2Location gives, for example, for 88.104.81.205,[5] which is an IP that LC used in January.

The Carphone Warehouse is primarily a mobile phone company. My presumption is that LC's ISP shows up as Opal Telecom when he's using his DSL line, and shows up as Carphone Warehouse when he's connecting to the internet via his mobile phone. It looks to me like he's been using his DSL line when he doesn't mind being identified as being LC, and connects via his mobile phone for posting generally innocuous stuff. The exceptions I've noticed that look like LC in terms of content but are coming via his mobile phone are this topic he started here on the ref desk talk page, and these pokes at ref desk volunteers.[6][7] And note that the latter of those two edits suggests a familiarity with the ref desk regulars that's inconsistent with a newcomer to the ref desks, who's so new here that he's never even heard of LC. Red Act (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, It wouldn't surprise me if it was LightCurrent, but the difference is ... I don't care. Not in the least. It's nice and relaxing. APL (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the IP who can't resist telling us how evil the British royal family is every few days LC? Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this yet, but I just wanted to say that there have been quite a few changes in the UK ISP market in the last year and I have been a victim of these. When I first started posting here I got banned because of this, but I did ask to be identified as a bona-fide poster and become immune from this blanket block, which has indeed happened. Opal Telecom is an overall ISP for people who used to be with TalkTalk, Pipex and Tiscali among others. The 92. subnet (or whatever it is) may well have hundreds of thousands of subscribers (if not millions) and to just block that particular part of an address isn't exactly fair on the rest of them. Just finally, not everyone who is new here is also new to the internet: I was posting on the internet and reading Wikipedia for many years before I took the plunge to post. And actually, I hadn't heard of LC until all this hoohah erupted a few months ago! By the way, it's possible Opal Telecom is based in the Isle of Man for tax reasons. Its servers may well be distributed on the mainland. Just my 2p worth. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, kids, if you don't stop this petty bickering, I'm going to turn this Wiki right around! And quit pulling each other's hair! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Light current has been de facto un-banned by APL and Wnt, who refuse to help enforce the rules. So the best course of action from here on out is to forget the ban and treat him as a regular editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Y'know, Bugs, this I'm-going-to-take-my-toys-and-go-home attitude of yours -- where, if you don't get what you want, you then try to dramatically punish yourself and everybody else by arguing for the hyperbolic opposite of what you wanted -- is (a) childish and (b) tiresome. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Nowhere in your comments do I see a denial of the truth of what I said. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Because arguing with you is a pointless waste of time; you'll believe what you want to believe. But if you insist: LC has most certainly not been unbanned, by those two or others, de facto or otherwise. Although their behavior has been annoying, APL and Wnt are under no obligation to "help enforce the rules". Finally, forgetting the ban is obviously not "the best course of action", and to assert that it is is a textbook example of WP:POINTy behavior. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC) You and the ref desks would be better served if you directed your wrath to the editors who don't believe in the banning rule and fight it at every turn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC) So I guess it's my turn to say, nowhere in this comment of yours do I see a denial of the truth of what I just said! —Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) So now you want LC banned once more, after saying just a few posts ago that we should let him have his way? Honestly, keeping up with your constant changes of direction is exhausting. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I have not changed direction. I'm saying that IF the rules are not to be enforced, THEN he's de facto unbanned and should be considered as such. Furthermore, after the direct exchange we had with him a couple of weeks ago, I'm convinced that he wants to straighten up and fly right. So give him a chance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Trouble is, it's not down to any one of us to unilaterally override the ban, or act as if the ban had never been placed on him. We may as well pretend there's no rule requiring reputable sources, or assuming good faith, or whatever else we might find momentarily pesky. If you believe there's a good case for having the ban overturned or at least suspended, I'm sure there's a proper process to follow. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Trouble is, you've got a couple of users who have openly stated that they do not intend to follow the banning rules. Those 2 users have effectively "un-banned" LC already, regardless of "process". Meanwhile, LC has already been given a path to follow to get formally unbanned, if he choses to follow it. Meanwhile, I have already stopped either deleting wayward questions (LC's or anyone else's) and will also no longer point out when it's an obvious trolling question or a question from a banned user, as the smart ones here know better than I. Those 2 users, in particular, continue to insist that IAR overrides bans, which is not true (as admins have pointed out), but they don't care. So I'm done fighting the trolls. Let the smarter ones do that from now on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Relax, Bugs. The rest of us are going to keep reverting banned users on sight, regardless of your characterization of what those two other editors are or aren't doing. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Sure. And every time you delete it, they'll argue with you about it. Have fun! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC) As usual, you exaggerate. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We who respond to questions think we are capable of deciding for ourselves whether to answer a question, and I am one of those who don't research the background of a questioner in order to judge first whether they are "good enough" to answer. Deleting a question unfairly discriminates between those who responded to the question before it was deleted, and those who will never get a chance to consider the question. If anyone knows or strongly suspects that a questioner has trolled recently or is banned, then that is relevant information which can be posted under the question for all to see, without deletion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And then one of the troll-enablers will delete that comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree that would not be a good thing to do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the troll-enablers agreed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and avoid the childish practice of making up insulting labels for other posters. Thanks. APL (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering how little regard you have for rules, you'd best not be quoting rules to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a message at the top when I edit: This page is only for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Reference desk. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Helpdesk or the New Contributors' Help Page. The above discussions is not in any way trying to improve the RD, for the reason that it has been repeated too many times to be useful. --98.221.179.18 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's about how to handle trolling questions and questions by trolls. Hence it is, in fact, about improvements at the ref desk. And the reason it keeps getting repeated is that the troll-enablers refuse to help enforce the rules. LC told me recently that no one really cares about the ref desks, and that's why the rules aren't enforced. I'm beginning to suspect he's right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My syntactical analysis of Light Current's (?) communication to Baseball Bugs reveals a high frequency of omitted apostrophes. Obviously trolls can be detected this way and their subversive prose consequently deleted. The beauty of the scheme is that it can harm neither dolphins nor English-competent posters. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A note for the humor-impaired: Cuddlyable3's suggestion here is an example of what's called a joke. Please don't anybody fly off the handle and start a long, flaming discussion arguing about the idea of actually detecting trolls or deleting posts on this basis. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be bad. Worse than bad, in fact: it would be apostrophic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubs hands cackling softly. Heh, heh the trap is laid. Now the rascal is bound to post with faultless punctuation. It will be easy to spot that troll now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a bad move, I must say. A post containing faultless punctuation would be indistinguishable from ... well, from my posts. I'd better start making some deliberate errors - ugh! I hope God will forgive me. But I have a problem: I have no experience in making errors of any kind. Just how does one make an error? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How? By deliberately misspelling nearly every word, as one recently-reverted troll's entry was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion, while no doubt meant well, is too shockingly radical for me to seriously consider it. My delicate constitution would never recover. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're all overlooking the obvious. LightCurrent seems to repeatedly misspell words like "color" with a 'u'. I recommend preemptively banning anyone who exhibits the same crazy habit. APL (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it's farewell from me. It's been a fabulous 7.5 years, but all good things must come to an end ... apparently. Have nice lives, y'all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, people have different spellings for various words. "Colour" may not be valid in the U.S. but it is in say, New Zealand, and other words like "center" in the U.S. are spelled "centre" in other countries. People in the U.S. are typically used to American spellings since that's what's used locally, people from other places are used to different spellings. It's like the dates. In the U.S. people use month/day/year while others use what seems to make more sense: day/month/year.

Also, isn't it easier to just revert or delete questions that seem to be troll questions (or whatever the lingo is) as opposed to trying to ban specific users. Users can just make new accounts and it's far more difficult to prove some user is a sockpuppet than to make another account. Nevermind the fact that multiple people may end up using the same IP address. I suggest just deleting the non-serious questions, instead of doing the much more tedious work of banning. Cantankerous giganticus (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of English variants. Are you aware of a mode of speech where people say surprising or ironic things that are not literally true?

Seriously, I'm Sorry if I wasn't communicating clearly, but my comment was the latest in a long thread of obvious jokes. (Surely you don't think that Bugs and Papyrus seriously advocate misspelling every-other word as a sort of secret code?) APL (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack asked how one goes about making an error, so I told him. Not advocating it, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to requests for advice about self harm - best practice?

I'm raising this as a response to this question. Such questions border on requesting medical advice (as the implied question is "is my friend cutting themselves good for their health?") but it would clearly be a dereliction of a wider duty to simply blank the question according to the letter of the reference desk guidelines when someone is trying to do the right thing to help their friend. My view on this is that 1) it should be stated that self-harm is not a good idea (leaving any ambiguity on this point doesn't seem to me to be sensible) 2) the OP should be strongly advised to speak to a medical professional 3) the OP should be directed to the wikipedia article on the subject and to an appropriate external link e.g. a recognised charity dealing with self-harm. Most All of these have already happened in this case. My question is threefold, firstly, does a policy, guideline or even an essay exist on this (WP:SUICIDE doesn't really fit)? Secondly, is a stronger response appropriate (as recommended in WP:SUICIDE), my inclination is not, due to the potential for heavy handed intervention to make things worse (such heavy handedness is entirely appropriate where a life is at stake as for suicide threats, but that is not usually the case for self harm). Finally, how should responses such as those by User:Sjö be dealt with? In my view, although given with the best of intentions and containing some good advice (i.e. "read self-harm") it crosses a bright line in the first sentence "Well, it won't lead to internal bleeding and eventual death" - which we don't know. There are deaths due to self harm, and we have no idea what exactly the OP's friend is doing. I would appreciate your input on these issues. All respondants to the post in question have been informed of this thread.Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to raise pretty much the same point, until WP decided to bug out on me with some server error. Anyway, in my opinion some of the answers provided so far steer pretty close to being medical advice, but like Equisetum I am hesitant to remove the post altogether. One thing worthy of consideration is that while the poster may well have a friend who is self-harming, it could also be the case that the friend doesn't exist and it is the poster themself who is self-harming. To be honest, I don't really know what is the best course of action in this case. Astronaut (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My response in that part might have been out of line, even if there was a qualifier. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Sjö (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the three points. I don't feel we have to go any further than that. I don't think we need guess about medical outcomes. Whilst Sjö may or may not be justified (probably is) medically speaking, I don't think it's a good idea. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the three points, and if they aren't written down somewhere perhaps they should be as a way to handle similar questions (not only about self-harm).Sjö (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. First, who would determine what constitutes self-harm? Would someone getting a tattoo be harming themselves? How about body peircing? Or exposing their children to chicken pox? What if they want to do something that could be dangerous to themselves, but it might not be harmful, like building their own base jumping equipment? I don't think we should be going around encouraging people to hurt themselves, but what they want to do with information is really their buisness. Information may be used in a harmful manner, but information itself is not harmful. Googlemeister (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We currently advise people seeking medical advice to contact "their doctor", or a registered health professional. Perhaps we should direct those giving reports of self-harm, either to themselves or by a friend, to call their local support line (do we have a listing of these handy)? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 16:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread... I almost don't want to ask what happened. When we don't know what to do, the right answer is to trust individual editors, rather than hitting upon some solution nearly at random and forcing it on people. Few people are going to say "go for it", after all. Wnt (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Topics per reference desk section

The top level reference desk (the page associated with THIS talk page) describes the range of topics for each section of the desk. However looking at the pages themselves, I see the intro blurb doesn't describe what THAT page covers. Would it be a good idea to include the list for each page in its intro blurb? -- SGBailey (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Each of those pages has a box with the statement "Welcome to the _______________ reference desk." That box can have, centered on the next line, the information copied from Wikipedia:Reference Desk. For example, the computing reference desk can have "Computing, information technology, electronics, software and hardware".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The goodness of the idea depends on the proportion of questions that we feel are placed on the wrong page. Are they enough to matter? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The goodness surely is partly dependent on how it affects users of the desk rather than the answerers. In other words, would having that info in the header make it more useful for folk to ask a question. I guess some (probably small number) may be unsure if they are in the right place and give up rather than determine where they should post. Equally, would it harm to add it? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would wonder how someone managed to get to a topic-specific subpage of the Ref Desk without intentionally doing so (either because they know the shortcuts, or because they came from the main Ref Desk page, which as all of the category descriptions). It is necessary to balance our desire to include every bit of information we think might be helpful against the disinclination of new users to read that information—a disinclination that grows in proportion to the length of the instructions.

We fight a constant rearguard action against 'instruction creep' in the page headers as it is. For most of our readers, I suspect that the "Ask a new question" button is actually off the bottom of their screens when they open up a Ref Desk page; we should consider very carefully before making that problem worse. For the editor who can truly find no better place for his question, we have the Misc desk—and we have helpful editors who will move a misplaced question to the correct desk. (I've just expanded the description for the Misc desk at WP:RD to emphasize this; let's see if my change sticks.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have to do page-down to get to that button, and even at that, it's at the bottom of the page. Also, on the main page, I have to scroll or page down to see all the desks, as only the top row of them appears when I go to the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

De-personalised question

A legitimate question was asked at the Science Desk. Unfortunately the question unnecessarily named a living person. I edited the question to erase the identity of the person and replace it with a link to the disease. Diff. Wikipedia has understandably strict criteria related to anything biographical about a living person. Dolphin (t) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The question had nothing to do with BLP criteria, which are aimed at preventing libel, gossip, privacy violations and poor sourcing. The person meant "Does someone with Stephen Hawking's disease" etc. I don't think the questioner expects anyone to know about Stephen Hawking's personal habits, and anyway, if Hawking did talk about them openly in a reliable source, it would neither be a privacy violation nor libelous to repeat it. I think you could have addressed this without altering the question. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This question[8] is similarly speculative about Hawking's private life, although the IP seems to be from a different part of the country. But if you're going to "censor" the one, you should probably do likewise with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff. No BLP criterion warrants the removal of Dr. Hawking's name. It is especially egregious to change a post, making it look like what you wrote is actually what 76.27 wrote. Buddy431 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have also failed to notify the editor that you're putting words in his mouth. I have done so, here. Buddy431 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the IP's editing frequency, it might be a month before he sees that note. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dolphin51. I think the original question was in violation of our BLP policies. But even if it was not, it was a poor wording. Asking the question in the way it was made it unnecessarily personal and also made it unclear. It could as well be interpreted as "Can a person of extraordinary genius usually detect......" Wanderer57 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Still not OK to modify someone else's post. If it really did violate BLP (which I don't think it did), it would be best to either delete the question entirely (with a note to the poster), or else put a big [redacted] in the statement, with a clear signature of who did the redacting (and also notifying the person whose statement you redacted). Poorly worded, perhaps, but we don't remove poorly worded questions, and we certainly shouldn't be so presumptuous to try to correct what the speaker said. Buddy431 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s policy on information about living persons can be found at WP:BLP. It includes the following injunctions:

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, ... ...
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
• ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, ... ... and to material about living persons on other pages.

The italicizing and bolding in the above quotations has not been added by me. That is the emphasis given in WP:BLP.
There is nothing here to suggest adherence to this policy is optional, or that Users are granted discretion as to when considerations of BLP apply or not. It is clear that the Reference Desks are part of Wikipedia – they are not part of some other website – and so BLP is just as relevant to the Reference Desks as to any other Wikipedia page. It is also clear that it is not a defence to say “But this isn’t actually a biography, and so BLP doesn’t apply.”
It is also clear that if material about a living person is contentious, and is unsourced or poorly sourced, or is likely to attract additional material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, it should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. If in doubt, remove the material and then ask for advice. There appears to be little defence for a User saying “It looked like it might contravene BLP but I wasn’t sure so I left it where it was.”
If Wikipedia has another policy that contradicts WP:BLP, particularly a policy that is relevant to the Reference Desks, I would be very interested to read it. I would be grateful if someone could use this space to post a link to that alternative policy. Dolphin (t) 08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference here is that in an article you can just zap it, but in a ref desk, where there's dialogue, you would clobber someone's answer to what is (presumably) not a trolling question. I'm inclined to agree with Buddy that the better approach is to replace the name with [redacted], so that it's clear the editor's original comment was edited. That's already done frequently, when someone posts his personal e-mail, for example. If someone wants to know what was redacted, they can look in the history. If it were an extreme BLP violation, such as "is so-and-so still beating his wife?" it could be revdel'd if necessary, or then the entire dialogue could be zapped as it's likely a trolling question. Revdel doesn't seem to be needed here. But at least the name won't be visible on the active talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BB, your suggestion about using redacted is a sound one. I will bear it in mind.

In the case we are considering at present, I disagree that zapping the person's name, as I did, was likely to clobber someone's answer - there was no answer at the time. In any case, re-wording a question won't clobber any of the answers unless it actually transforms the question - something I was careful to avoid. Dolphin (t) 12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and modify the question to make it clear it was edited, even though I doubt the OP will show his face again anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dolphin (t) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talking about a living person's personal life, even if sourced to a reliable source is generally ill-advised per BLP. If that info doesn't belong in the article, then it's questionable if it belongs here. Notably this is the sort of stuff liable to be deleted from an articles talk page and that's noindexed. It's a common misconception that if something is supported by an RS then there's no possible BLP violation but this isn't true. Also while I agree it should have been made clear the question was modified, deleting the question is almost as bad as leaving it be and can easily lead to unnecessary debates, edit wars, and screams of censorship. Instead as I said last time we had the major blow up over modifying posts, we should do what the rest of wikipedia does which means redacting the unwanted info while leaving the rest intact. A policy which is practiced at a diverse range of pages from article talks pages to WP:ANI for a diverse range of things from BLP violations to outing and egregious personal attacks. Something of course which we also do here, e.g. when removing email addresses. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My own feeling on this is that we shouldn't be bringing living peoples' names into these personal-matters discussions unless that person him/herself has commented on it. I'm thinking of Christopher Reeve as an example of someone who was very much out in the open as to the kinds of issues he was dealing with. Hawking has said "I am a normal man with normal needs", and I expect he's not really interested in elaborating further on the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, my view is that even if there is some random RS someone digs up from somewhere that few have ever read where some LP has said something about his/her personal habits it's still best if we don't discuss them. It may be acceptable to link to said RS. If the person regularly discusses their habits then some discussion in the RD is probably acceptable. However from personal experience, I wouldn't trust everyone on the RD to be able to make such a distinction and judgement. Therefore it's best to discourage it. If we actually had a question concerning someone's personal habits then there may be some discussion worth having about how far to go. But in this particular case, since it doesn't appear the OP really cared about any particular LPs habits then simply redacting the name to discourage discussion is a simple solution. This also goes for other things like has celebrity X ever date celebrity Y. Of course if the info is in the article, e.g. like the Paris Hilton question then there's no reason it can't be repeated on the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A couple of things need to be made clear here. First, if I recall correctly, the question did not ask about Stephen Hawking's personal habits. It asked what someone like Stephen Hawking does -- presumably, a paraplegic or person with ALS. The proper thing to do here would have been to say, "If by 'someone like Stephen Hawking' you mean a person with ALS, such a person would...". Secondly, as Baseball Bugs gets at, we should draw a distinction between private matters that someone is open about and those that someone is not. For example, I don't think it's right to name the accuser in the DSK case, even if she's mentioned in French newspapers. But there's nothing wrong with relating what Elizabeth Smart has shared publicly about her trauma provided that it's done in a responsible manner. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BB asked for the original question to be restored to the Science Desk. I did so as a postscript, as follows:

Can people like name redacted usually detect a #1 or #2 coming on and, if so, do anything to hold it in?

If you are suggesting that Can people like Joe Smith does not contravene BLP, whereas Can Joe Smith does contravene, then I must say you are being unreasonably pedantic in attempting to defend the wording of the original question. WP:BLP is as clear and emphatic as it is possible to be. There is nothing in WP:BLP to indicate a statement that contravenes BLP can be defended by legalistic sophistry such as saying the question included the word "like" and therefore it does not contravene. A living person was named in the original question, and given the nature of the question, no amount of legalistic sophistry can detract from the observation that the original question contravened the following injunctions from WP:BLP:

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity,
• ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered

If you know of some policy that exempts the Reference Desks from WP:BLP, or you know of some policy that a de-graded version of WP:BLP applies to the Reference Desks, please let us know where that policy can be found. Dolphin (t) 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh for cryin' out loud this is ridiculous. If we say that people with ALS can or can't control their bladders, then people will know that [certain people] the whole planet knows have ALS will be described this way. We aren't touching BLP unless we actually get information about the named person. It's ridiculous to change the question, but it's also nearly pointless to object to it, since it's still asked and answered. Come on, the people here aren't idiots - quit treating them like they can't add two and two together. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wnt: If you genuinely believe you have a point of principle, or you genuinely believe this is ridiculous, raise the matter at WT:BLP. Lot's of Users read that Talk page, and you have the opportunity to persuade all those Users of the merit of your point of view, and get some changes made. By comparison, hardly anyone is reading this thread. Dolphin (t) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This debate has certainly stretched on a lot but I wouldn't call it ridiculous. The root problem as I see it, and the reason people discuss this particular matter at such length, is that there is a long history in Wikipedia of controversy between two types of editor. One, those who have an "overriding concern for" the rights of people famous enough to be included in Wikipedia, and two, those who have an "overriding concern for" the right of Wikipedia editors to have the truth published regardless of any other considerations. (Many editors are not strongly in one or the other group.)

(Rather than me writing "as I see it" again, please take it to apply to the rest of this note.) The present BLP policy puts the concern for people's rights ahead of the rights of editors, when they conflict. Editors of type two, being somewhat unhappy with the BLP policy, will argue in favour of restricting the scope of the policy, in effect saying, in one case or another, "it doesn't apply here." Type one editors resist such restrictions due to concern that they pare away at the policy..

Unfortunately, this is a strong and probably irreconcilable difference. It is the reason why an issue that you see as ridiculous is discussed at such length. IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While this specific question works perfectly well without the example, It would be ridiculous if the take-away from this discussion was that "always remove celebrity examples from the ref desk" became understood to be the consensus interpretation. Not only is that interpretation clearly not a consensus (See above debate), but it's absolutist and dogmatic and would interfere with the RD's purpose quite regularly.

If this absolutely has to be debated and decided right now, could the point we're settling on be closer to "Remove gratuitous celebrity examples when it doesn't change the meaning or clearness of the question." or words to the effect, please? APL (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that editing people's posts as if they'd done something wrong or otherwise badgering them to ask their question in the "right way", is not only uncivil but is simply a bad idea in an area of the encyclopedia specifically designed for 'outsiders' to use.

In cases that are not ridiculous slander, it might make more sense to let it slide while it's on the ephemeral front page, and then edit the permanent archive. That way the question asker is helped without confusion, perceived incivility, or time-wasting debate like this one, but the BLP problem is fixed, and frankly, fixed faster than it usually is in article space. In this way, all the rules may be followed, but at no loss to usefulness. APL (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are all the reference desks protected now?!

Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of having those reference desks in the first place? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What have you seen that leads you to believe they are protected? I am seeing nothing. Bielle (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've visited the Science ref desk and the Entertainment ref desk, and the top row of tabs on both of them says "View Source" instead of "Edit". And when I point the mouse at the "view source" tab, it says "This page is protected. You can view its source [alt-e]". The Humanities desk is not protected, though. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: it's only the Science and Entertainment desks that are protected -- the others are not. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem with Wikipedia which no one seems to be fixing. See here for the last discussion on it. The desks are not protected, but appear to be protected for some users. Try purging the cache of affected pages like this and it should return to normal 82.43.90.27 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try this. Thanks! 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Overlap with WP:LIBRARY & no crosslinks here

Until moments ago I was unfamiliar with either this set of Reference desks or the WP:LIBRARY(WikiProject Resource Exchange Shared Resources). After years of editing here, I suppose it's about time I familiarized myself. =D Soooo...I discovered this Reference desk (and its children) via a link to it over there @ WP:LIBRARY. I do not find a link here (maybe I haven't looked enough) back to WP:LIBRARY though, and I am a little confused as to what is the difference in purpose between the two. It seems as though you are both up to the same thing, but could someone explain this fork to me clearly? I was thinking of adding several resource materials that I own and would be willing to share, to the list over there at their WP:SHARED, but before I do, I would like a clearer understanding of what the distinction is between these Reference Desks & that Shared Resource Library WikiProject. Do they collaborate? Are they duplicitous? If I had a question on a given topic or needed access to a particular source, would one of these Reference desks, or that Library, be the more appropriate place to ask it, and if so, why? If this is already clearly explained somewhere else that I can study, so as not to waste your time re-explaining it, that would be great. (I just asked the same question over there, so I'm planning to consider both projects' take on it) Thanks much. duff 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Resource Exchange is intended to share not-easily-obtained resource materials between committed editors interested in improving Wikipedia articles. Such resources include scans of books and other print documents, web articles hidden behind paywalls, personal newspaper clippimgs, and such-like, also contributors there may have access to specialized search engines which can yield web-available or non-web links to material which will help you to improve an article. The Resource Exchange is most helpful when it provides access to copyrighted materials to one individual, for the purpose of improving this general knowledge encyclopedia, which can be easily defended as a fair-use exemption from copyright law. Results from the REX are often communicated privately.

In contrast, the Reference Desks are an available resource where questions may be asked of general interest and not already covered by our existing body of encyclopedia articles. Sometimes those questions result in improvement of our articles, but in almost every case the results are communicated publicly right here on the desks, with publicly available web-links and the general knowledge of RefDesk participants.

Bottom line: if you're looking for the complete text of an academic journal article or chapter of book, ask at the library. If you want people to search their resources to identify multiple materials to help you edit an article, ask at either the Library or at a RefDesk. If you are asking a question out of pure curiosity, use the RefDesks. The Library is for editing articles, RD is for everything else. Franamax (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And to address cross-linking, it is entirely appropriate that the Library link over to the RefDesks (which are a great search and knowledge resource), but we will not be linking the other way. RD is a very (and explictly) public resource, and we won't link to a location where idle curiosity could result in potential contributory infringement of copyright, i.e. buy your magazines somewhere else. That said, and I forgot it in my first post, YAYY to the Library and if anyone has good access to paid resources (includes access to your own public library website, which I bet can access a ton of journals and you can order up a book on loan within a few days to read it for someone else) and wants to help others improve articles, please do put WP:REX on your watchlist to watch for requests. Less so WP:SHARED, which is out-of-date but still possibly useful as a resource. Franamax (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. Yayyyy for the Library, indeed! I put the page you suggested on my watchlist & will keep an eye out. I have a couple other questions about the Library that I'll ask here only because YOU answered both, and your primary answer was here. =) Does it still make sense to add available resources that I have (including that of my local/regional library system) to the outdated list at WP:SHARED, or better just to watch? Does the Library wikiproject have a participant page and/or a groovy button that I can plop onto my userpage to celebrate my participation, advertise the Library resource to other editors, and find my way back when I want to? duff 03:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point - we should prominently link to WP:LIBRARY from all these pages, since this is a standard service people expect from a dead tree reference librarian. Wnt (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You show a profound (or wilful) misunderstanding. No-one at all, anywhere, ever, would expect a dead-tree reference librarian to make them a photocopy of the book and deliver it to them while they sit on the couch at home, in permanent form. Do your best to destroy the Desks Wnt, but please do leave the Resource Exchange alone. It has actual value to this wiki. Franamax (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's what I had in mind.[9] It doesn't look like "destroying the wiki" to me, just common sense. Sharing materials under Fair Use is not piracy, and we don't have to act like 1980s warez doodz telling each other not to post the pirate BBS number where people will see it. Wnt (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah OK. :) That seems fair enough to me. suspicious as I am. The emphasis very much does need to be excluively on article work, as it's the only possible way we can justify the page(s), and so long as we are very clear and unobtrusive, as you've done [10], I think I'm OK with that. Might change my opinion, but looks alright for now, as it's in the small print, and mo-one reads even the big print unless they are actual diligent editors. I'll provisionally retract the wording above - no harm, no foul (both ways)? Franamax (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I should also say clearly that in academia, it's been absolutely normal for researchers to walk over to the library and get their interlibrary loaned articles as photocopies, or to take the book they've received by ILL and photocopy large portions. A good digital camera or scanner offers an even cheaper and easier method. Academics end up with filing cabinets and DVDs full of articles like this - though admittedly no one on Earth can predict what the outcome of an actual civil suit would be. If you don't see a difference between fair use and piracy, well, it's because the difference is pretty much imaginary, based on trivia and customs. Copyright is an unworkable, dying system - not our fault. See American Geophysical Union vs. Texaco^[11] to see what a peculiar distinction it is. Wnt (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me be equally clear that if you, as a private individual, wish to photocopy copyrighted material in your possession (temporarily or not), that is entirely your decision. If you wish to use the WMF servers to make such copies available or to enable such copying where it is not undoubtedly linked directly to improving articles, then the authority is the Wikimedia Foundation which owns the private property. Your own notions of the relevance of copyright law and statute are immaterial. I didn't notice your name listed at the WMF trustee election, maybe you should stand next year. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start WP:LIBRARY. So far as I know it's OK with Wikimedia. If not, then somebody better figure out what the situation is. But there is no WP:ILNEVER banning links to Wikipedia projects!

To be clear, the first time I saw WP:LIBRARY (which was only a week or so ago) the first thing I thought is, great, I can get any article this way. Just find the abstract or some related content online, put a quick mention of what I know in the article, request the material, do a bit more editing. Take some notes I would have taken anyway, and I can get people to pirate me whatever I want. Of course, paying people to edit by giving them pirated articles is not covered by Fair Use. But letting people share references so they can join in the editing project is fair use. The contradiction results because the copyright system itself doesn't make sense. But we see from Google and YouTube and probably most other successful Internet companies - not to mention the nation of China - that "violating IP" and getting away with it is a fundamental prerequisite of successful online business. Take from that what you will. Wnt (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, too, from one actual diligent editor to some others. So ahh, any thoughts on those other questions? duff 04:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you have resources available, do list them at WP:SHARED. I've made a note to seek out someone who can make a list of inactive editors like at the Translators WikiProject. If you list with a current date in your sig, people will be able to find you. I think the "participants" page pretty much is the SHARED page, so that's where you "sign up". :) As far as a userbox, there might be one, but me in partikalar would be a bad one to ask about adding userboxen to pages, as I've never done it. Poke around in that project a bit. There is a barnstar for being a librarian, I know 'cause I created it and awarded it twice. :) Franamax (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Also, no worries...very interesting sidetrack that was/is. I poked some, and found this which is a terminally groovy userbox, and works. I think that some such templates have taken this a step further and somehow consolidated the code down into a simple one-line template, but I don't know how to do that yet & don't wish to pursue it further at this time. Maybe some coder among you will. There's also this, {{User WikiProject Resource Exchange}}, which when added seems to place a link that says that, on the user's page, and also adds the user to the participant page, here. Part of the code for the userbox I first mentioned, also does that...adds the user to that page. Simply FYI. I'll see what I have that makes sense to add to the WP:SHARED page. Thanks for all your help. duff 07:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"I am a mechanical engineer now i need a notes for the following topics"

I've long been mystified by the large number of questions like this one that are basically a copy/paste of a textbook question in various high-end fields (engineering, medicine, etc.), usually posted by someone in South Asia or Africa. I think I've found the answer. I googled part of the linked question and found this site, which will pay you for posting answers to textbook questions. It's clear from the impossibly vague non-question that this person has a poor command of English; I think s/he is just posting topics from the site to us and then posting our responses back to the site for pay, without necessarily understanding either direction.

I don't know that anything can or should be done about these queries (other than ignore them), but I thought people would be interested to know. --Sean 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Treat it as "No homework questions" as far as I'm concerned. Use Template:Dyoh — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

At least they aren't pretending the questions are coming from a science magazine Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed question

Really? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this question (though how answerable it is, I'm not sure). There may be a problem with the first response, but that does not justify getting a Template:Rd-removed stuck on it (which is for questions that ask for medical advice, not answers that give them). If Jayron32 isn't willing to reinstate the question, I will do so in a couple of hours, barring any strong consensus to the contrary. Buddy431 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now notified everyone involved: [12], [13], [14], something that Jayron should have done when he deleted their comments. Buddy431 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Buddy431. The question may have been written a bit better to make it completely impersonal, but it is well within the rules. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is OK - the answer that "I would try Modafinil", not so much. It should be apparent that potency depends above all on dosage, and if one drug were clearly better in all ways at any dose, the others should no longer be regarded as satisfactory treatments. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not be reinstating any questions today. I do want you all to remember that in all things, I am always wrong. But I will take no action. You are free to do whatever you want, keeping in mind my universal, permanent, and unwavering wrongness in everything I do. --Jayron32 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)