Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133

RD Guidelines

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 reference desk 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.

Removal of malformed spelling advice, and discussion

I remove all this [2] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cuddyable , I wouldn't describe what follows your spelling correction (see [4]) 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I came to the question[5], 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 [6] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since their seams too bee at least a week consensus, Ive gone a head and stopped the off-topic nitpicking from consuming this thread. [7]. (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)[reply]

Comet Tuttle I am happier to read your comment here than I was to see your grumpy complaint[8] without edit summary interjected [9] at RD/M from which APL has just deleted it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)~[reply]

@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[10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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[11]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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[12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's the film clip I was talking about, if you can spare 1 minute and 6 seconds from your busy schedule:[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New readers start here:

I regret nothing about my edit here. Later Yakeyglee corrected the OP's header [14]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Evolutionary_adaption_queuing_problem

I've collapsed a large portion of this. Discussion seemed not only to derail slightly (although still turning up interesting points), but mainly I did so because a couple of editors started personal attacks, which is a shame. My intention was to allow the exchange between these editors to cool off. I won't be surprised if there are some strong views on this, so please put them below and I'll learn for the next time something like this crops up. Brammers (talk/c) 17:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We were getting far to absorbed in creationist trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to say it was trolling: the supporters of the creationist viewpoint did not seem to be acting maliciously (rather, what they said was sincere, at least from my view). But as you said, this is a science reference desk; views that are contradicted (or not supported) by suitable evidence can be safely dismissed from considerations. Brammers (talk/c) 18:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps — 'soapboxing' would have been a better word than 'trolling'. When an advocate of creationism attempts to use a simple analogy to refute the theory of evolution, one may reach one of two conclusions: (a) the theory of evolution is faulty, and a century of science has somehow mysteriously overlooked a straightforward, conspicuous error; or (b) the analogy is faulty in some subtle or not-so-subtle way. As usual, xkcd offers an insightful comment on this sort of thinking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do actually have guidelines about this kind of thing in Wikipedia - and perhaps if this abuse continues, we should clamp down on infringement of those guidelines.

Notably: WP:FRINGE says that fringe theories and pseudo-science are not allowed to be presented as fact in the context of science-related articles. It says: "Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology (as is common among Biblical creationists), or relies on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence, as for example in parapsychology and homeopathy.". It specifically states that "...the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory."

It is therefore no stretch to say that we should delete creationism claims from the science reference desk on sight on the grounds that any such answer cannot ever be a valid one in the context of a request on the science ref desk. We are normally tolerant of such lunacy - but there is no reason why we should continue to be tolerant if people abuse the system. There is no guarantee of free speech on Wikipedia.

To be within Wikipedia's oft-stated guidelines, a question relating to evolution cannot ever be correctly answered with any kind of creationist perspective. Simply put, if someone asks "Where did giraffes come from?" and you say "God created the giraffes on the sixth day and they were saved by Noah and his ark" - rather than "Giraffes evolved from Climacoceras (a deer-like animal) in the early Miocene"...then you are just plain wrong. Not because it's our opinion that you're wrong - but because Wikipedia itself has rules that state very clearly that your view is not considered acceptable to the encyclopedia as fact.

So we could choose to simply erase those responses without further consideration without having to be too concerned about repercussions.

It is a little more difficult if the question is specifically about creationism or some similar topic - but even then, we are not supposed to assert that creationism is true - only that it is a belief that is indeed held by some people. So, I suppose, if we were asked "Did God create Giraffes?", we could say that "Creationists believe that to be true - but in fact, the giraffe evolved from Climacoceras.".

Doing this would be a more contentious issue on the other reference desks (although the exact same Wikipedia rules apply) - but on the science desk, I see no problem with adopting this stance. It is actually what the rules require us to do.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about WP:NOTCENSORED. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to start reading the things you link to. That document says "Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed." - since posting pseudo-science as truth is contrary to WP:FRINGE, the WP:NOTCENSORED guideline says that we're OK to remove it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemicalinterest[15] and Horseluv10 are self-declared young earth creationists. The former says they are "fighting against all of the other evolutionists" and the latter declares[16]herself a female who "has studied the Bible a lot more than you, and does believe it is the word of God". Understanding that these people have deeply held minority viewpoints puts the onus on editors to WP:AGF. I support Brammers' collapsing of the exchanges when such unconstructive comments arose as these: "bad Creationism", "ignorant trolling". "your bullshit", "Your analogy is silly", "whatever creationist (or crypto-creationist 'intelligent design') website you're getting your material from ", "your god enjoyed making parasitic intestinal worms". It is those believing themselves to represent the majority that produced this abusive rhetoric. I do not support the prejudice inherent in "we should delete creationism claims from the science reference desk on sight". IMO a good starting point for discussion with creationists is the article Deep time. One can probably reach agreement on features of the Earth's geologic history without disputing the existence of God. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to delete creationism claims from the science desk has nothing to do with prejudice - and all to do with the guidelines set out for Wikipedians under WP:FRINGE. You are the one who is not following WP:AGF here. You assume my prejudice when in fact my position derives from our community guidelines - that doesn't square with assuming my good faith! SteveBaker (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the very name "Young Earth Creationism" belies your last point, Cuddlyable3. I've resolved not to even try to argue with creationists any more, because they're almost always immune to reason, frequently have access to libraries of preprepared pseudo-arguments, and have far more emotional commitment to pushing their viewpoint. I do agree that such unscientific interjections on the Science Ref Desk need to be curbed somehow (I'd been thinking about bringing up the recently burgeoning problem here for some days), and that incivility is not the way to go, but straight deletion might only whip up protests of POV, censorship etc, and outright banning seems excessive. Since a blog tactic like disemvowelling can't operate in a re-editable environment (even if it were agreed to be appropriate), I'm afraid I can't come up with any constructive suggestions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not a fan of little boxes, perhaps collapsing it would work. No actual censorship, but less danger of getting sidetracked by fringe issues that aren't relevant to a question seeking an answer within the framework of science. I basically agree with most of what has been posted in this thread, but would like to add that, though (or maybe because) I'm an atheist myself, I similarly don't see the relevance of posts ridiculing religious belief when a question seeks an answer within a theological framework (for example questions of exegesis don't really need people poopooing others who believe in God). Just like we shouldn't preach our favourite computer operating system when the question is about Linux, and so on. There is enough of this sniping at divergent world views going on at the desks, and I wish it stopped. Stick to the question. Think about what kind of an answer the querent is seeking. No one is interested in your credo or non-credo, for the most part. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to assume good faith with these people - I'm quite sure that they believe what they say and do so with the best possible intentions - they don't mean to cause harm. However, WP:FRINGE applies no matter whether you believe in this stuff or not.

Even if someone doesn't believe in evolution - that doesn't give them the right to answer questions from an ID/Creationist viewpoint. That's because those beliefs are classified by Wikipedia as pseudo-science and to answer that way would breach an important Wikipedia guideline. I know that seems unfair because we're brought up to believe in the value of free speech - but free speech isn't something that Wikipedia guarantees. So, for questions of a scientific nature, we may (where appropriate) briefly acknowledge that there are other viewpoints than mainstream science - but we may not give those views undue weight in our answers - and we most certainly must not imply that these views are true - no matter what we may personally believe. So if Chemicalinterest et-al are unable to give a more or less mainstream scientific answer (albeit in opposition to their personally held views) - then they shouldn't answer at all because to promote pseudo-science (and therefore Creationism/ID) as truth is most certainly not allowed here. If they continue to violate our community guidelines - then we should issue a stern warning - and if that fails, then perhaps we should remove their posts just as we do with other people who routinely break the rules. SteveBaker (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science is soo hostile... Why? It's something they are trying not to let people find...--Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're just worried people will go there and not find any science. 213.122.69.41 (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, "science" is entirely open. The methods, observations, and interpretation of data are made available for all to evaluate; the consensus on this topic is quite strong and can be found by anyone with the desire to look for it. I would argue that those who keep themselves willfully ignorant of the evidence that is clearly there, yet argue scientific questions from a non-scientific basis, are the ones who are being "hostile". --- Medical geneticist (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not conflate "unconvinced" with "hostile". Please do not assume SteveBaker represents an omniscient Science, because there is no such thing. Chemicalinterest, you dropped an apostrophe on "It's something". Peace out. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be too repentant, Chemicalinterest. Cuddlyable3 left out some essential commas in his/her own thread. "Please do not assume SteveBaker represents an omniscient Science because there is no such thing" requires a comma, absolutely, between 'Science' and 'because'. "Chemicalinterest you dropped an apostrophe ..." requires one, absolutely, between 'Chemicalinterest' and 'you'. I have no doubt he/she knows that. Seems Cuddlyable3's rigorous standards apply only to others. There's a word for that, I think. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Enlightening
posts are upright pole-like structures with which streetwalkers are familiar. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC) They are also answers on wikipedia, if you want the real meaning. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JackofOz for your suggested improvements. It is always a pleasure to see your enlightening posts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not conflating anything. In order to be "convinced" or "unconvinced" regarding something in science, one must weigh the evidence in an honest, rational manner. There are plenty of things in my field of investigation that I am not "convinced" by, after having read the literature and considered all points of view. However, if someone demonstrates clear ignorance of basic facts but yet continues to argue based on non-scientific observations/opinions/beliefs/whatever, they show a lack of respect, and indeed hostility, toward the scientific process. This has nothing to do with whether or not SteveBaker is omniscient. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike seemingly a lot of other people here, I generally don't mind your corrections but hasn't SB self declared that they don't want to differentiate between it's and its anymore? If so it seems redundant to point it out. Well unless they're not following what they said they would do, as I can't really remember what it was Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which of these is smaller: the number of mentions of "giraffe" in the Bible or the level of English in this post: "it's blood pressure is twice that of other mammals". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

@ Medical geneticist, ignorance is not a guilty thing. You and I were born as ignorant babies. Without ignorance, teachers and Wikipedia would have little to do. However you argue about "those who keep themselves willfully ignorant" which is an extraordinary accusation that needs some extraordinary evidence. How do they keep themselves ignorant of something without knowing what it is one shall not know? Do you say the scientific process means being receptive to all questioning or only special respectful questions? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cuddlyable3, I don't know why you are (apparently) trying to pick a fight right now, since I have said nothing about you. I only stepped in to this abominable conversation to correct what I thought was an unfair criticism of "science" by ChemicalInterest and the IP. Ignorance is certainly not a sin -- there are plenty of subjects about which I am woefully ignorant. In fact, there are plenty of subjects about which I am willfully ignorant -- what is so extraordinary about that? I love to read the posts about physics and black holes, but I remain willfully (and blissfully) ignorant about the mysteries of the Schwartzchild radius, about which I could never hope to fully understand. But the difference is that you don't see me spouting off about things I don't understand. I don't care if someone is ignorant -- willfully or otherwise -- it is only when they persist in arguing points "based on non-scientific observations/opinions/beliefs/whatever" that I find them to be hostile. Do you see the difference? Chill out. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you commented about the Scientific method (see article). Some successes of that process have been: the disprovals of Phlogiston theory of burning and Luminiferous aether theory of light propagation, and of early painters' visualisation of the horse's gallop. I expect you can add Superseded scientific theories close to your field of expertise. I suggest that the key criterion for a hypothesis in science is whether it is falsifiable. I want to point out that expressions of personal hostility have no place in legitimate scientific discussion, that they played no constructive part in any of the aforementioned successes, and they are the reason Brammers started this section. The particular "difference" that you ask whether I see looks like an argumentum ad hominem or attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. That is a classic logical fallacy. It seems you assign hostility to Chemicalinterest and Horseluv10 on the basis of their questioning. If that is right (if not I can be corrected) then I comment that I see no intolerable bahaviour on their part. The Science Ref. Desk is not a laboratory tasked with ruling what is Truth nor is it a Wikipedia article page where policies for articles are enforced. SteveBaker may believe that would be desirable but to me that looks impractical because there is no way the responses to every question can be given up to years of attention by up to hundreds of editors like some articles get. IMO there is no barrier to civil contact here if we acknowledge that not everyone depends on the same Reliable Sources. A large number of respected scientists are also christian which generally means that they rely on a part of the Bible as reliable. Most do not reject evolution as incompatible with their christianity. However within their fold are the minority of young earth creationists who understandably find an incompatibility between the proposed time scales for evolution and their literal acceptance of the Genesis creation narrative. In this, just as in that mysterious Schwartzchild radius or Renal medullary carcinoma, there is scope for calm discussion and study that you should encourage. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made my statement perfectly clear and I am not going to continue this discussion. Most of your post makes no sense and I honestly do not know what you are trying to accomplish through vague references or goading me with insinuations about an "ad hominem" attack. I am sure you are a perfectly wonderful human being, but your argumentative behavior here (and in many other threads) causes me to have absolutely no desire to interact with you. Take it how you will, I have better things to do. Peace. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Medical geneticist, please do not flatter me that I am perfectly wonderful because neither you nor I believe that (though my dear mother might be persuaded). I offer to clarify whatever you find hard to understand in my post and that includes my attempt to answer your question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, however, also asks us to accept the other creation myths on equal footing, including Egyptian, Inuit, and many others. That's just goofy. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@24.83.104.67 your indent leaves me unsure who you are addressing (me?) or what "that" you refer to. You have no Talk page on which to enquire so I ask you to clarify here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me at a different IP. Apologies. I am addressing you , though on re-reading, I meay have misunderstood your last couple paragraphs. What I meant by that was that to accept a Biblical standard as a valid scientific viewpoint should be to accept any strongly held mythology or religion. Don't take this to mean that I'm not religious; I am Catholic. It just means that to take myth and stories as fact instead of symbol is goofy, be it popular and accepted like Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or archaic like Greek or Nordic myth or whatever. What it isn't is valid science, so it isn't worth supporting in scientific discussion. Having said all this, I don't see the point of the whole "should we delete it" thing. As with any other post with wrong or misleading info, post a properly referenced correction. The OP can make their judgement based on (hopefully) well-reasoned factual discussion. Aaronite (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your conclusion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I recognize that what I said here is highly inflammatory, so if anyone (I am not suggesting Cuddyable3 in particular here) should disagree with me, you of course are free to say so, but I won't bother to argue further simply because I recognize that we will not agree or convince each other otherwise. I'm fine with that. Aaronite (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Chemicalinterest; this is just a lot like insisting that editors like Taxa, or the planet colours guy, stop answering cosmological questions on the Science desk with their unreferenced, incorrect answers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to debate whether creationism or 'intelligent design' should or should not be treated as "scientific" - that has already been decided and firmly established in Wikipedia policy. Both are pseudo-science (under Wikipedia guidelines) and are therefore most certainly do not provide valid answers to science questions. If your beliefs are otherwise - then you must either cease to answer these kinds of question. If you have a problem with that - then it's something you need to take up on the discussion page of WP:FRINGE in order to get the policy changed. However, I should warn you that this debate has raged there for years and the present view is unlikely to change since it has board approval and Jimbo's backing.

The question is - what should we do when someone violates the guideline? IMHO, we should do what we do when other guidelines are violated...delete the post.

SteveBaker (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offer a counter-example. A debate has raged over not years but centuries over whether an executed body could have been resurrected by act of God. That is the central tenet of christians and there is no scientific hypothesis for that datum. It would be indefensible bigotry to delete posts by christians. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Can God raise the dead?" is a question for philosophers and theologians, not scientists — it has no place on the Science Reference Desk. (Phrased that way, it is also an invitation to debate bordering on trolling, and probably doesn't belong on any other Desk either.) More nuanced questions along that line are almost certainly going to be addressed at Humanities, not Science.

Bigotry doesn't enter into the matter. Editors who insist on making irrelevant, distracting, and otherwise inappropriate posts (Christian or not) on any Desk will eventually exhaust the patience of the community, at which point they will be asked to stop their disruptive posting. If they do not, then the community will take further steps. I don't see why this should be a particularly difficult or confusing issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was started about the permissibility of answers not of questions. Responses should not be judged disruptive until after they have been posted and read by the community. It can then express its patience by consensus and not by the Autocracy implicit in SteveBaker's wish to delete responses on sight[17].

However there is no reason why a scientist may not be allowed to respond to the question "Can God raise the dead?" and to give appropriate references. FWIW my response is Agreement about the Existence of God (see article) is not universal. In Christian beliefs the God of the New Testament has resurrected the dead and can do so again. Your question may be handled better at the Humanities desk because there is no scientific theory to answer it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we may respond to that question...but not by saying "Yes, it says so in the Bible" - because that's not a true statement per WP:FRINGE. We might well say exactly what you suggested. What we can't do is assert that pseudo-science is true...that's a "No-no". We also can't give it undue weight - so if someone asks a question such as "Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?" that does not ask about any particular kind of pseudo-science then to reply that "Some people believe that Intelligent Design produced the birds." would be to give undue weight to a false hypothesis - and is not allowed per WP:FRINGE. It's important that we work that way or we'll run the risk of people who believe in perpetual motion answering thermodynamic questions, people who believe in the Time Cube answering questions about cosmology and so forth. Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere - and it draws it on the side of putting religious creation stories on the pseudo-science side of the line.

Bet we are indeed talking about answers, not questions. We give our OP's considerably more laxity than we do our respondents. But this isn't a matter of us "judging the answers" and correcting them. We can do that - but the whole idea is to encourage our respondents not to post incorrect answers in the first place.

It's just like any other policy - we can't let our contributors repeatedly call our OP "an ignorant moron" and simply have someone repeatedly tell them that this in violation of WP:NPA. After one warning, we'd call in the admins, delete their responses, etc. If someone's answer entails proclaiming that some aspect of pseudo-science is true - then we must ask that they should refrain from posting about it because that's contrary to WP:FRINGE - and if they disobey this kind of warning - then we should treat them accordingly.

We do not operate by people firing off random incorrect answers and then having our experts filter out the good ones! We expect every answer to be essentially correct and within Wikipedia's guidelines. So, when we tell our respondents "You are not allowed to claim that pseudo-science (such as biblical creation stories) are true" - and then they violate that rule - we should delete any subsequent posts of that nature and seek to have them blocked from editing - just as we would if they repeatedly violated our guidelines on giving medical advice or if they simply insulted everyone.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline WP:FRINGE includes "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context". That serves the policy WP:NPOV that viewpoints shall be weighted in proportion to their prominence. Nothing in that justifies a preemptive excommunication of a volunteer from a Ref. Desk. You do better to reference the article Creation-evolution controversy than to try to suppress minority responders such as Chemicalinterest. Your example response "Yes, it says so in the Bible" could legitimately come from a believer in Biblical inerrancy. You can always point out that mainstream thought identifies scientific sources that supersede biblical content. However it is irresponsible for you to deliver prolonged supremacist anti-religious rhetoric with few if any references. You are wrong about permissible answers to "Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?". It is sourced, factual and relevant for anyone to mention that a minority view exists that such evolution did not happen, and that that is a creationist view sometimes represented as belief in Intelligent design. Those article references do not promote or give the view undue weight, nor does providing them do so. On the contrary, to suppress mention of information that is in Wikipedia is to deny it due weight. It contradicts the desks' function of providing references. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that view is that you're giving Undue weight to a minority/non-mainstream view - which WP:NPOV goes to some trouble to explain:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.".

Creationism and ID are prime examples of tiny-minority and non-mainstream views in the scientific realm. It is "misleading" to represent those views when they are not the subject of the discussion. If there is no mention of creationism/ID in the question then to insert that into the discussion is to give undue weight to it - and that's misleading and most certainly not acceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong SteveBaker. Saying that something exists is what a multitude of Wikipedia articles do. Examples: intelligent design, racism, Myth of the Flat Earth, Slavery, Lobotomy, burning at the stake, Medieval medicine, Astrology, Witchcraft, Cold fusion, Orgone and many other articles handle fringe and disputed subjects and adhere to WP:NPOV policy. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, still your view is just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held.. SteveBaker the rules that you keep quoting are rules for Wikipedia articles. Questions brought to the Ref. Desks are not articles. The policies do not apply to questions nor to secondary questions that arise from (your?) answers. If someone asks "How does that reconcile with my belief in creationism/IPU/scientology or whatever else that some people take seriously", then either give them a straight answer or let someone less opinionated do so. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big debate is whether this is a science reference desk or a science reference desk. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither - this is the science reference desk. The only part you can ignore is the 'desk' bit. There is no actual desk! SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The word "desk" is not to be ignored. It has meaning. In this context it means a virtual location where someone attends to any individual who approaches to seek help. It should not be confused with podium n. a platform raised above the surrounding level to give prominence to the person on it, or pulpit n. raised structure on which preachers stand. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debating the word desk? Time to cut this one off, folks. Aaronite (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're just figuring that out now? --Ludwigs2 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it before, sure, but desks! It's hilarious.Aaronite (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver infused water question

I started a new section for this thread. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the 'Complain about ChemicalInterest' thread? Because if so I'd like to mention that I'm unhappy with his posts in the discussion about silver infused water.[18] APL (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not this thread but you are welcome to start a new thread. Then we might discuss whether this post (lower part) was constructive or merely incivil. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been mentioned for stating dogmatic statements without several million references to back them up, I wrote "In my opinion". I know that some miss the little external links, but I do not tend to place them in refdesk posts. My response was a conclusion I came to when looking at the silver situation, which I have had experiences with. It is just simply too weak to make a noticeable difference compared to the extremely powerful antibiotics on the market. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is only that you are making unsourced statements. I don't think anyone doubts your honest intentions in answering, but I think, given the type of question, a source is required. That was a "reference" desk is for. Looking for "references". Sometimes, of course, like a book recommendation, that's not really needed, but for the antibiotic properties of silver, it is. Of course, I don't see the problem as clear cut: as you mention, you yourself mention that it is too weak to make any noticeable difference, so there's that. Aaronite (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the silver water question Chemicalinterest was the first responder to cite a Wikipedia article. Later in the discussion about the effect on the body of silver, Chemicalinterest posted: "My opinion is that the disinfectant in colloidal silver is too weak to be of any use in vivo."[19]. I think that might have been misread as "My opinion is that colloidal silver is too weak to be any danger in the body" because that would explain if not condone APL's reaction[20]. (That reaction was actually two posts at different indents, both with criticisms of Chemicalinterest that add no information, and no edit summary.) APL may have felt their own post[21]containing blockquotes from another article was being overlooked. We cannot seem to imply that any controversial medication is safe since that would constitute medical advice. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I would state for danger: It may be dangerous because the small size of the silver particles allows them to be oxidized easily, leading to toxic Ag⁺ which is reactive. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that if one does not have any good reason or citation to cite before saying something is "safe" or "dangerous" or not, one should be responsible enough to keep one's mouth shut. It is very easy to read ChemicalInterest's comments as being along the lines that ingesting silver is a "safe" thing to do. It is not, if you considering turning blue/gray something worth avoiding. Given that this is actually something that has suckered a lot of people in the past and present, I think it is worth being unambiguous about this. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just my innate radar settings?

...or does there seem to be an exceptionally high number of queries lately about those always popular topics, Jews and Judaism, on the Humanities RD? I'm reminded of an old Peanuts cartoon in which Linus keeps track of how many days it's been since his sister Lucy was last crabby. I actually welcome the opportunity afforded by queries on these topics (and on Israel, about which I'm far more knowledgeable and endeavor to cite the local press rather than OR), particularly when there's some debunking to be done. My belief that the RDs have a wide readership is partly why I'm devoted to contributing here, but let me take this opportunity to thank all of you who pitch in... especially the non-Jews whose responses are (IMO) tantamount to an overt ecumenical/humanistic statement that this is knowledge worth knowing and disseminating. Lest it not go without saying — there, I've said it! -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but what does ...tantamount to an overt ecumenical/humanistic statement that this is knowledge worth knowing and disseminating mean, I've read it about 20 times and I still can't figure out what you meant.. ? 77.86.94.177 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means everyone wants to think they are an expert on the Jews (or Israel), because not being able to answer such questions is like a reverse anti-Semitism. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, that strikes me as a doubtful interpretation. I think Deborah was thanking non-Jews for taking the time to legitimize questions about Jews as meaningful.

and is reverse anti-Semitism simple good-old-fashioned Semitism? --Ludwigs2 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's possible that I'm way too cynical about everything :) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic archiving interrupted

The normal automatic archiving of the Reference Desks by scsbot will not be working for the next week. It will be best if a few volunteers can archive at least the high-volume desks manually, at least every couple of days. See this message from a year or so ago for instructions (and for a hint as to the reason for the interruption :-) ). —Steve Summit (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During that period, editors can help to reduce the volume by refraining from asking and answering questions, or by making their contributions few and short and simple and uncontroversial.—Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can do that, but I would advise against it. We shouldn't allow the need for manual archiving (which isn't really that difficult) to stop us providing the best service we can. --Tango (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of doing the archiving manually. I think I'm aware of the method of doing that, but if I ever blunder somehow, please tell me what I've done wrong. --Theurgist (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we don't. there's no real technical problem involved with letting the pages get a bit long for a few days - on slow connections they might take a while to load, and it makes navigating the page slightly more annoying - and when the bot returns it will archive everything quickly and correctly without the risk of human error. my two cents... --Ludwigs2 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what needs to be done? If it's just that, it's not hard at all (though it's a bit time-consuming). --Theurgist (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normal archiving resumes

I'm back from the briny; the bot is catching up now. Thanks, Theurgist, for your efforts in the interim. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doomed

Good lord. I have dreamed about an RD thread. It would have been trouble, too: The dream querent posted a link to a Bing bird's eye map showing a lake with a few boats on it, a ~10 story hotel at the water's edge, and several 1 story structures, wrote that a tornado was approaching, and asked where he or she should obtain shelter. I didn't stick around in the dream to read the subsequent argument about offering safety advice on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dream about the internet all the time. 82.43.88.151 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you've just gained fifty points on the Wikipediholic test. Doomed. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the real question: was that you dreaming about the internet, or is this the internet dreaming about you? --Ludwigs2 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a place to dream about. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't exist, sorry. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the dream again, whatever you do, don't suggest that the best solution is to take shelter in the conscious thoughts of someone dreaming about Wikipedia. You might end up with some long-term guests. In fact, never think about this again. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posts removed

I removed this particularly useless reply, and the replies to it. The latter just because they are, for all of their good intent, just feeding him. I assume nobody will mind much, but thought I should make a record of it here. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok with me. I confess my response was not all that helpful.

--Ludwigs2 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal and am sorry I didn't remove it myself. I think the fact that there were replies was what pushed me away from considering removing it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Good move! - 220.101(talk)^\Contribs 03:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive page missing August links

On the Reference Desk Archives page, in the "Answered questions, January 2010 – present" table, the August 2010 links are missing.... --Bavi H (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe related to #Automatic archiving interrupted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, unrelated. I turned on August and September. (CiaPan had helpfully left the rest of the year there, commented out.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetsons Guy

204.112.104.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

204.112.104.172 seems to be just messing with us. All the recent questions are obviously ignoring the responses given. Suggestions? Aaronite (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send them to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not "messing with us", he's just really dense. Start deleting new questions. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can start deleting questions. A number of editors (including me) have tried engaging them on their talk page and there's also an ANI thread about them. Basically, they're claiming that all the bad stuff was done by someone else that they know the name of but have no way of contacting and who makes the same spelling mistakes they do. Yeah. Here is the talk page; make of it what you will. Matt Deres (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every time a disruptive user blames someone else for "identity theft", they think they're the first disruptive user that ever thought of that ploy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's funny. :) "No! No! It was my evil roommate/cousin/mother/daughter/sister/brother! I swear on a stack of Windows 95 manuals!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that it was just some kid (they do say the darnedest things, after all) who was really into The Jetsons and the idea of a new movie based thereon. He's blocked for a month, in any event, so the problem is over for now. Deor (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He should team up with Ericthebrainiac and see what kind of script they could produce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this one is funnier the most because it isn't an account which was used but an IP and they don't seem to be saying it's someone like a family member or flatmate who should be sharing an internet connection with them. So this 'identity' thief is allegedly somehow using the 'victim' 's internet connection as a way of stealing their 'identity'. P.S. On the off chance they were serious, I recommended they contact the police and get their internet connection and computer checked out Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per disruption and waste of resources, warn then eventually block for disruptive editing. If they can't or won't control their own (static) address, then they're blockable per policy as an open proxy. If it's shared and being abused, block as shared disruptive account. Nobody cares why the problem is occurring...blocks prevent the problem from continuing and it's up to the source to solve it. Always and only. DMacks (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's on ice for the next month. Should that "Annika" stuff stay on his talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this with my typical level of finesse, akin to dropping a brick onto a kittycat. I took out the userpage bit about criminal identity theft. I kinda skipped over the bit about how it's really the IANA's number and just suggested creating an account. Pace to our IP regulars here, but this is one of those areas where we can't fix the problem but the person at the other end of the wire can. Franamax (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That brick would qualify as a "catsquisher", yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To no one's surprise, 'Annika' had a change of heart and promised never to be evil again. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page (this) - technical question

When I click "discussion" tab on the science desk I get taken to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Science

which contains some but not all of the content at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk

this has been bugging me for years, what's going on, and specifically why is some content there but not all? (it seems to be the same content at the moment, but I'm sure it isn't always)

Also linking from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous gives a different TOC than the link from the science desk - Am I going nuts?

It doesn't always do it - but it happened today - a ref desk with no posts after 5th August..Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It happens too on the Computer desk, however in all the cases you're actually being redirected to the correct page (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk). The problem is that when being redirected you're somehow shown an older version of the page from the server cache instead of the current version. You can clear this by going to en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&action=purge 82.43.88.151 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bug... editing a page should refresh the cache of redirects too. I'll report it on the bug tracker. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]