Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

[edit]

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I'm trying to find somewhere on wikipedia where I can do some repetitive task that is easy to complete. I was working on old merger tags but that requires thought, so is there anything I can do which requires little to no amount of thought? JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless repetitive work is usually done by bots. You can do it also if you really want to. Just pick something that is obviously wrong like replacing "alot" with "a lot" or replacing "also also" with "also". Google will allow you to quickly find articles containing errors. Just search for something like "alot site:en.wikipedia.org". -- kainaw™ 18:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in Category:Wikipedia backlog needs looking at, though much of those seem to require some thought to resolve. You might be able to find something in the Wikipedia:Database reports that suits your preference. There's no shortage of work to be done. Franamax (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in working on the sister site http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - typically category diffusion - there's tons to do their - suggest looking at your state/city/country/interst area. Possibly there is similar work in categories on wikipedia, but my experience is that there is less work to be found.

Or you could go through articles correcting wp:mos, tidying up references is another task bots don't yet do reliablly eg converting from:

• [1]

to

• Ruth Chambers; Gill Wakley (2002), "History of over the counter medicines", Obesity and Overweight Matters in Primary Care, Radcliffe Publishing, p. 101 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

....

There are some lists and links also at Wikipedia:To-do list. stub-sorting, disambiguation pages, translations etc etc..Imgaril (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:New pages patrol, including its sub-sections about things like image pages that are in a "hat" that you have to click 'show' to read. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick and tired of this user's anti-German problems [2]. I don't care if he was beaten by some German kids in school, or if some German guy owes him some money. I don't even care if his parent's family were murdered in the Holocaust. THIS place is no place for his poison (he should go to a bloody shrink with his anti-German problems, not to Wikipedia). He kind of reminds me of Cato the Elder with his hateful "Delenda Caratago"; this guy changed it into: "Delenda Germania". I'm hereby requesting that such useless posts be deleted with EXTREME prejudice. Screw this self-righteousness. Flamarande (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific diff or diffs are you referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one [3] and this one [4]. Let me point out that if this was any other nation many would have found this behaviour unacceptable already. Flamarande (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I think he's expressing some widely-held sentiments/frustrations as regards the trial of this alleged former Nazi. I also don't think that "the Germans" refers to all Germans, merely the politicians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is frustrated with this particular case he is free to debate it in a forum outside Wikipedia. THIS isn't the proper place for his ravings. By the way, he uses the term 'Germany' and that clearly means the entire nation. Flamarande (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that he's gone a bit overboard, even if I share his view of that show-trial. He's interposing his opinion when he should be looking for reasoned citations. I dispute that he's smearing all Germans. He's saying "Germany" and "Germans" are doing this-or-that, the way someone might say the USA is doing this-or-that. For example, America killed Osama bin Laden. I'm American, and I didn't personally kill him, nor was I asked permission for someone else to do it. But it's still convenient to say "America did it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande, I have no comment on the IP's posts, which I haven't read, but I'm intrigued by your suggestion that the ref-desk has a specifically anti-german bias. ("...if this was any other nation...") Of all the nations in the world, why would we be specifically anti-German? APL (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. Flamarande made no such suggestion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Flamarande did say that "if this was any other nation many would have found this behaviour unacceptable." I sincerely also don't see that Germany is being bashed harder on the RD. Although it's difficult not to find any questions about Hitler/WWII on the RD, most contributions are objective comments. Regarding 88. I think that he could have avoided the word 'pathetic' when referring to these recent German trials of alleged formed Nazis, but definitely 88. didn't refer to the whole nation when he said "Germany." That's a common way of saying something. Quest09 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly did. APL (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would take it (Germany) as a reference to the state of Germany, not the people .. ditto ("America" vs the "Americans") Imgaril (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how 88.8's comments could mean all Germans, don't understand how Flamarande could mean "his poison", when he explicitly says "don't even care if his parent's family were murdered in the Holocaust", and don't think 88.8 " should go to a bloody shrink with his anti-German problems." since here is plenty of reason for disapproving those German trials. Wikiweek (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's soapboxing or soapboxy [5] (or at least 'off topic' enough not be be a valid response) - I actually share a similar viewpoint on the trial whilst generally liking German stuff in general. It's not a suitable comment for these pages whether you agree or not. Clearly this has hit a nerve with Flamarade, and we can all appreciate their objection, but I think they are over-reacting (objectively). I would recommend future posts like the one I linked to above result in a warning about soapboxing, potentially inflammatory statements, and sticking to fact based or referenceable statements in general, but no more. The editor's short edit history shows they are not using the page exclusively to push a point of view - and has answered sensibly to other questions - so I don't see any more issues.Imgaril (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the accused. So, here my couple of comments:

1. I admit

-that the discussions went off topic. However, if anyone cares to read the thread carefully, he'll see that the discussion went off topic not only due to my comments.

-I know that pathetic is no objective wording, even if it perfectly conceives the right idea. That's a bit overboard, right.

2. Flamarande, for me, gave examples of his sense of believing to be unfairly persecuted. However, there is no evidence of that on the RD and it's not my fault if he's pissed off when he read comments about Germany that do not match his 'views'. He certainly has a problem with taking part in an open discussion.

3. Flamarande's logic is flawed: he said I should bash my own country. He presupposes I was not already doing it, maybe my own country is Germany.

4. Flamarande has no idea what the Godwin's law is, although he linked to it in the discussion. It is not bashing Germany, it is not calling a part of it's society pathetic, not even calling them Nazis would qualify for that.

5. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a problem expressing his opinions on the RD and his political 'views': See here: [[6]] calling certain people 'scum' and that they should be ashamed of themselves. On the top of that he's given his opinion about the London riots. Apparently, freedom of speech only applies to him.

6. It's amazing that he speaks of 'poison' , 'cheap shots' and that others need a shrink. 88.8.79.204 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should be spelled "its society" (no apostrophe) but otherwise the above is all fair comment. Verdict: innocent. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he actually meant to say "it is society" (and also "Godwin is law"). ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we call it a day at this point it will have been a potentially valuable learning experience for all concerned, with no real lasting harm done. Unless I made a grammatical or spelling error in which case I'm dead meat.Imgaril (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's (with apostrophe) a day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the descriptions of categories on Wikipedia:Reference_desk I notice none of them mention geography. Since this is a fairly common topic, should it be added to the descriptions one of the categories? Humanities seems logical ("History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society") but I thought I'd check. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many geographical questions have nothing to do with human activities. So RD/M is the place for them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's of little consequence whether Geography questions get asked at Humanities or Miscellaneous. They'll get answered just the same. Even Science would be appropriate for questions regarding physical geography (being a subset of the Earth Sciences/Geology). Political geography (relating to borders, states, or administrative divisions) would work fine at Humanities, as would Human Geography (demographics, populations, etc.). Let people ask whatever question at whatever desk feels natural, and as long as it sorta fits, there's no need to micromanage whether a geography question ends up at Humanities or Miscellaneous. It just doesn't matter that much (if one ended up at Computing, we may want to move it elsewhere, but I rarely see someone get it THAT wrong...) --Jayron32 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask a question about digital maps at the Computing desk. Anyway, people mostly ask the question there where he can get better answers, and I don't think it's a huge problem. Quest09 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

people...he? --Belchman (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of a "Miscellaneous" category is that if you aren't sure of what category to use, you can put it there. Feel free to avail yourself of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or to ask questions such as "Two homosexuals fondling each ohter". --Belchman (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first time we got one of those "questions" by people who think Wikipedia is a university? --Belchman (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of question do you mean? Right now people seem to believe Wikipedia is a a forum for literate people. Wikiweek (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We get these bizarre questions periodically. --Belchman (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2006 an Egyptian IP user [7] asked "How can I study theoretical physics in one of the US universities?". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question cited by Belchman is clearly out of place, but I don't see any problem with the question of the Egyptian IP, which could and indeed was answered. The latter was just asking for references. Wikiweek (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly out of place" may seem harshly stated because without some ignorance on the part of the questioner there would be no question. For this question three responders (ColinFine, Lesgles, Wavelength) both corrected the OP's ignorance of whether Wikipedia is a university and helpfully gave much more information. It was just one more job where we had the power to help someone in need. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a permanent link to that question.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the help desk, you see this all the time. Many people don't understand that they are looking at an encyclopedia. They go to Google and type in the name of some university. They click on the Wikipedia article. From there, they click on "Help" and assume that they are asking for help from the university. -- kainaw™ 01:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link on the front page to Wikiversity. Slightly further up the page is the reference desk link, which states that we "tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects". The Wikiversity site has a "colloquium" page and some help pages, but those might seem less inviting and more oriented towards technical questions (why isn't this user blocked, why aren't more pages in Arabic, etc.) that the ref desks. It's not easy to find out whether Wikiversity is a real university or not. There are far too many pages there which might seem to explain what the site is all about, but don't. For instance I just clicked Help->Wikiversity basic information->About Wikiversity ...er... ->Wikiversity Statistics (is the only option from there) and now I'm being offered links like "Animated growth of Wikiversity projects" and "Alexa traffic rank".  Card Zero  (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives (permanent link here) is missing links to archives after July 2011.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list has to be hand-edited -- I just now advanced it to September. Looie496 (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is it possible and appropriate to add temporarily red links for 12 months at a time?

—Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted vandalism. Honestly... We haven't blocked this idiot yet? -- kainaw™ 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the vandal reverted the deletion and I had to remove it again. -- kainaw™ 19:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be answered in a factual manner by providing a reference to a reliable source? Then it's fine in my book (a lot better than the "is there a god" crap on the Humanities desk right now). I would have thought the Pylorus or something would try to prevent it, but maybe it would give out before the intestine bursts. Anyway, personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia, and I strongly caution you for making comments or insinuations about another editor's mental health. Buddy431 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a question from a new or infrequent user, I'd oppose the deletion, but Whoop_Whoop has been asking a rather large number of inane questions lately. Perhaps it could be politely explained to him that the reference desk isn't really for asking a large number of questions that just happened to pop into your head, and that he shouldn't overuse the resource. APL (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the question had not been censored I would have directed the OP to the article Enema which gives information on effects of over-administration. The likely injury is rupture to the bowel or rectal tissues resulting in internal bleeding, leaving the individual exposed to infection from intestinal bacteria. For people known as Klismaphiliacs the censored question is relevant and serious. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And next time we are asked if Uranus smells bad, you can provide a good answer as well. There is absolutely nothing keeping you from answering on the user's talk page. -- kainaw™ 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The extremes of pressure and temperature (see profile) in the atmosphere of Uranus far exceed the operational parameters of human olfactory sense, which would inhibit a real-time smell survey of the planet. I speculate that if an atmospheric sample were obtained by a probe and brought to normal pressure and temperature, the content of methane, ammonia, sulphides and trace hydrocarbons would give a smell similar to diesel engine exhaust but I cannot give a better answer than that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

You could also just ignore questions that you don't like. --Belchman (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Uranus. Next question please. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think kainaw should be blocked for a few days so that he has time to think why arbitrary deletion based solely on personal taste and aggressive insults are frowned upon here in Wikipedia. --Belchman (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop knows the score around here. That was not a serious question. Mingmingla (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is to Kainaw's credit that Kainaw retracted a comment on Whoop_whoop_pull_up's page about a hedgehog. However this subsequent post: "Either you agree that you that do comprehend the difference between a real question and vandalism and that you are not a user that I would classify as mentally retarded OR you agree that you do not comprehend the difference between a real question and vandalism and that you the type of user that I attacked by calling mentally retarded." strikes me as an abusive claim to have an alleged right to explicitly call an OP mentally retarded. We are not here to do that under any circumstances, nor is it our remit to out (make publically known) any closet-non-klismaphiliac. They must be allowed to keep their secret as long as they do not frighten the horses. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does Kainaw's criterion say about ref. deskers diagnosing mental disease? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To call someone a "retard" is kind of uncivil and childish, but it's not a medical diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mental retardation (see reference) is defined as an axis II disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I never claimed that Whoop was mentally retarded. I stated that if he was actually unable to tell the difference between a real question and vandalism because of a real problem, like mental retardation, then the people here on this discussion page could help. I understand that my comment has been translated as: Whoop is mentally retarded. -- kainaw™ 13:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even when we put aside the case of Whoop whoop pull up who may not appreciate the subtle logic of your charitable intention, we still have the problem that an editor "attacked by calling mentally retarded" (your words, yes?) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user, who has been registered for a year or so, is basically doing a bad imitation of "Light current". In future he should resist lowering himself to that kind of thing. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of "Wikiproject:Babysitter" - where we are supposed to put up with and pander to the slightest whim of immature (acting) editors. ie I mean "whoopwhoop". This isn't the purpose of wikipedia or these desks. I see that Kainaw has got fed up of it and breached wp:civil and lost his temper. There's an obvious explanation for this - the editor "whoopwhoop" is playing games and wasting peoples time. Can we have a rule or guideline that penalises that sort of behaviour too . Yes I see WP:AGF, I also see WP:DUCK too - I don't need a degree in sociology to spot very immature behaviour that is ultimately disruptive. Imgaril (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a user's name does not violate WP:UN then it is courteous to cite them correctly, not least to user Whoop whoop pull up. If you seek a new system of penalties for OP's to the ref. desks then possible objections are 1) the ref. desks serve best as a low-threshold service to inexperienced users who shall be treated with tolerance as WP:NEWBIES, and 2) we all volunteer our time and so can't be forced to pander to the whim of an immature (acting) editor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain who you mean when you say "an immature (acting) editor", and why you link to that ref desk discussion from last year? Fram (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On checking I see that the link I gave goes to an archive page containing 6 questions but not (as intended) to a particular question that is shown after the "#" character in the URL. If you look at the URL you will see it should go to "1.2 Meta-question." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed for clarity. (But really, you haven't answered Fram's question.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my link. I gather the unusual punctuation stop at the end was the problem. I linked to the question because it touches on (literally, as toilet paper touches anus) the same subject as the censored question by Whoop whoop pull up, and as evidence for my claim that "we all volunteer our time and so can't be forced..." Including myself eight editors responded to that question and I am sure that none of us now complain we were "supposed to put up with and pander" with it in the way that Imgaril describes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, I think what you're saying here is, "We answered Steve Baker's silly question without complaint back then; ergo, we must answer Whoop whoop pull up's question today." I'm not sure others will find this analogy as devastatingly convincing as you might hope. And I'm rather forcefully reminded of the language at WP:POINT, which instructs us that Wikipedia will never be perfectly consistent, and that one rarely gets far in trying to excuse or condone bad behavior today by pointing at some allegedly similar, allegedly bad behavior which someone allegedly "got away with" in the past. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that he gave just one example, I think his point isn't "We answered a silly question in the past -> silly questions should be answered" but "We regularly answer silly questions; there's nothing wrong with this one". The "two homosexuals fondling each other" question and the ones about pissing/jerking off come to mind. --Belchman (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this deletion justified? The question might have seemed like a rant, but it is also a legitimate question. A lot of people don't understand why hypersexualization occurs in some media. If they want to do something about it, like organize a boycott of advertisers, they have to understand what's going on. I propose that the question be restored. 69.171.160.139 (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "question" would that be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is "Univision" always use "All" their women with the breasts protuding?" Maybe the question is based on false premises, I have no idea (well I have a tiny inkling that it is not, after performing some research), but, anyway, that's what the question would be. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the question survives, the OP's apparent assumption that a lady who has large breasts, or appears thanks to the skill of her couturier (read: padded bra) to have been so blessed by the Hand of an Almighty whose selective generosity in this matter is a doubly uplifting miracle, may reasonably be thought to be a "tramp" should not be left unquestioned. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question that starts "Why does/is such-and-such always..." strikes me as an inherently false-premise question, unless the OP or someone can present some evidence that it is literally "always" or at least "most of the time". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a glance at Spanish-language American TV channels, the blatancy of sexism might surprise you -- so there is some reason behind the question. But it really was less a question than an excuse for a rant, and there is no useful response that can be given, so I'm happy with the removal. Looie496 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the responses, if it was intended as a subtle advertisement for Univision, it worked! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is that the person asking the question provides no apparent follow-up. I'm assuming this is the only IP address under which that individual posted, but I could be mistaken. I think there is enough unclarity expressed by the respondents that a follow-up post was clearly in order. Without clarification from the person posing the question, any subsequent responses tend to deteriorate into speculation on potentially unrelated issues. But those breasts were really interesting that I located on a Google search on the topic. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the ref desk isn't educational? Basically the drive-by said, "This is terrible! Just look at it!" --Belchman (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awk! Polly want a cracker! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting opinion, but it's not relevant to whether the question is legitimate. Do you deny that the questioner was trying to understand why the phenomenon occurs? 69.171.160.199 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the questioner was trying to understand. Maybe you could ask him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the question without any of the irrelevant commentary from the questioner or others. Now might be a good time to remind people of the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. Missing the question is an excuse for removing it, but not a legitimate reason for removal. 69.171.160.131 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary was every bit as relevant as the so-called "question" was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that my question about what still makes America the greatest country on earth has been deleted. It was a sincere question based on research and observation, but you all know what's best. If my question has offended anyone in the Wikipedia community, I apologize. Willminator (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this trend. If whoever deleted the question thought its assumptions were flawed, it would have been better to have said so than to have violated the guidelines. 69.171.160.131 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff of the question's removal, and I don't like this trend either. Even the most opinionated questions, and even those questions clearly seeking opinions can be addressed with notable references, as has been discussed and demonstrated many times on this talk page and at the desks themselves. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a separate desk is needed to handle questions like this, which are essentially invitations to debate rather than factual questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a desk designed for those questions right here. -- kainaw™ 12:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should that perhaps be the standard response to these types of questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As if we needed an invitation to debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It won't matter much. It is still September. It is almost October. By November, the new kids who show up every fall and try to the Reference Desk into Yahoo Answers will be interested in other things and all will go back to normal. -- kainaw™ 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we may never see October again. DMacks (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is better, that we all remove questions we believe are illegitimate without discussion or the required notices, or that we all follow the guidelines and explain to the questioner why we believe their question is inappropriate? Is anyone smart enough to always agree with your personal judgement about whether a question is legitimate? That's why the guidelines say what they do. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard guideline is to remove the question first, post a notice here, and then have it reinstated if the consensus is that it shouldn't be removed. Of course, that is all pointless because there a handful of vocal users who oppose absolutely all deletions - even if the person posting the "question" states that he did it strictly as vandalism because he hates Wikipedia. Then, there are vocal users who want every question to be a clear request for resources and nothing else. Because these two extremes will never come to agreement on anything, there is no consensus about what should or should not be allowed. -- kainaw™ 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, you should leave a note on the Reference desk page explaining your edit and the reason behind it." -- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologized for asking that question in case I may have broken some rule, because my question may have been interpreted the wrong way, and because I see that I may have offended some people here. I wasn’t looking to start a debate. That was never my intention. The intention of my question was to ask why people here in the U.S where I am and, even many people overseas, still consider America to be the greatest, or should I say the best, country in the face of the earth when we as a country are starting to lag behind on many things where we used to be number 1. My personal opinion as someone born in the U.S is that America is still the greatest country on earth, but now I wanted to know why the U.S still has that title because that title is becoming harder and harder to defend. I just wanted answers. People overseas have the impression that the U.S has the longest, largest, highest, and best stuff in the world because they’ve heard so many times that the U.S is the greatest country on earth. I’ve been overseas long enough and enough times to know this. Again, I apologize for asking that question. You did what you thought was the best thing to do. Willminator (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your detailed explanation is a much more acceptable question, although the US-bashing nonsense posted below ain't much of an answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was the original deleted question inferior? It had the same explanations. What do you think the answer is? 69.171.160.237 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legitimate question and I wish you would replace it. The answer involves cultural imperialism, and foreign jingoism-like psychology. 69.171.160.237 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way the question was framed made it potentially a very provocative one. A better wording would have been....

Why is America still claimed by some (maybe many) Americans to be the "greatest country on earth? (Or something along those lines.)

Obviously a lot of people around the world, perhaps even some Americans, were going to feel challenged by what could have seemed on the surface to be a silly, arrogant assumption behind the question. The original explanation that followed was good, but by that time too many readers will have been provoked. As already said above, it's a topic worth discussing. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try again tomorrow. Willminator (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was able to try again. It is quite long this time, but it was actually longer when I wrote it down in Word, and I did my best to shorten it. How does it look now? Let me know what you all think. Willminator (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the question a try as I've been told to do. Give me some feedback. How did I do? The answers have been very helpful and informative so far by the way. I simply asked out of curiosity, and out of concern for my country. Some of us Americans like to beat the world in every accomplishment and feat so that we could feel proud and good about ourselves. Since the U.S is my home country, I instinctly like to see people overseas getting wowed about the accomplishments and feats about my country. Willminator (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself how you would feel if another country's citizens made such a conspicuous deal about it as yours do. Most people understand that if, largely as a result of natural resources, you have enough money to throw at a given field, you will likely excel in it: this does not seem to many people to be grounds for immoderate boasting. It makes you seem immature, insecure and irritating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.66.70 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that America was lagging behind in the world in more things than it used to where America was number 1 in them. I’ve seen how some poor people react only about America overseas. The well-known title claimed by some about America being the greatest country on earth seemed to be harder to defend. So, both out of concern and curiosity, I asked my question, and the answers that came thereafter were insightful, informative, and helpful. I know understand how my concerns have been misplaced. It was a legitimate question as some have said here. I'm not looking to start a debate here. Forgive me if I gave you the false impression that I'm arrogant and I apologize for making you seem that I’m immature, insecure, and irritating. Willminator (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for carelessly giving the impression that I meant you personally; I was using "you" (after my first sentence above) in the sense of Americans perceived as a whole, and of course broad-brush perceptions do not necessary apply to any given individual: I should have been less ambiguous. As an active SF fan I have made the acquaintance of many US authors and readers who, being an atypical selection who are arguably more educated and internationally oriented than the average, do not fall for the shallow-minded and ultimately meaningless shibboleth of a country being some undefined general "greatest." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem more literate then most 49ers fans I know. Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

69.171.160.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.171.160.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.171.160.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone please tell me this is pertinent. I'm not happy with Medeis, who has been deleting my attempts to communicate from their user page[8][9] and now this?!? 69.171.160.45 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UP#CMT people are entitled even if discouraged from deleting messages on their own talk page, it's taken as a sign they read them. With regard to the first message, if they deleted it we can take it that means they are aware of the discussion and choose not to participate, it doesn't seem that vital they participate, they didn't AFAIK do anything about the restored question. With regards to your second comment, you are free to open an RFC/U since they didn't give in to your ultimatum. However, although they may not have communicated on the issue, my feeling is any RFC/U is likely to be shot down if the removal of the question, and their refusal to discuss the removal is the only thing you bring to it. (On a personal level, I find a lot of Medeis's comments disagreeable but they aren't the level an RFC/U is needed.) As for that particular comment at WP:RD/M I personally felt it wasn't very pertinent or appropriate but again, it doesn't really seem something to make a big deal about. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the original diff is quite offensive and that Medeis should either clarify that it was a very stupid joke or remove it. It's trolling at the very, very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reply was actually hidden by 69 I think around the time they came here Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis was satirizing the old "conspiracy of Jewish bankers" stuff. If the OP is going to file a complaint (which will likely go nowhere), I wonder how many IP's he'll use in the course of it? He's used at least 3 of the Colorado-based IP's just in this one complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was satire he did a lousy job. There was no way for anyone to know he was joking, and considering the subject that was in incredibly poor taste. Regarding the OPs IPs, are you sure they are not just on a dynamic IP? --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too subtle, perhaps. And I assume it's dynamic, yes. I'm just saying that if he posts an official complaint, he had best make it clear that he's just one guy each time his IP changes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is to me no evidence of satirical intent. Even with a lot of good faith it seems to me to either need clarification or retraction. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification would be good, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General FYI: Medeis is a she, not a he. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That clarifies it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the "How to find a girlfriend?" thread on Miscellaneous should be collapsed or removed or something. It's not asking for references, and all the replies are opinions and OR. 82.43.90.142 (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some sense, that kind of question is similar to asking for legal or medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I was not aware that giving dating advice required licensing like legal or medical advice. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the reasoning behind legal or medical advice. It is, however, a topic that is prone to ridiculous and useless anecdotes and generalizations. But at the moment I'm pretty tolerant of that sort of thing, as long as those kinds of questions are the minority of what we do around here. Just ignore it if it bugs you. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more similar to asking for advice or opinions, which is discouraged but still common (most often for tourist destinations but also books, films, songs, brands of liqueur, etc). The guidelines don't exactly prohibit asking for or offering opinions, only saying it's "better" to ask elsewhere. There may be some factual answers to the question, e.g. scientific research on the best way to find a girlfriend, or even statistics like X percent of people date people at their workplace/at college/etc, X% of Americans find their spouse on eHarmony.com, etc, but nobody's mentioned any yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest answer from someone was suggesting to the OP that he open himself up to bisexuality. Given the state of STD's in the world, that idea was pretty close to giving medical advice. Although Woody Allen once said, "Being bisexual doubles your chances for getting a date." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to entertain discussions over why a particular "app" doesn't work for a few hours, per this thread? How does this benefit Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't just "Why doesn't this app work?" The question is "Is there a well-known reason that this app doesn't work?" For example, what if Blackberry just got into a dust-up with Facebook and they mutually agreed to not work with each other anymore. A well-referenced response could explain so and provide links to news articles about the whole situation. Further, why should it benefit Wikipedia? That makes no sense. The purpose of the Reference Desk is not to benefit Wikipedia. The purpose of the reference desk is to provide references for those seeking information. -- kainaw™ 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you look through the archives of almost any of the RefDesks, you'll find examples of threads that don't directly benefit Wikipedia: typical examples include, "What's the film called where such-and-such happens?" "How do I remove a wine-stain from a white tablecloth?" "When is the next time comet XYZ will be visible from London?" and, "Why are most country's Israel embassies in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem the capital?"
It's a service we provide. It's helpful. It helps people to learn their way around Wikipedia. It does no harm. People are happy to volunteer to do it. These are all decent enough reasons. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: From his edit history, it appears that this is the first time User:The Rambling Man has used the Reference Desk and very well may have many misconceptions about the purpose of the Reference Desk. -- kainaw™ 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, interesting. Yes, I've rarely been to these areas before, and yes, I may have "many misconceptions"^{[citation needed]}, but I've certainly experienced apps that stop working for a few hours, and never felt the need to start a conspiratorial thread on Wikipedia about it. There are half a million apps for iPhone now, some of them will probably glitch for one reason or another. This, and these discussions are wasteful on our resources. The point, I thought, of reference desks was to actually attempt to enhance the knowledge base on WIkipedia. If we need to ask a primitive question like "why does my app stop working for a few hours" just to add "some apps don't work perfectly all the time" then we really are heading downhill fast. So don't worry, I'll not be back here again in a rush, I'll focus on building the encyclopedia, not chatting about apps that stop working temporarily... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly experienced apps that stop working for a few hours, and never felt the need to start a conspiratorial thread on Wikipedia about it. I'm not sure why you bothered including the word 'conspiratorial' (not least since it's completely meaningless in that context), but I daresay you've often forgotten the name of a film, wanted to know when a comet will be visible from your city and needed to clean tableclothes yet not started a thread about of it. Fine. Others may wish to do so, and you aren't required to engage with that if you don't want to.
This, and these discussions are wasteful on our resources. What resources? Do you mean the Wikimedia server resources? Because WP:PERF applies. I really hope you that the resource you mean isn't editors' time, because (and this will perhaps come as a surprise to you) the RefDesks are very actively staffed by volunteers who chose to help people, and I see no reason to stop this altruistic activity just because you consider it too trivial. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above: what if Blackberry just got into a dust-up with Facebook and they mutually agreed to not work with each other anymore. And yes, I get the concept of "volunteer". I've been one for six years and do it every day, not just on-wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw above, and I still don't see how the word 'conspiratorial' applies, but suit yourself. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy: Facebook/Blackberry not working with each other any more. Nonsense. The app failed for a few hours. That's life. Anyway, thank you, indeed I will suit myself. I trust we have agreed to disagree, you can carry on with your self-declared altruism etc and I shall do what I do. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that I never mentioned FB and BB not working together. Someone else did. So the thread itself was nothing to do with that. (Incidentally, how can two organisations not working together possibly be a conspiracy?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the indentation of both of your and your colleague's comments was the same. And the point being that someone enquiring why Facebook doesn't work would equate to Blackberry not working with Facebook is way too WP:OR for words. That's the stuff of conspiracy theory. And as I said, good luck with you ongoing altruism, I shall do whatever it is I do from now on and not darken these threads again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]