Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 8 December 2014

• WT:RD

• Misplaced Pages Reference desks
  • Computing
  • Entertainment
  • Humanities
  • Language
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Miscellaneous
  • All
  • Archives

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.

Professor of physics

I got an EC when trying to hat this question as it had already been hatted. I did find a followup, outside the hat, by the IP which I deleted and left (nearly except for spacing issues) the same rationale I had planned to leave with the hat . As I implied in my edit summary, regardlessof whether there may be professors of physics who answer questions here on occasion, it's not acceptable (as I think we've discussed before) to demand that only certain editors answer your question. (It may be okay to ask people to take particular care to avoid answers which are offtopic, unreferenced or otherwise inappropriate.) Normally we may simply ignore such requirements (and perhaps ignore the question), but in this case, since the editor has already asked the question and received answers and I see now even deleted answers and is simply giving lots of follow ups complaining that the wrong person answered (rather than anything fundamentally wrong with the answers), I feel it's acceptable to hat the followup any further followups or even delete them if they continue. (My deletion was reverted by the IP and Robert than moved the hat to cover the latest followup. If that convinces the IP to stop, I'm fine with that. If the IP continues to give followups, deletion and blocking may be in order.) I would add that if this editor is User:Wavyinfinity as it appears some people suspect in the original question Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science#Gravitation / Relativity / Cosmology, then they are evading a topic ban as I mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 November 5#Black Holes, Dark Matter, General Relativity (and is perhaps why they are now editing from an IP) and have given even more reason to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually seems they're evading a block and not just a topic ban. User:Wavyinfinity was blocked due to continual topic ban violations. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See the IP user's edit history, that he dates to today, and see this edit where he restores the relativity / cosmology nonsense at Gravitation by the obviously identical User:N738139. Given he has given us both a named account and a Static IP address any admin's job should be simple. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion that the new IP is Wavyinfinity doesn't really QUACK for me. Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs) was comfortable signing his name and using indentations in threading. 178.194.81.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to have trouble with both of those. Also, Wavyinfinity's comments regarding relativity seem very different than the IPs. I don't think they are the same person. For the record, I am the one who blocked Wavyinfinity. Dragons flight (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at User:N738139's user page, I'd have to suggest that a Wavyinfinity sock seems plausible - compare with the now deleted polemic on Wavyinfinity's user page. . AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I read both. Aside from both being attacks on establish physics, I don't see a lot of similarity. N738139's short text mentions many terms, such as "Poincaré", "Sagnac", "Wormholes", "standard model", "aberration", "time dilation", and "Newton", which don't occur in Wavyinfinity's long text. Dragons flight (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if it is important, one could ask for a sockpuppet investigation. Though there are some similar issues here, I'm inclined to believe these are different people. Dragons flight (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on Dragons Flight comments who I think has a fair amount more experience with Wavyinfinity than me and a more careful look I withdraw my claim that the IP is Wavyinfinity. I saw an editor who appeared to me to be showing up to try and convince us that general relativity was wrong with great vigiour which we'd just had from Wavyinfinity and I assumed they were connected as I'd seen someone else also suggest, and made the above comment. When I looked more careful at their edit history and saw them asking the same stuff on talk pages, as well as bothering Dragons flight (who I'd noticed was the one to block them), this further reenforced my view and I started to delete their talk page comments as well. However I see now that Dragons flight had replied to their comment on the RD. Also, while it appears the editor thinks there's something wrong with physics and is not particularly willing to accept that it's probably their understanding, I'm was never that sure if they're particularly going to the extremes of Wavyinfinity of saying general relativity etc is pseudoscience solely from their comments. (They did link to , which does talk about conspiracies in physics but I couldn't be bothered working out what it's about and it doesn't quite seem the same as the stuff Wavyinfinity was talking about.) Finally I'd noticed the connection with N738139 mentioned above which told me there was some stuff in the French wikipedia. but I didn't look in to that aspect until now. While I don't understand French, it looks to me like the Swiss IP probably has a decent command fr:Spécial:Contributions/178.194.81.188, fr:Spécial:Contributions/N738139, fr:Spécial:Contributions/MM=2000. I'm not seeing any sign of that from Wavyinfinity. I've therefore apologised to the editors involved. As I said there, I don't withdraw much else. The editors contributions appear unwelcome as long as they're going to make silly demands and delete answers. P.S. I would add that, I have doubts a SPI would be much use as it stands. The number of edits from N738139 is small, it definitely doesn't seem there's anything there enough to connect to to Wavyinfinity. The IP and has a lot more, but of course a checkuser won't connect the IP to Wavyinfinity so it would need to be behavioural evidence. The IP and N738139 are obviously connected, but I presume evidence for the IP can't be used to do a checkuser on N738139 (even if CU won't comment on the IP itself). Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP is not Wavyinfinity. Wavyinfinity writes English at the native level, and the IP does not. If two ducks quack differently, they are not the same duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

disruptive thread

The OP has continued the hatted thread about restaurants with two petulantly worded questions. I have deleted the thread and asked the OP to start a new thread on a single question if he likes. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this weirdness the normal behavior of Pablo the Penguin, or has he taken a wrong turn recently? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thou hath been done. Pablothepenguin (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the repeated opinionating coming from the OP, I have collapsed the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the user does geolocate to Scotland, see the IP address from this thread with his first registered, but unsigned edit. Anyone guess what the topic was? μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely a Scot, or someone pretending to be. For further info, check out Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pablothepenguin/Campaign. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The user has been indeffed. Amazing how easy it is to predict such detrollings, yet nevertheless food gets wasted on them μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For some reason the thread was not archived, so I have simply deleted it, since the user's indeffed and the subject matter's irrelevant, to be polite. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Trolling...?

Could anyone sensibly explain this edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=prev&oldid=635224265

CiaPan (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It was basically a reversion of this removal. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I see... Thank you, it seems I didn't look deep enough into a history.
Anyway, the thread has a pretty well chosen title ;)
EOT. --CiaPan (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What do i do if i don't find any answers to my question helpful enough?

What do i do if i don't find any answers to my question helpful enough? i asked one question and because i didn't state it clearly enough, the answers weren't helpfulWhereismylunch (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The answer is right there in your question ("... because i didn't state it clearly enough ..."). Restate your question more clearly. If that doesn't work, look around for somewhere that will meet your needs, because believe it or not, we are not the only website on the internet. -- Jack of Oz 02:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Which question or questions are the most frustrating for you? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked about the risk of hpv from oral sex without being more specificWhereismylunch (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I already edited my questionWhereismylunch (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the question in question. In addition to Jack's two suggestions (clarify , look for a more specific forum) you sometimes also need patience. In some cases, you'll receive a good answer after more than 24 hours. I see you did clarify! You may also ask the rephrased/specified/clarified question in a new thread, if you feel it will attract more responses. (What you probably shouldn't do, is remove the whole thread ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that some kinds of questions (especially those on topics surrounding sex or drugs or criminal activities) are seen by some members of our community as being either inappropriate or indicative of someone asking the question for nefarious purposes...or that the person asking the question is a school kid trying to get us to talk dirty...or a troll trying to get us arguing about their post...or something of that nature. Our standard approach when we encounter such things is generally for each person to decide whether or not they, personally, want to attempt to answer those questions that they find unpalateable. Rightly or wrongly, that may be partially what happened here. We can't force people to answer questions, or to come up with wonderfully informative answers - so there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. The best you can do is to express your question clearly - and perhaps to explain why you're looking for an answer to it.

We also have actual rules that forbid us to answer questions that we suspect are "homework questions" or questions asking for legal or medical advice. Your question somewhat strays into the latter category too...and that may have put off more people.

But sometimes, the reason is that none of us know the answer, and nobody is sufficiently motivated to go off and do a bunch of research to find out. We are, after all, a volunteer group. Nobody pays us to do this - so we're at liberty to pick and choose what we decide to spend time on.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a not unreasonable question, but one which might required more research than the average editor is willing to put into it - as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think if you post a follow-up question/clarification more than 24 hours or so after the initial post, it will attract more attention if posed as a new question (linking the previous question would be a nice courtesy). Agree with Steve that we are WP:NOTCENSORED; I've replied to all sorts of questions that aren't usually brought up in public/"polite" company. Finally, the fact of the matter is that there is a bit of bias that we have here due to what interests responders, where their knowledge/experience lies, and who happens to be reading that day. For example there were a series of questions a few weeks ago about details of soil mechanics (e.g. , ) -- when there were few/no responses after a day or so I tried to supply some links, but I'm sure that OP felt they weren't getting great answers overall. I believe that we just didn't have any expert eyes on those questions. Such is the blessing/curse of a volunteer reference desk! So another solution might be to post a similar question in another month or so, you may get a different crowd of responders (but please use your discretion, as frequently posting similar questions could be interpreted as disruptive if it is done too much.) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And you do notice that i edited my top question after i received all the answers.Whereismylunch (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the top question was before i edited it:What are the chances of getting hpv from oral sex, not the chances of oral cancer from hpv? I asked a similar question a few days agoWhereismylunch (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Chat re Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#Will_there_be_any_consequences_if_a_human_eats_the_glands_of_an_animal.3F (moved from project page)

Thanks to Wnt for actually answering the question rather than just joking around. This is Reference Desk, not a chat room. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the jokes are that offal, are they? --Jayron32 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I often wonder why some are keen to compare this place to a realistic help desk. While I'm certain you make massive contributions to the mainspace of Misplaced Pages, several others don't. What are the purposes of the various responses to this question? Self-aggrandising and a definite of "love me because I'm funny/clever/satirical, although I have nothing encyclopaedic to add, I'll add something jocular yet hopeless" feeling. Terribly sad, not part of the encyclopedia. Time to improve this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this "contribution" that you just wrote? It does not help answer the question, nor does it add to Misplaced Pages in general. Despite what you profess there is no requirement for responders here to also contribute to our encyclopedia, though of course many of us do. Bugs' response above is not a complete answer but it is indeed a relevant piece of information - there is at least one animal gland that is commonly eaten by humans with no well-documented hormonal effects. Part of what makes WP so great is that no one person has to do all the work, we can each make incremental improvements. Surely you are familiar with this concept? Your criticisms of the ref desk are well known to us regulars. I implore you again: either help us be better and lead by example, or kindly stay out of the way of those of us who do volunteer our time and effort to provide references and resources to users who come seeking our help. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's more useful as more than half the preceding responses. If you are so blind that you can't see those who are just here to increase edit counts without actually contributing referenced answers, that's your problem. But worse, it's making Misplaced Pages look stupid. We have "users" here pretending to answer questions. If people aren't going to actually answer questions, but instead offer anecdotes, this isn't a Reference Desk, it's a chat room. Rather pathetic I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Far too many people on here just posting random bovine excrement without ever being useful in any way. Not naming any names (cough)Baseball Bugs(cough) Fgf10 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, Fgf10, SemanticMantis, and Jayron32: I've taken the liberty of moving this meta argument off the main page. My opinion is that per SemanticMantis above, neither jokes nor arguments over what is appropriate contribute to answering the question. But jokes are meant to make people feel good whereas the meta arguing is intended to make somebody feel bad, so I prefer the former, especially when they're short and inobtrusive. You can move the original joke bit here too if you insist, but I don't think the Rocky Mountain Oysters part is a joke; it does demonstrate that the steroid hormones don't have a dramatic negative effect (though I don't know what the limits of that are) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rocky Mountain Oysters thing was certainly NOT a joke. It was the first thing that came to mind for the OP's question. I don't know what Fgf10's problem is. Maybe he should read the article and eddycate himself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I, as well, provided an answer to the question, and it has now been removed to here. I would like my answer with its linked referenced returned. --Jayron32 01:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it might have been easy to miss as an answer because it was also wrapped in a joke. I don't really mind, just sayin'. I'm adding a link to organ meat to the thread presently. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved, I have added back Jayron32's answer. I do agree it contained a helpful link, although also easy to miss since it was wrapped in a joke. I have also added back TRM's comment which Jayron32's was in reply to, to ensure proper context. I have not added back anything else and have asked anyone who wishes to continue the discussion to do so here. Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think your link and answer was helpful in this case, just not very complete. Incomplete answers are fine by me, as I said above, that kind of incremental progress is what makes WP tick. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Wnt, this kind of off-topic discussion can be very distracting from a thread. I probably should have posted my reply to TRM here and left a link at the original thread saying I replied here. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man

This recent edit, , and the above section make me question why this user is welcome to continue participating at the reference desk. Despite being an administrator, the constant negative attitude - in public space too - coupled with, as of now, rather insulting - to audience and volunteers - hats, it seems more like the user is here to cause problems and be disruptive than actually contribute anything. Ultimately, for all of their argument that the ref desk gives Misplaced Pages a bad name and doesn't help the encyclopedia, I think an unnecessarily insulting administrator stirring up drama gives Misplaced Pages a far far worse name; I know which I think looks worse, at least. @The Rambling Man: if you insist on coming here - so frequently, too - why not lead by example or, at least, not be a disruptive element and continue making the desk, and by extension Misplaced Pages, look worse by your commentary on it?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, The Rambling Man is currently blocked for 48 hours due to unrelated violations of an IBAN. Dragons flight (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually not totally unrelated. Most of the violations were unrelated but TRM's comment now above or originally was cited as one of the violations. BTW, I've written a reply to the original comment, but won't post it until TRM is back our of interest of fairness. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironically Medeis and TRM seem to have similar problems (at least to me). They'd probably get along great if not for the fact that it seems they can't stand each other. Hope they both learn that positive action is more useful here than negative. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring this, I agree with the original archiving, but The Rambling Man returned and it is still timely to discuss the matter (being that it is quite independent of their block and pertains only to their involvement with the RD). I have nothing else to add to what I said above, but I do think that if TRM intends to continue editing the desk, they should, at least, explain themselves and their conduct here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I am entitled to suggest (and will continue to suggest) that the Reference Desk starts to live up to its billing, i.e. a Reference Desk where encyclopaedic answers are provided. Of course, if you wish to close the doors to retain your little club in its status quo, that's entirely up to you. I am prevented from saying anything more. Cheers! (P.S. it's usually polite to let someone know you've opened a thread entirely about them, perhaps you could offer others that courtesy in the future when you try to exclude others in the same way). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that linking to your name did notify you, I apologize if that is incorrect, it was not intentional. Also, I have no issue with you suggesting anything - I do have a massive problem with you making those suggestions in a highly antagonistic manner directly on the desk, rather than discussing them on the talk page. If this were an actual article that was lacking in quality, would it be okay to moan about it, rudely, in the actual article? You are doing far more than "suggesting that the Reference Desk starts to live up to its billing".Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't link my name. I'm sorry you have a massive problem. I have a massive problem too. You know what they say, if you're not part of the solution.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I applogize, again, it was an accident, accept it or not. What is your solution? Rude commentary in the public portion of things, I fail to see what problem you are solving. What problem am I a part of? Whether there is legitimacy to what you claim, and I'm not even asserting there isnt, your approach is certainly the wrong way and I can't see how you expect it to actually do anything. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to break up the little club mentality and be objective, answer questions which you have answers for, stop the "humorous" in-jokes. But that's not going to happen, and with people like you seeking to eject those not in the club, it's a problem which isn't going away. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is interesting since I'm not part of any little club, don't make jokes (here or on the page), usually provide multiple nonwiki sources to almost every one of my answers, and don't answer outside of what I do know well, or can strongly backup. I'm sure you can find times I've fallen short, that's true of anyone, but I don't fit your nest little description - moreover, I've complained about all of that, several times before, more or less. However, none of that makes acting pointlessly rude on the desk acceptable, just because you have something of a point isn't justification to be just as big a problem - I'm not sure why you think it would be. Now that we're done discussing what I'm not actually doing wrong and the club I'm not a part of, can we discuss what you are actually doing wrong and why anyone should put up with that?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a plural "you", not specifically you personally. Anyway, I'm constrained by events, so cannot say more. Please, at least have the courtesy to let me know once you've ejected me from the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a plural "you" that I'm not a part of, nor is it relevant to the issue I'm raising - in fact, it has nothing to do with me. In short, you are acting poorly and complaining, in response, that some other people, not me, behave badly too - how exactly does that justify your poor behaviour? That's nothing but trying to dodge the issue and moan about others uninvolved, from an experienced editor and admin complaining about people not being professional, it's staggeringly absurd. You did behave poorly, that is the matter at hand, quit with the tenth grade misdirection and address it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you can't seem to see there's a problem indicates you're not the person to discuss this with. Anyway, as I said, let me know when the club tears up my membership card. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact you seem to think there's this mysterious club is part of the problem. In reality, a number of regular RD participants has never been that happy about the person who you seem to have the most problems with (based on the person being primary cause of your recent block even if not related to the RD). They were never banned from the RD despite a number of historic problems for any number of reasons but I suspect including because of distractions from the stuff you do on the RD which as I said below are often even more unhelpful. (It's not like they have many supporters on the RD.) In fact, a number aren't always that happy about the other person of the IBAN either. (Or I'm guessing other people who have problems with, perhaps including me I don't know.) The thing is even for all their flaws, I can sort of see where both of them are coming from, despite often disagreeing or thinking they're doing stuff majorly wrong. As with Phoenixia1177 and expressed below, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve. As an experience admin, you surely know that randomly ranting at people on the RD proper isn't doing anything productive or likely to lead to any useful change and as I mentioned earlier instead is generally counterproductive since people are distracted from other problems that perhaps should be dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) It seems unlikely Phoenixia1177 was intentionally trying to exclude you since they specificially address a comment at you. It's unfortunate they did not notify you, but I think it'll be best to accept it was a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I had written a response. I've reconsidered my response based on a look through TRM's edit history. I had mentioned that my concern (for a long time), more so than even most of those TRM seems to criticise, is that most of TRM's post on the RD proper seem to be sniping at participants or criticising the RD without providing anything useful.

Having look through their contrib history, I feel this is accurate for their recent contribs (over the two month or so) although I would clarify to include criticising questions or saying they should be closed or closing them. (I have and remain supportive of closing threads on the odd occassion but regardless of whether it's justified here, I don't think many of us want any who's activity here is primarily closing threads and criticising.) The other contribs I found were 2 questions and followups, thanks etc all of which are good but not really what I was getting at (I was thinking of replies to questions). Over this period, there was also two clearly helpful responses . As I somewhat also expected, in addition to the helpful part of the response, the first example also included criticism of earlier responses.

Finally there were five (if I count the discussion above as one response) which I would classify as doing nothing but criticise on the RD proper . I'm including which was in the thread they also provided an (earlier) answer to. Also which was an attempt to close a thread. Ultimately this support my view that in recent times TRM is guilty of what they've said above i.e. not being part of the solution on the RD.

However, if I go back further, I do find more useful posts in comparison to their other stuff e.g. . Actually during this period, I would say this is good behaviour, there were one or two responses mostly criticising but the majority had little criticism even in the response (sometimes in the edit summary). (There was also another question and followup .)

If TRM were to get back to that situation, where most of their response at least offered some useful information (beyond just telling people they won't get a good response her and should go somewhere else), I personally wouldn't mind even if they were also using it as an opportunity to criticise the RD & its participants. If not, I'll resurrect something from my old post. As an admin 'TRM knows what they can do if they want to close the RD, or change policy or guidelines whatever, and it isn't sniping at people on the RD'.

Plenty of people do the occasional snipe & criticism (or other stuff like jokes which don't provide an answer), I don't think it's something we should worry too much about if they also often do provide useful stuff. While there is sometimes some concern over the balance or useful contribs on the RD of other editors, in most cases they seem to have a resonable amount of useful stuff, it's more that there's a concern of being too many problematic ones.

BTW to avoid confusion in cases when I linked to a modification of existing response, I'm referring to the whole response not just the modification. As to why I incorrectly believed TRM was mostly just criticising on the RD proper, I guess it was confirmation bias, the fact that I'm much more likely to notice & remember (including who posted) a response which is just criticism, the fact that TRM isn't particularly active on the RD, as well as that a number of these are in the entertainment desk.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To properly answer this we should go back to the issue of why a good God lets bad things happen. If you could ride up to the top of a hill, grab the gun hanging on a cord like a bank pen and shoot a couple of shots at random, and have a year's supply of deer meat appear magically in your refrigerator, then there would be no groups of hunters, no stories, no hunting magazines and tips and fancy equipment. Nobody would know each other; they'd just shuffle out from their apartments now and then like people using a public toilet. What the Rambling Man should understand is the thrill of the chase here, in particular, the disappointment of failing to find the answer you are looking for, which is central to the appreciation of the Refdesk. In this particular case, I looked around for thyroid eaters with no awareness that this had been used as a treatment in the past, and I wasn't sure if it was a legitimate treatment or not; I briefly searched with a few terms on NCBI but missed the prize. (I could have dived into the hundreds of results from looser searches, but lacked the determination) But then Count Iblis came in and gave some references and TammyMoet clinched it. The "club"ness of the refdesk is based on that sort of cooperation, and an appreciation that the success - linking a general question to a specific instance for our archives, which are indeed a source of inspiration for various expert systems like Watson - is vastly more important than our reaction to any humor or sniping. A phrase I used before in this situation was "Do not muzzle the ox that treadeth the grain" :) Anyway, you have to genuinely enjoy seeing questions answered to appreciate the environment.

The other situation with Rambling Man is that I don't remember seeing him on the Science desk, then he shows up with a complaint. The people at ANI suggested this was because he was following somebody he has ongoing disputes with. If so, then that's just plain Wikistalking, which never ends well. If not, then I don't understand why he picked out that particular spot to start making his criticisms, rather than some other question or the talk page. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have all Ref Desks on my watchlist, along with about 6,000 other pages. Would you like me to send you list? Oh, and claiming that "the thrill of the chase here, in particular, the disappointment of failing to find the answer you are looking for, which is central to the appreciation of the Refdesk." is original research. People actually believe that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encyclopaedia. To that end, something called the "Reference Desk" should be used to provide actual answers, not just in-jokes and humorous back slaps to the regulars who lurk there. It's really rather unseemly, the best thing would be to constrain the "hilarity" and in-universe frat club nonsense to the talk page or somewhere else, and remember that the main Ref Desk talk pages are frequented just as articles are frequented, by people expecting to see a professional resource. What Nil Einne has covered above in the various diffs demonstrates an editor who has grown more and more tired of seeing the Ref Desk being misused by a proportion of its editors. That's just an observation of a natural cause-and-effect: disillusionment and disappointment is the effect, the lack of encyclopaedic content of many Ref Desk threads, the jokes, the on-Wiki stupidity is the cause. Perhaps those contributing should consider and work under the suggestion that each Ref Desk thread should conducted as if it were an article update. That way there'd be no issues whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The ref desks are not perfect. But I don't think there's any consensus that they're the cesspit you describe, either. Yes, sometimes there's too much banter and wisecracking. The question is, what are we going to do? Let it be? Try to improve it? That'd be fine, but: just barging in and yelling ain't gonna do it. You're going to have to work with people, not against them. (Same as anyplace else on the wiki.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, it's not "barging in and yelling", it's a general acknowledgement that the jocular and non-ecncylopedic discussion that goes on there has become too much. Improve it. Stop pissing about, stop pretending to know the answer, stop giving opinion, be a "reference desk", not an "opinion desk", remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other online venues (e.g. Answers.com) where you can all do the same thing for the same gratification without dragging the place down to a chat room. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask, do you honestly believe that the biggest issue with maintaining the integrity of the reference desks is that people make the occasional joke when supplying answers? I've been a contributor in this space for a couple of years now and if you look back into the archive for this talk page and both the Science and Humanities Ref Desks, you'll find that on occasion I've been a very vocal critic of speculative and un-sourceable answers and have advocated that contributors here should view WP:V as binding to our activities in this space at least in-so-far as they could provide a source to support the information they provide, if called upon to do so. But there is a huge difference between keeping an eye on verifiability and WP:NOTAFORUM and expecting everyone to act in an utterly humorless and asocial manner. Having come here on many hundreds of separate days over recent years, I cannot recall one occasion where I've noted more than a handful of jokes. Certainly there's never been one day when I've observed that the text involved in jokes was more than 1/100th of the total text found on the page. I'd be surprised if, availing yourself of the archives, you could find a day when the (almost always harmless) jokes grew over this threshold. Nor am I aware of a single policy for this project which precludes or restricts a little good-natured humour. Of course we are advised, as with all editors contributing in any context, to be mindful that our purpose here is meant to be informative, not social, but every space on Misplaced Pages aside from the articles themselves sees it's fair share of jokes, and I've never known anyone to be so militantly opposed to them, unless they clearly were being made at another editor's expense. Yes, certainly there is a contributor or two who could scale back on the quips a little, but on the balance I'd rather have volunteers here who make a few unnecesary jokes but do it in good spirits and as a part of a good attitude with regard to collaboration than volunteers who are deadpan but seriously lacking in their respect for WP:Civility. Frankly, I have a hard time believing this is truly about the jokes (edit: Having now done an ANI search and seen the extent of your problems with Medeis and the fact that neither one of you seems particularly committed to community standards when you have the other in your sites, I'm even more dubious) -- but if it is, and that's the worst of your complaints with regard to this part of the project and those who contribute here, I daresay that's nitpicky in the extreme.

Now, if you want to speak to the more substantive issue of those editors who just seem to want to weigh in on any and every topic whether they have the requisite knowledge or can supply relevant source material, I'd certainly support that discussion, but having looked at the diffs supplied above, I can't but agree that your approach to raising this topic has been disruptive and non-productive in a manner that anyone who has acquired a mop at to be able to recognize as completely unacceptable; where else on this project would you expect to show up caustically denigrating the contributions of others and somehow have it result in a change of approach for the better? You say repeatedly above that you are certain that there will be no change or improvement along the lines that you dictate, and yet you continue to rail on those points; this paints the picture of a person who is more interested in passive-aggresively whinging on a subject and attacking the approach of his fellow contributors than availing himself of the collaborative principles that define our approach on Misplaced Pages to develop a new standard of behaviour by winning people over by force of the value of your argument and it's consistency with our existing policies and values -- rather than trying to knock other people down. For an admin, you seem to have a pretty poor understanding of how counter-productive astringent, accusatory comments are on Misplaced Pages, relative to a carefully considered policy argument which avoids judgement of others in-so-far as possible and which makes clear your respect for the fact that your fellow contributors also care about the quality and integrity of the project. Civility is a pillar policy and a guiding principle which Misplaced Pages, as it exists today, simply could not do without and if I'm to be frank, much as I've railed against those prone to speculative answers in the past, if every regular contributor here moved closer to your interpretation of WP:V but at the same time moved closer to behaviour more consistent with your appreciation of WP:C, the Ref Desks would be much worse off for the change. But the truth is, the approach you are using at present has no chance of effecting any kind of change, save to make the atmosphere on the desks proper (and the dialogue here) more toxic. You're damaging our consistency with regard to one pillar policy in the name of trying to get us to closer adherence with another, but without any result to that end -- frankly because you don't seem to know what good and effective policy argumentation on Misplaced Pages looks like. At least that's the opinion from this one editor who agrees quite strongly that at least part of the problem you see exists but strongly disagrees with your approach to improving it. Snow talk 06:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's all a little TLDR for me, a lot of unnecessary text to simply express that you disagree with my approach. As I have said before, I am limited in what I can express, but am constantly dismayed by the "quality" of responses. And I am not alone in this. The bottom line is that editing the Ref Desk should be the same as editing articles. Care and attention and professionalism should be an expectation, not a hope. Otherwise we should seek to rename the Reference Desk to something more appropriate, like "Opinion Lounge" or "Tea Room" or similar where the LOL's can carry on. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Having just spent some time wading through ANI archives, I can appreciate that the reason that you are limited in what you can express is that you are operating under the restrictions of an IBAN. But the very fact that you feel this restricts your ability to comment on this topic suggests that you are at least partly conscious of the fact that your comments seem to be more motivated by your qualms with particular editors than with a general issue. I'll be blunt - having looked through your year-long running feud with Medeis, I am not well impressed with your ability to keep an objective eye on policy, nor keep perspective in general, where they are involved. Nor am I the least bit convinced that your sentiments about them (and at least two other regular editors here) are not colouring (or possibly existing as the primary motivating factor for) your criticisms of the Ref Desk in general. Since your IBAN prevents you from interacting with regular contributors here and you don't seem to have much respect for this area of the project, may I sincerely and dispassionately suggest to you that this is not the ideal place for you to be contributing?

On a side-note, this is a Misplaced Pages talk space, not a youtube comments section, and while you are technically quite free to TLDR to your heart's content, I personally don't find two paragraphs anywhere near excessive discussion for somewhat significant violations of two separate pillar policies. Myself, I almost always find TLDR to be offensive, both because of its casually dismissive nature and probably also because it is used most liberally by trolls and others who are obviously not interested in honest and productive engagement. As regards Misplaced Pages in particular, I feel it has almost no proper relevance to good-faith discussions, except as regards the rarest and most excessive cases where where a contributor is clearly abusing the reasonable attention span of involved parties. When I see a Misplaced Pages administrator use the phrase, I feel like I'm a jurist whose just read it in lawyer's formal response to a brief from opposing counsel; their very purpose in that context is to carefully consider the arguments made by the other party and formulate a response that has procedural relevance to a set of carefully codified rules -- if they can't do as much, they should certainly be engaged in other work altogether. That is, if you want your own words to carry weight, perhaps you should not act as if you think it's appropriate to flippantly disregard the opinions of others as not worth your time. Even simply not commenting on a given subject is typically more respectful than going out of your way to point out you have no interest in reading them. Just some food for thought. Snow talk 08:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)