Misplaced Pages

talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:39, 27 October 2013 editBaseball Bugs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers126,815 edits →Debate under question about Sweden← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,886 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 133) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>]</small></div> <div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>]</small></div>
<div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div> <div style="clear: right;">{{shortcut|WT:RD}}</div>
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|||{{pp|small=no}}}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/talk header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/talk header}}
{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes |collapsed=yes| age=7 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |
{{old move |date=3 July 2013 |destination=Misplaced Pages:Answer Desk |result=not moved |link=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_100#Requested_move}}

{{archive box | auto=yes |search=yes | age=10 |
<br/><center>''']'''<br> {{center|''']'''
{{flatlist|
],
], * ]
], * ]
], * ]
], * ]
* ]
</center>
}}
}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 256K
|counter = 102 |counter = 133
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__FORCETOC__ __FORCETOC__


== Unreadable in dark mode ==
==Deletion of INCIVIL, SOAPBOX and editing abuse==
Subject was deemed hatted by a senior editor & user twice undid, then changed the question a few times not by adding further details/queries below but the actual question itself. Then is boasting how "worthless" wikipedia is, and that he has the answer anyway, not looking forward to the day we all post how we had a question and got the exact answer on these desks. Difs , , , , , , . ] 04:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:I've removed the two 'hat's that the user used to 'hide' criticisms of his question. But seriously, is anyone surprised, when Medeis is now training up an apprentice hatter, that a passing user wants to play the game too? There is more disruption to the desks caused by the few regulars who constantly try to stop a discussion, than is caused by the appearance of unsuitable questions from time to time. A month or two there was (twice) a blissful week when no 'hatting' took place and the world didn't collapse. Also, the template used most often by Medeis has the effect of saying "Look here, there's something REALLY interesting behind this screen we don't want you kids to see" and we know what that leads to. Please let's stop it. ] (]) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::<small>Do I take it that means you're not interested in becoming one of my minions? ] (]) 17:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
::Can I ask ] of you? Medeis & hatting are not the OP topic. You have valid concerns & I see how the last few weeks, hatting & another editor somehow relate but you can see how your reply could be the ''opposite'' of solving things ("training"? "apprentice"? are we testing ']'?).
::OP's diffs' timestamps speak for themselves & I only deleted it after numerous OP instances of 'Commenting on the contributors' & edit tricks (potential bait/switch partly do to the original 3rd party hat).
::I appreciate your overall goal Sussexonian & don't take any of this as an accusation, my intent is just not to be misunderstood in my concerns. Responding to a "ghost question" can be unnerving & then the type of comments of OP etc. My chief concern of OPs original question being 'noted' I'm willing to ] this thread, to keep focus we can transfer your hat concerns to a new one if you wish.] 12:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:The IP/OP in question is obviously trolling, and I've HATted the whole thing. Although the OP will probably revert it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

*As a matter of record, the OP's question, after a long soapboxing introduction, asked: Market Diamond responded to this (I won't say I approved of the answer) and then the OP changed t when he realized he was caught out asking for advice over what he sees as not only as a moral but a medical and legal problem.
*The consensus is this question should be closed given the above comments and closures on the page by other editors. I am going to close it, and the editor is reminded of ]. ] (]) 16:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
: I see no consensus here -- Sussexionian and I support answering the question, you two are against it. '''If we work with someone asking a question to turn an unfocused comment into an interesting question, that is not a bad thing.''' Learning to ask the right questions is half of science (I think some people would say more). ] (]) 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::There are ''three'' editors here (please ''read'' the thread) who support hatting and another two at least on the thread itself who have closed it, and . That's five in favor of the rules, versus you who oppose all ref desk rules, and the OT. ] (]) 18:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Medeis, please use neutral wording. This is not a disagreement between those who are in favor of the rules and therefore support hatting/removing the prostitution question, and those who oppose all ref desk rules. If this is turning into a !vote, you can count me among those who oppose removal of the question. Granted, it was strongly colored by the OP's views about prostitution, but the core of the question as it stood before being removed was, "what have societies done in the past to combat prostitution?". I see no problem with that question, and think it would be more productive if respondents with relevant knowledge would answer the question, assume good faith, and ignore the parts of the original post which were statements of the questioner's personal views and not really part of the question. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Seriously? Go ahead and pointily restore the discussion against a consensus that exists without me then. Wnt's the one writing essays to override the ref desk rules, not me. ] (]) 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::It would be pointless if I were to restore the question, as I have nothing to contribute in answering it. I tried to urge you to be a little more cautious when commenting the actions of editors with whom you disagree, and not assume that they hold opinions that have not been stated in this thread. Saying that somebody who has contributed here oppose all ref desk rules is a divisive exaggeration. If an editor has suggested elsewhere that the rules be changed, that is beside the point, as far as this discussion goes, IMHO. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:I have no strong opinions on the prostitute thread, and it's simpler now that it has gone. The original question had an excessively long preamble and the question was indistinct; but the OP then clarified the question, making it a request for fact rather than opinion ("what have societies done to achieve this aim?") and was slated for doing so. Most of the time we encourage querents to clarify their requests, but when an IP address comes along the rules seem to change and Assume Good Faith is forgotten. I will deal with the hat template issue separately, which was my intention anyway. ] (]) 19:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::The good thing about this is he can come back and post a simple request for references if that's what he is really at. ] (]) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

: This looks to me like one of those questions where if you don't like it, you should ignore it. You don't like that the questioner laced his factual question with some opinion? So did some of the answerers. You don't like that the questioner twitted us in a followup for being useless? Stop the useless hatting and bickering. Don't get all defensive and try to quash his criticism; that just ''proves'' we're a bunch of officious would-be autocrats who can't admit that our hold on power is so fragile that we can't tolerate dissent. —] (])
::Those that "don't like it" ''did'' "ignore it" Steve Summit, the diffs show that.
::You realize that any diff on its own is not the full picture of IP/OPs acts, the changing of question, the IP/OP hatting GF responses while tossing out ad hominems to us all.
::If you had read the diffs & the rest of this thread you would realize:
::The only "useless hatting and bickering" was repeatedly committed by IP/OP.
::The only "get all defensive and try to quash his criticism" was repeatedly committed by IP/OP.
::The only "officious would-be autocrats" with a "hold on power...so fragile that we can't tolerate dissent" was repeatedly done by IP/OP, the diffs show it all.
::If IP/OP doesn't follow RefDesk Guidelines, WP CIVIL etc. that would make IP/OP the "officious" "autocrat" with a "hold on power so fragile that can't (didn't) tolerate dissent", "defensive" & "quashing criticism" that you criticize. I agree with your general conclusions but the editor who the diffs show has disagreed isn't participating here.] 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:Not to be over blunt, but while the op was kind of an asshole about things, I don't see anything that needs hatting.] (]) 05:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
::One problem that can arise is when the OP cops the attitude that he is ''owed'' an answer, as if he were paying the responders for their efforts. This where reality differs from "The Misplaced Pages reference desk works like a library reference desk..." First, a real librarian probably gets paid. And if a questioner acts like a jerk, the real librarian would either show them the direction to the exit door or call Security. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I don't disagree with the sentiment. But while acting like a jerk might mean you dont deserve an answer and no one should bother with them, that doesnt mean we should box it off. Personally, if I had a perfect answer for that question, Id probably not get involved, but I dont think theyve violated any rules- it's like having bad hygene, people avoid you, but you cant get arrested for it.] (]) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Phoenixia1177, the IP/OP hatted, more than once, meaning that the IP/OP actually pro-actively hatted responses which I don't see anyone on this thread approving of so it puzzles me what diffs we all are pondering. All been said above, including read...the...diffs. Your overall viewpoint I generally agree with but this IP/OP's actions (hatting etc.) don't.] 20:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::In this diff, the IP/OP claims to be the user {{user|Sneazy}}. If true, that could explain a few things. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I'm aware that the op acted like an ass, but that doesn't mean their question should be hatted/removed. Their question isn't the problem, they are- someone could mention to them that that's not how they should conduct themselves, but their question, as current, shouldn't be touched as a result of their behaviour. If they continue being uncivil, I suppose you could look into getting them banned (I don't see the point), but the issue is with the op, not an otherwise decent question.] (]) 05:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::There is nothing preventing you from suggesting a ban or going to ANI so that we may focus on the question & not the constant disruption of OP/IP, in fact you may have supporters on that.] 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Checkusers won't do anything about IP's. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::What? I didn't say I wanted to report them, I said I don't see the point. Don't rephrase this as my issue, the op was a jerk, the question was fine, it's a minor issue and can best be settled by not bothering with it if you are offended. If it is a major thing for you, then you can take the necessary steps for whatever you think should be done.] (]) 04:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Then your point of ignoring or reporting is totally lost on me, & may I suggest that you Phoenixia1177 have from the start "rephras this as issue"--which is fine, constructive advice is welcomed but just be able to accept your own advice. As I said above, you seem not to be aware of all of what happened on this one tho your comments are good advice in a general sense.] 05:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::How did I rephrase this as other peoples issues? I made my position clear, "The op acted poorly, the question was fine", that doesn't entail I think they should be banned, and I never said I thought that- I said if you think that, then you should pursue it. To rephrase it as someone else's issue implies I think there is an issue that merits reporting, I clearly don't think that, so it is not, and never was, my issue. As for accepting my own advice, my advice was to ignore it, seeing as I did ignore it, I did accept my own advice- again, I never suggested that you should try to get them banned, I said that if it is important to you, then you should do it; that's not the same, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Finally, I am aware of what happened, but seeing as the issue was with one single question and committed by the person asking it, I don't think it requires any major response- if this user continues doing this, on a regular basis, or escalates to something worse, then sure, maybe something should be done, but at the moment, it's just a jerk with a decent question.] (]) 06:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::No, if the OP is the editor Sneazy, then he should edit under his user ID, and avoid the appearance of trolling. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I was just talking about his attitude, if he is registered, then he should use his name- a pattern of this would be indicative of something problematic.] (]) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
{{hat}}
*"Hatting" means putting content under a banner with a "show" link, am I right? As a way of suppressing unwanted content, this is completely useless. Far from "hiding" anything it merely draws extra attention to it, shouting "look at me!". Of course, it is fine for ''wanted'' content that just takes up a lot of space. Unwanted content should be deleted if bad enough, otherwise just left alone. ] (]) 01:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
**Deletion opens a bigger can of worms. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Integrating with the Misplaced Pages Library ==

Hello refdesk folks. Most of you are probably aware of the ] (TWL). Although the RefDesk and TWL serve different purposes, they should be integrated a bit more. Some users may be looking for a source for references, which is more the purview of TWL and the ]. I'd like to add ] to the main RefDesk page. I realize that the page is already fairly template heavy - alternately we could make a "footer" version, or a navbox. Just floating the idea here for feedback. Best, <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">] ]</span> 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:I'm sure you can probably find a place to put it... though I'd reccomend making a footer version as that would probably reduce the clutter. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 18:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::Possibly just a very small but bolded top link next to "Want a faster answer?" Unless I am reading this wrong it doesn't have to be its own box does it?] 05:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
:::A link at the top would probably get lost among the hatnotes. The reason it's a box is because the Library is spread out, and operates on several pages/related projects. Ocaasi has added it as a footer at the bottom - I think it looks good down there and doesn't add too much to the clutter. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">] ]</span> 17:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

::::Yeah; I think it looks good down there. --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 19:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

== Archiving the talk page ==

This is backing up a bit. Could someone who knows how take a look. ] (]) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

:The bot has been down for a couple of weeks. In the meantime I've manually archived enough to catch up -- hopefully the bot will be fixed before too long. ] (]) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

::Thank you. I've forced the TOC; we don't normally have to worry about a shortage of thread here. :) ] (]) 21:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

== repeatedly reopened speculation removed after closure by andy ==

I am not sure what you want to call the "questions" on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them. . The answers given by our regulars to the second edition were ill-iformed--cancer is the failure of the regulatory system. It is not evolution. Evolution is the change in populations of organisms over time due to natural selection. Cancer cells may mutate, but the do not establish new species. ] (]) 05:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
:And if they did, they'd be short-lived, as they would die with the body they're attached to. Maybe the best thing would be to have the OP read the ] article and be done with it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

:: There's a mixed message here, folks. To comment on the veracity of any answers is to legitimise the provision of answers. Yet your position, Medeis, is that the nature of these "questions" was such that they fall outside our guidelines and answers should '''not''' have been provided. You seem to be wanting to have it both ways. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 07:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

::Cancer cells are not necessarily short-lived at all - see ] cell line. I agree with Red Act (below) - the OP's second post is a sensible question and appropriate for the RD. ] (]) 11:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

*Had it been up to me alone, I don't know what I would have done. But I wouldn't be opening and adding cruft to already closed material. ] (]) 07:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
**First the OP posted a rant of sorts, based on some obscure theory; and then rewrote as a series of sort-of questions. It appears the OP's English is marginal, which doesn't help the situation. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

:The OP's first post was <strike>somewhat of a rant more than</strike> phrased as statements rather than as a question, but the OP's second post was posed more as questions, so I restored it. Furthermore, there really do exist cancer cells which have the opportunity to evolve over long periods of time within multiple hosts, so the OP's questions aren't quite as nonsensical as they might first appear. ] (]) 08:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
::<small>I regret my use of the word "rant" in my above post, so I have changed the wording to something more appropriate. ] (]) 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
{{hat}}
:Whether or not the OP's first question was a rant is a matter of opinion. It could be just a product of his poor grasp of English. We should assume good faith, and not penalise someone who has poor English. It's not a crime to have grown up with a different language. Some folk who think they do have good english and write well do not and don't, as seen by persons from USA, Australia, Britain and the like, due to cultural differences. Some folk from the Indian subcontinent are in that class, through no fault of their own. So assume good faith and try to read what he's trying to say.
:Personally, I always thought the OP had presented a question along these lines: "I am trying to understand cancer. I think it works this way - blah blah blah. Am I right or am I wrong? That's a not only a perfectly legitimate whay to put a question, its a good way, because it lets us tailor answers to suit the OP's needs. It's NOT a rant.
:Medeis, you are an idiot. You are an idiot because if you delete someone's post without any explanation, what do you think they are going to do? The most obvious thing that will occur to a new or relatively new user, as this OP appears to be, is to assume it got lost in a computer glitch or system operator error. So the obvious thing to do is put it back. He won't have restored it from archives, he may have kept a copy on his own computer, or may have just typed it all in again. That's what I did when my some of posts dissapeared when I was new. Only later did I realise that there is the History tab, and that certain idiots, youself being a major culprit, were deliberately deleting my posts, typically because you/they just didn't like them or dissagreed with what I said.
:Medeis, you are an idiot because you decided that the OP's premise, and the answers, were wrong. It's you that is wrong, as others have clearly showed. If you think an answer is wrong, the proper thing to do is post a calm refutation. Not just delete and leave no explananation. And if you MUST delete, leave an explanation. Generally, deletions on REference Desk, should be used sparingly, in cases of medical or legal advice, blatant persistent trolling, providing sex advice to OP's who are obviously children, discussing the private lives of identifiable people not being of wide media interest, or people blatantly and persistently trying to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute.
:In short, Medeis, you see your self as the Ref Desk sherrif. In that you are a serial pest. Get back in your cave and don't come out. We didn't elect you.
:] (]) 12:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
::It may be a rant. But one that had to be made. Could some please show why the advice contained in, viz assume good faith, be tolerant of those whose first language is not English, and be sparing about deletions, and give an explanation when you do delete, is not good advice? Could someone please explain why Medeis, who does none of this, continually deletes and hats things, and violates his own rules, and IS a serial pest, is allowed to continue without any sanction? ] (]) 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Should we assume you are the same user as 120.145.195.215? Also, are you aware that calling editors "idiots" is a blockable offense? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
::::If you mean the 120.145.195.215 that posted an answer to the cancer question, then, yes, I am that person. I had to shut down my PC, so I got a new dymamic IP when it booted up again. Now, you are the person who started this issue by doing the first delete of the question. I was not aware that calling editors idiots is a blockable offence, but under normal circumstances it would be a good policy. This isn't normal circumstances - Medeis ''continually'' does far worse things, such as deletes on just his whim, and he's not against a bit of cheek either. In short, he does idiot things, as I described above. I'm still waiting to hear why this turkey, who is frequently discussed in talk pages, is allowed to continue without any sanction of any kind. There, I've done it a third time. Calling someone a turkey is the same as calling them an idiot. I'm still waiting to hear why the advice I gave is not good advice too. Please do enlighten me. ] (]) 16:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I didn't delete the question, so don't yell at me about that. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to own up to who you really are. To me, it looks like you're an IP-hopping troll whose sole purpose in being here is to attack other users. Feel free to prove me wrong. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::So Bugs, it's your position that calling someone an idiot is a blockable offense - but calling them "''an IP-hopping troll whose sole purpose in being here is to attack other users''" is perfectly OK? Hmmm...interesting. ] (]) 16:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I said that's what he ''looks like'' to me. Meanwhile...
::::::::{{user|120.145.195.215}}
::::::::{{user|121.215.53.175}}
:::::::The known IP's point to western Australia. Isn't that WickWack's bailiwick? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}


Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but ] is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. ] (]) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
== Debate under question about Sweden ==
:It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::See ] @] ] (]) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. ] (]) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. <small> (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.)</small> -- ] </sup></span>]] 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you ] and ]! Looks great now. ] (]) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Great! <span style="background:white; color: black;">🐸</span>&nbsp;] (]) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


== Humanities and header hatnote ==
On the Humanities reference desk, under the question "Sweden", I removed a long and uncivil debate about American politics that had absolutely nothing to do with the question. This debate continued even after it was hatted, and I felt that it was distracting attention away from the OP's question. If any uninvolved party believes this is not the correct way to handle the situation, feel free to revert. On the other hand, if any participants in the debate try to revert, please explain how your "contributions" are remotely, in any way, helpful to the OP or how they do not blatantly violate ]. Go ahead, I dare you. -- {{unsigned|Bowlhover}}


Last week, ] decided to to the humanities desk, and then ] decided to a few days later. Here's the content:
:Seriously, you "dare" us? There's a good consensus we don't delete remarks except for personal attacks, BLP violations, req's for medical advice (in which case a template is used), and egregious trolling, not a long-multiple user thread. There's no requirement anyone prove anything to you about the utility of the conversation. Nor are you allowed to impose conditions on participants versus non-participants. At worst hatting is appropriate, and it has been hatted. ] (]) 23:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


{{redirect|WP:RD/H|the template header used in all areas of the ]|WP:Reference desk/Header}}
::Your hypocrisy is astounding. On this very page, in the immediately preceding section, you said "I am not sure what you want to call the 'questions' on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them." Either you violated the same "good consensus" you claim exists, or you thought the conventional methods were insufficient and resorting to deletion was justifiable in this exceptional case. If the latter, you have no right to prevent editors to take matters into their own hands in a similar way. --] (]) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was . So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. ] (]) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a personal attack. Also, you've got an IP doing this edit-warring now: {{user|94.68.228.99}} That's what happens when you try to be a ref desk nanny. '''STOP IT.''' ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --] 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This has got to stop. Buggs, isn't about time for you to take a break? ] (]) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for ] they probably know how to find it. ] (]) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


== Bots ==
:I have reported the IP for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words ] (]) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:: In amongst the inappropriate behaviour, he has a point about the substance of his issue. -- ] </sup></font></span>]] 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::It was hatted earlier today, which should have been sufficient, until Bowlhover stuck his nanny nose into it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC) :Where did you see that? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::He did the right thing. Learn it, Know it, Live it. Now go take a break, when you come back, at least make an attempt to be productive. ] (]) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I don't take the advice of cowardly drive-bys. Come back under your real ID, once you've been unblocked. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::As the only third party (besides the IP troll) who's commented on this issue, I'm curious to know what behaviour you feel is inappropriate. I've deleted the debate twice (so I reverted once), and the second time, I included an edit summary and created this talk page section. I have not made any edits to the section since the last revert. I personally don't think one revert constitutes an edit war, and if it does, both Baseball Bugs and Medeis are just as guilty of edit warring. --] (]) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::::And now we've got another IP into the act, {{user|202.124.242.10}}. You caused this problem, Bowlhover. I hope you're proud of yourself. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::How am I responsible for the behaviour of troll IPs that I have no control over? What you're doing is ], and it's ridiculous. --] (]) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Actually, the SOAP issue is what started it. It appears that reflection is in order for several of the parties here. ] (]) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Another cowardly drive-by. Log in under your real ID if you expect anybody to take you seriously. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::This is about your behavior, not mine. "Cowardly" and "Drive-By"...How does this correct the root problem? Personal attacks are but a distraction from the issue here. It is a shame that you must behave this way. ] (]) 02:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::You don't get to decide whose behavior is scrutinized and whose isn't. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


== Fake Desi media content querant ==
===Wickwack?===
*Editor 202 has not been involved in the thread or discussion unti after Bowlhover and 94 maxed out their edits. Given 202 geolocates to Australia, is it possible he's wickwack? Can anyone point out if there was ever an account blocked by wickwack (who last editted from an IP 203, bragging his IP's show up all over), and what his actual username was? ] (]) 02:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.)
::Hold on, I maxed out my edits? Let me remind you that I reverted ''once'', not 3 times (which would still not be over the limit), and not even 2 times. --] (]) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::3 is not a magic number. You deleted that section twice, which was at least one too many. Your IP "friends" then got into the act. If you had not deleted that section the IP's would not have joined in. You are the cause of the problem. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --] 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --] 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:56, 22 November 2024

Skip to the bottom Shortcut

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference deskThis 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 Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Misplaced Pages, please see Misplaced Pages: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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Unreadable in dark mode

Unfortunately I have no solutions to offer, but Misplaced Pages:Reference desk is nearly unreadable in the new dark mode - the very light grey text in the white boxes just vanishes. Thought I'd at least note it here in case anyone knows of a fix. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It all looks normal to me. Where is this "dark mode" option you're talking about? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_214#Dark_mode_for_logged-in_users_on_desktop_coming_this_week! @Baseball Bugs 97.113.14.140 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like that's where complaints about this thing should be taken. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no complaints about the tool; seems to be working as intended, but this page isn't set up to render usefully using it. But hey ho. 97.113.14.140 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you should take this question to the Village Pump. Either that, or don't user Dark Mode. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Good advice. I tried it once. I didn't like it. (Sex, that is. I also didn't like being reasonable, or the new Misplaced Pages dark mode.) -- Jack of Oz 22:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Jdlrobson and Izno! Looks great now. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Great! 🐸 Jdlrobson (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Humanities and header hatnote

Last week, Mod creator decided to add a hatnote to the humanities desk, and then PrimeHunter decided to remove it a few days later. Here's the content:

"WP:RD/H" redirects here. For the template header used in all areas of the reference desks, see WP:Reference desk/Header.

Neither adding nor removing was discussed, and lack of discussion was one reason given for its removal. So, let's start a discussion...is this header a good idea? I'm leaning toward "no", thanks to the reasons given for removal, but I can understand the reasoning for adding. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the removal, there is no reason to have that at the top of the page. --Viennese Waltz 14:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No; the template is way further down the ladder. While pageviews are not infalliable, the comparison – on a logarithmic scale, you'll note – is pretty damning. If someone is looking for WP:Reference desk/header they probably know how to find it. Cremastra (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bots

Do the bots really edit pages or something else because I saw from the citation bot literally remove and replace the same information with the same words Avyanna.Owam (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake Desi media content querant

Looks like the Californian troll who pretends to be a poorly comprehending fan of Indian subcontinent media, with poor English, has now got themself an account. (If I was sufficiently motivated, I'd link the thread several months back where they crowed in perfect English about successfully fooling us.) Should something be done about this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. The last couple of times they've posted on Ents from an IP address, it's geolocated to India. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue has been sorted, the account has been indefinitely blocked. --Viennese Waltz 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)