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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:10, 7 November 2013 editScs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,778 edits →deleting threads on this page← Previous edit Revision as of 05:00, 7 November 2013 edit undoBaseball Bugs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers126,810 edits →deleting threads on this pageNext edit →
Line 249: Line 249:


:::::Gee, Bugs, I find plenty of your comments useless and/or annoying, too. Does that make me a troll and a personal attacker, as well? —] (]) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC) :::::Gee, Bugs, I find plenty of your comments useless and/or annoying, too. Does that make me a troll and a personal attacker, as well? —] (]) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::Maybe, and the feeling is mutual, but I often curb my tongue. A major difference, though, is that you and I stand behind our registered accounts, and don't hop around different IP's firing random shots and then disappearing back under the rock from whence they came. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:00, 7 November 2013

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.
On 3 July 2013, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:Answer Desk. The result of the discussion was not moved.

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.


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 here, here, Especially here, Especially here, here, Especially Here (Gaslighting), here. ⧐ Diamond Way 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. Sussexonian (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Do I take it that means you're not interested in becoming one of my minions? μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask a favor 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 'affiliations/behavior'?).
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 WP:DROP this thread, to keep focus we can transfer your hat concerns to a new one if you wish. ⧐ Diamond Way 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:53, 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). Wnt (talk) 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, MarnetteD and GiantSnowmen. That's five in favor of the rules, versus you who oppose all ref desk rules, and the OT. μηδείς (talk) 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. --NorwegianBlue 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. μηδείς (talk) 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. --NorwegianBlue 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. Sussexonian (talk) 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. μηδείς (talk) 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. —Steve Summit (talk)
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. ⧐ Diamond Way 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.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 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. ⧐ Diamond Way 20:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
In this diff, the IP/OP claims to be the user Sneazy (talk · contribs). If true, that could explain a few things. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 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. ⧐ Diamond Way 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Checkusers won't do anything about IP's. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 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. ⧐ Diamond Way 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.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • "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. 86.148.152.23 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Integrating with the Misplaced Pages Library

Hello refdesk folks. Most of you are probably aware of the Misplaced Pages Library (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 resource exchange. I'd like to add Misplaced Pages:The_Wikipedia_Library/header 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, The Interior (Talk) 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. --.Yellow1996. 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? ⧐ Diamond Way 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. The Interior (Talk) 17:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah; I think it looks good down there. --.Yellow1996. 19:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

This is backing up a bit. Could someone who knows how take a look. Mingmingla (talk) 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. Looie496 (talk) 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. :) Matt Deres (talk) 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. diff. 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. μηδείς (talk) 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 cancer article and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. -- Jack of Oz 07:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Cancer cells are not necessarily short-lived at all - see HeLa cell line. I agree with Red Act (below) - the OP's second post is a sensible question and appropriate for the RD. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The OP's first post was somewhat of a rant more than 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. Red Act (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I regret my use of the word "rant" in my above post, so I have changed the wording to something more appropriate. Red Act (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.
120.145.195.215 (talk) 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? 121.215.53.175 (talk) 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? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. 121.215.53.175 (talk) 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I said that's what he looks like to me. Meanwhile...
120.145.195.215 (talk · contribs)
121.215.53.175 (talk · contribs)
The known IP's point to western Australia. Isn't that WickWack's bailiwick? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Debate under question about Sweden

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 WP:SOAP. Go ahead, I dare you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlhover (talk • contribs)

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. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
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. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a personal attack. Also, you've got an IP doing this edit-warring now: 94.68.228.99 (talk · contribs) That's what happens when you try to be a ref desk nanny. STOP IT. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This has got to stop. Buggs, isn't about time for you to take a break? 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reported the IP for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
In amongst the (alleged) inappropriate behaviour, he has a point about the substance of his issue. -- Jack of Oz 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It was hatted earlier today, which should have been sufficient, until Bowlhover stuck his nanny nose into it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:21, 27 October 2013 (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. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
And now we've got another IP into the act, 202.124.242.10 (talk · contribs). You caused this problem, Bowlhover. I hope you're proud of yourself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 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 victim blaming, and it's ridiculous. --Bowlhover (talk) 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. 202.124.242.10 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Another cowardly drive-by. Log in under your real ID if you expect anybody to take you seriously. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Bugs, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I just stopped by, I'm not reading any more of this thread right now, there's plenty of bad behavior to go around, but you have got to stop trying to redirect attention onto your much-feared "drive-bys" and other bugaboos, and start answering for your own behavior. Jeeeeeezus. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
He said STFU. I wish I'd said that. Everyone's repeating it around the club. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:02, 28 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. 202.124.242.10 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't get to decide whose behavior is scrutinized and whose isn't. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you not feed or legitimize the IP editors by engaging in back-and-forth with them, Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It turns out that the IP 202 is a sock of a sockmaster with hundreds of socks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
And it further turns out that the sockmaster is a banned user - which means any edits made by its socks are subject to reversion without penalty. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. What's the blocked user's name? μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Here you go. I don't want to dignify the sockmaster by mentioning it here. But he's got literally hundreds of socks. None of them wickwack, though. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
A pass-the-buck style admin doesn't want to block them. But they seem to have disappeared anyway. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Just curious Bugs, but if a non-sock-puppet-non-IP told you you should take a break, would that make any difference to you? Forget this Sweden thread, I'm actually thinking of the Magna Carta question. It looks like French! Seriously now. You don't have to answer every single question, especially when you blatantly don't have a clue. You may want to stop and consider why the Reference Desk needs "nannies". Hint: it's because of you. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You lost me at the boulangerie. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
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. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (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. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The 'cause of the problem' was people dragging the thread off-topic in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is why it was hatted. There was no actual problem until Bowl-over appointed himself the nanny of the ref desks, which started to attract banned users to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
People dragging threads off-topic is an 'actual problem'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The entire thread was an invitation to debate from the get-go--and the hatting was selective in the very least in allowing a false and unsupported claim the conservatives in America want a zero-tax rate while hatting a response that challenged that. Nevertheless, you didn't see anyone edit warring over the hatting. And Bugs and I, for example, are on opposite sides of the issue. (Note also from Bowlhover's talk page it is I who taught him how to hat in good faith in the first place.) The bottom line is we do not delete comments without discussing it here. And we don't delete comments unless they are personal attacks, requests for medical advice (which is templated) BLP violations (which are revdeleted), and egregious trolling. This was a multiple-editor thread that was none of those. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This is completely ridiculous:
1. Here on Misplaced Pages, we assume good faith.
2. If the question is indeed an invitation to debate from the get-go, you don't take the bait. You don't feed the troll. Instead, you not only took the bait and jumped in with irrelevant political polemics about America on a question about Sweden, you reverted my attempt to hat the debate.
3. I considered hatting StuRat's response, but did not do so because it was marginally related to the OP's question. Every single response below that was not.
4. Again, you reverted my hatting of the debate. I never reverted any edit more than once. Since you obviously consider my 1 revert to be edit-warring, you must have also been edit-warring.
5. I don't give a crap about anyone's political opinions.
6. Don't flatter yourself. I've been an editor for numerous years and knew about hatting well before you "taught" me. Even if I did not, I'm fully able to look at source code and figure out how to hat.
7. In the previous section of this page, you admitted to deleting a user's questions even though they were not personal attacks, requests for medical advice, BLP viiolations, or egregious trolling. You also deleted the questions before, not after, discussing them here. Your double standards don't fly with me. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You deleted it twice: You should not have deleted it the second time. BRD. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my. It's a good thing I didn't revert you on that thread when you hatted the discussion, Bowlhover. It looks like that might have made you angry. Thank god this matter ended two hours ago, for all our sakes. (Now pressing the moot button.) μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
202 doesn't appear to be Wickwack, but it looks like it could be another banned edit as per the block log (it's a proxy so I'm not sure if all the edits are from said editor but there aren't many so it may be). AFAIK Wickwack has never edited from an account that we know of, that's part of the problem considering what got them blocked. When it was suggested that they register, they suggested they tried to register once but was 'misidentified' as someone else. Presuming this story isn't totally fictional, whether the identification was actually incorrect, I can't say. In any case, Wickwack seems to once again be a semi regular at the RD as no one can be bothered reverting them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm _assuming_ the recent deletion from the "Pink Noise" thread for one of WickWack's contributions, and I note that the deleted text has been recreated by "127.0.0.1" (a rather disturbing IP address - I sincerely hope the message wasn't posted from the server console). diff for the interested. Should this also be deleted? Tevildo (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
For a while, apparently, the WP software was routing some IP edits in such a way that they were appearing to come from 127.0.0.1 (see WP:VP/T#Edits from 127.0.0.1). Deor (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference - the duff IP addresses are from Oceania, I note. What's the standard of proof for deciding that the posting is from WickWack? I'm personally sure, but my judgement is poor on such issues. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The 127.0.0.1 could be WickWack, but it also could be enough other people and give it's a short fluke that I think it's best to discount it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually discount that, the follow up discussion combined with demonstrates it was Wickwack. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Phooey. I just went on a goose chase expecting an amusing bug, but it's just an ordinary IP, not loopback. Would be ROTFL if someone checkusered 127.0.0.1 and decided it was Wickwack. :) Wnt (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
(But see User:127.0.0.1 and nearly 100 contributions ) Wnt (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed amazing new theory of gravity

diff -- BenRG (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Good removal. The IP needs to find a science fiction forum. That reminds me: Many years ago, I heard this theory of gravity. I don't necessarily believe it, but it was somebody's theory regardless: "There is no gravity - the Earth sucks." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Brett Easton Ellis, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed lengthy Mac OS X advocacy on RDC

I have closed this which primarily consists of lengthy OS X advocacy by User:Nimur.

The RD has a bit of a historic problem with someone running some software asking a question, only to be told to run some other software even when the suggestion was clearly unwelcome and unlikely to make a difference. This is something I've long objected to as I've said before.

Historically it's someone running Microsoft software being told to run open source software (and some would also suggest Apple products tend to get unfair opposition) so perhaps it's a bit funny that this time it's someone wanting to run an open source operating system with some proprietary components (as per our article) being told to keep running a closed source Apple operating system with some open source components (again as per our article), but not really.

If there was something of an answer to the OP's question in the answer, I would have left it be, but while the OP may not have specifically said they only want help running Ubuntu or some variant of Linux, I think it's clear even from only this question that what they want, not to be told why they should not do so. Heck even if this was a shorter post, I probably would have left it be. But I know a bit about long posts and I think this is the sort of long OT post that is too distracting. Referring to Apple and Microsoft as "crApple Mac O'SuX and Microshaft Windoze" in another question doesn't seem to in any way justify such a response.

As to the continous closing only draws attention/deletion is better/whatever arguments, the only thing I can say is if someone does provide a useful answer, closing prevents it being lost. Deletion will as well, but Nimur is a respected contributor even if their contribution is unhelpful here and I feel deletion is unwarranted although won't object if someone else does so.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize that my answer was unhelpful and that its tone did not meet the high standards of professionalism that I usually expect from myself and other contributors. My intent, which I did not accomplish well, was to redirect the original poster's efforts toward more productive exploration of the benefits of an open Unix-like system, rather than spending time proverbially "re-inventing the wheel."
I stand by my original position, though, which is that the requested task - to replace the system software - is in this case prohibitively difficult, given the minimal reward it can provide. From my perspective, the best references we can provide - links to documentation - will dissuade the user from undertaking a fruitless task. I did not do a very good job directly linking to such resources that would assist in persuading the OP. And, I will accede that this is simply my perspective, and may not be shared by others. Nimur (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The correct spelling is App£e and Micro$oft. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I read Nimur's discussion before and found it intriguing, relevant, and technically sophisticated, as is generally the case for his contributions. I still don't really understand it though, and hold some mental reservations (if Mac OS X is free/open source why don't people run it on PCs?) but it certainly overturns some assumptions that might hinder further understanding. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
To answer your parenthetical, only parts of OSX are open-source, not OSX as a whole. (Mostly the parts that descend from BSD through NeXTSTEP, but some other pieces as well.) APL (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Two reasons:
  1. not all of OS X is free software. Some parts are proprietary. This is similar to Ubuntu: while the linux kernel is free software, Ubuntu contains more than just linux. Ubuntu contains some non-free software; some of it does not work and cannot be modified. In the case of OS X, certain non-free software is also made available at no charge for owners of Apple hardware, like the OP.
  2. Free and open source software is great, but it doesn't automatically mean the software works for all purposes. To make something as complex as an operating system that can run on a specific piece of hardware, somebody must take that free software and modify it. Who is doing so? Ubuntu source-code - even that portion that is freely licensed - is not owned by Apple, so Apple will probably not use or modify it. Somebody else must take that work on: Apple has already provided a functional alternative.
Nimur (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nimur, you do realize that Apple hardware is a pretty common choice for Ubuntu users, right? They like stylish, nicely designed hardware as much as anybody else.
Of course somebody has to "make it work", but that's true for all hardware. Gateway and Dell aren't supporting Ubuntu any more than Apple is. APL (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
APL, Dell is an official partner of Ubuntu. They are very publicly, out in the open, announcing that Dell is spending money and engineering resources to make Ubuntu work on Dell hardware. I cannot speak to whatever other corporations are working with Ubuntu under non-disclosure agreements. Nimur (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Being rather ignorant here, I still tend to see the situation in black and white: I mean, either OS X and Ubuntu have useful open source components, or they don't. If they do, then I expect that by and by I should be seeing OS X available for the PC with some extra code written to paper over the remaining problems. (Ubuntu, of course, I know I can encounter parts of as simply Linux). Is this a reasonable perspective, and if so... should I expect OS X on PCs? Wnt (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
... PureDarwin ? Few people use it, because it's essentially like running OS X... without the performance, stability, and Apple hardware. Here are some photographs of the system running on a MacBook Pro and on a Lenovo X series laptop. As far as I know, the phrase "OS X" is trade-marked; in most places, you cannot call "whatever you are running on your PC" by a trademarked name unless certain legal-ese constraints are satisfied; but Darwin is composed from portions of the system released by Apple that are open-source and free software, plus some patchwork to make it work on a PC. Nimur (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • OSX is built upon an opensource unix variant, but many of parts that make it unique from other types of Unix are proprietary to Apple. You couldn't use only the opensource components to build something that could usefully be called "OSX".
  • Ubuntu is built almost entirely of open-source components, but unlike like more "ideologically extreme" Linux flavors, Ubuntu will include things like closed-source drivers where needed. (iirc, Our original question-asker seemed to have installed from a disk that only had the open-source Ubuntu components, and needed to download the closed-source wifi driver from Ubuntu's servers. Which obviously presented a minor catch-22 since he needed the driver to make his wifi work!) APL (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
We're making progress here (which, I should add, legitimizes this as a discussion belonging on the main Computing Desk). We've identified that the open part of OS X, plus some extra stuff, equals PureDarwin. The open part of OS X is also described as "an opensource unix variant" and as not being distinctively OS X on its own. Now the question becomes, does PureDarwin have advantages over other Linuxes, or will it once its development achieves its major goals? Example question: are there programs that run on both OS X and PureDarwin but not Cygwin, Ubuntu, or Windows (or not as easily)? Wnt (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Wnt has a good question ("are there programs that run on both OS X and PureDarwin but not Cygwin, Ubuntu, or Windows (or not as easily)?", and I recommend posting that as a new question on WP:RDC so that other enthusiasts can contribute responses. I do not actually know the answer, but I am interested to find out. Nimur (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Day

The question at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language#Sentence needed (version of 00:15, 6 November 2013) reminded me of Guy Fawkes Day (November 5).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

deleting threads on this page

Do people find this a valid deletion? (I was about to restore it, but maybe it's fine.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted threads on the main page end up being discussed here, but where do deleted threads here get discussed? Right back again. People can play at hatting threads, deleting them then having a wikilink to the history pop up, whatever, but it's easiest just to post a dismissive comment and be done with it. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That's my fault, I thought I posted that I had deleted that here last night. But why in the world would you want to restore that closed bit of anonymous IP trolling, Steve? Go ahead and restore a personal attack on another editor by a troll--an attack someone besides myself saw fit to close--if you see some encyclopedic value in it. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You so indicated in your edit summary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing at all that constitutes trolling, and I have no idea why people are so touchy about such a comment. It is clear that the editor has been reading the Ref Desk for a while, to have formed an opinion about the general nature of someone's editing. It also seems clear that the person really was wondering whether he was alone. However, the person can now dig up the archives and find the answer to his question - he really isn't alone, and the debate need not be protracted. Anything further is simply likely to put us at each other's throats, and cause yet another escalation. I don't think that's what the OP wanted, but once the basic question has been answered, well, no need to go on about it. I see your point, Steve, but I'd suggest leaving this one. IBE (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It is, in fact trolling; a personal attack by an IP, its only edit since the summer of 2012. If that isn't trolling, nothing is. And Summit bringing it up here further feeds that troll. Good job. This section too should be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I second that. There's no reason now for the diff above to be highlighted, or my edit to show the summary; perhaps Steve or some editor who hasn't commented yet will delete this thread? μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Gee, Bugs, I find plenty of your comments useless and/or annoying, too. Does that make me a troll and a personal attacker, as well? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, and the feeling is mutual, but I often curb my tongue. A major difference, though, is that you and I stand behind our registered accounts, and don't hop around different IP's firing random shots and then disappearing back under the rock from whence they came. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)