![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 |
I would like to propose that Baseball Bugs is banned from editing the reference desk. His answers are very rarely, if ever, of any use whatsoever and do not address the questions but almost invariably insult the questioner. I suspect that he/she may have created multiple articles, yet their "skills" on the reference desk are no more than a troll. Thank you. 109.151.74.96 ( talk) 15:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
We could compile a daily list of Baseball Bugs' unhelpful/useless RD contributions, if that would help ( here's yesterday's!). Despite what Bugs would like us to believe, the complaints are not coming from just some random anonymous IPs. This has been going on for, what, 10 years? Adam Bishop ( talk) 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
And today's unhelpful/useless RD contributions: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Creator of the motto "Land of the free, home of the brave" fiveby( zero) 17:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Baseball Bugs exhibits here the very same behavior that got the thread open in the first place. I would say it is somewhat related to sealioning in that they make posts that could on their face be reasonable but actually intend or manage to derail the conversation and make others uncivil; however, unlike sealions, the derailing happens not by walls of text but by excessive parcimony of words, forcing others to guess an interpretation which they will later deny.
See for instance the motorcycle/ferry stuff above ( last diff here). Presumably BB knows of the existence of ferries, and "I'm impressed he's got a motorcycle that can be driven across water" is a joke. But that kind of dry humor falls flat in context, so Fgf10 brings up ferries thinking it was serious. Then BB doubles down on the serious interpretation. BB presumably thought the last post was very funny, Fgf10 presumably thought it was inane, and outside observers presumably thought it was tone-deaf. Notice however that nobody fucking cares about the ferry thing and the result is only to derail the discussion (which up to this point included an accusation of sockpuppetry - which BB was wise to drop since that would actually be somewhat actionable under NPA/CIV).
I doubt one could get any sort of enforcement action. Making jokes that are not funny is not actionable. The only cause of action would be disruptive editing by leading other editors astray with their antics, but since they usually prey on unclear/polemic questions it is a bit of a "garbage in, garbage out" situation; plus, a fair fraction of outsiders think rightly or wrongly that the refdesk is a jungle and the monkeys only deserve attention for the most egregious cases of misconduct.
Just to be clear, I think BB should knock it off, and I have yet to see a single contribution of theirs to the refdesk that improved or answered the question in any way. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I used to be a regular contributor here on the Ref Desk. I have to say that having been gone for 5 or 6 years now it's really something to come back and see the exact same names arguing about the exact same things. I guess it's proof that things aren't really as bad as the complaints seem to make it sounds else this place would've been shut down years ago. That, or no one actually cares about the Ref Desk. Mingmingla ( talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What is our policy on editors who do nothing to build the encyclopedia other than asking huge numbers of refdesk questions?
In my opinion, these editors are causing us to wast a huge amount of time and effort answering questions nobody cares about, leaving fewer resources for those who ask questions that really want answers to.
In my opinion, the answer is a specialized topic ban, limiting the editor to only one question in any 24 or 48 hour period. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This question appears quite dispassionate—not a specific request for actual medical advice, but instead answerable in general with links to WP articles, references to scientific literature, or other WP:RS external sources. This response by Guy Macon seems to contain that that: although it is clearly written as medical advice because it's an extensive quote from the ref, Seattle Children's seems like a reliable source and there is neutral information in there. A statement such as a paraphrase of the "Sun exposure can darken scars permanently, making them more noticeable" portion, and maybe that sunscreen can mitigate that effect, cited to that ref seems like it would be valid in our scar article. Abductive thinks the question is a hopeless request-for-advice as a whole. I'd welcome others' comments on the suitability of the question, and at least a portion of the Seattle Children's info as a response. DMacks ( talk) 04:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ DMacks: Debates that follow the removal of an edit on the grounds of medical advice always seem to focus on whether or not such edits should be removed. Instead, such debates should focus on the dual questions of what is the risk of harm caused by the answer, and what risk is avoided by removing the answer.
There is nothing intrinsically unacceptable about medical advice; the thing that is unacceptable is that some answers on Wikipedia might present a risk of harm to one or more potential victims. Besides, there is no litmus test for medical advice; one person’s helpful information is another person’s medical advice.
I have looked at the original question about wounds, sunlight and scars, and at Guy Macon’s answer. I have asked myself about the risk of harm that might flow from the answer. I can find none. I have asked myself about the risk that might be avoided by removing the answer. I can find none. I have gone in search of the victim of this answer. I can find none. The worst thing that might flow from Guy’s answer is that one or more people might apply sunscreen to a healed wound. No victim there.
One of the principles that applies to our interactions with others at Wikipedia is that we rarely remove another User’s signed edit. If we do so, we must have a damn good reason for doing so and, more importantly we must be willing and able to objectively and comprehensively explain our actions. We must expect our removal to be challenged so we must be willing to spend as much time as necessary to give an account of our decision to remove. A few hundred words would seem to be the minimum to adequately explain why we removed someone else’s edit. Abductive has dismissed DMack’s challenge in thirteen words. In my view it suggests that Abductive, while willing to remove Guy Macon’s answer, is not willing to objectively and comprehensively explain why. Abductive’s response is unsatisfactory because he makes no attempt to identify the risk of harm that he saw in Guy’s answer; or to identify the benefit that might flow from removing the answer. He has made no attempt to identify the potential victim of Guy’s answer. Dolphin ( t) 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I kindly ask some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. Thank you for collaboration -- Giuseppe Ardolino ( talk) 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
There are now many sites on the internet where students can get help without any requirement to show any effort, e.g. here: "Here you can ask reddit to do your homework assignments. There's no need to show effort or attempt to learn anything."
It's therefore better if we got rid of our policy because students will go to these other sites if we don't help them, so there is no gain by not providing the students help if they don't show effort. But by providing help in comprehensive way the student is likely going to learn more than if only answers are posted without much explanation. So, we then do make a difference by providing help to lazy students. Count Iblis ( talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I have seen several people claim that you cannot stop people from asking for advice but you can stop people from answering them. Have the reference desks changed in some way from "anybody can ask a question and anybody can answer a question?" Please explain the logic behind this claim. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
PLS see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Marked as a guideline page.-- Moxy 🍁 20:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please sign my comment. I can't do it with the limited tool I'm using during Coronavirus isolation without messing up the phonetic symbols... The message of "209.198.128.88 19:53, 22 August 2020". Thanks... AnonMoos ( talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from the neutral point of view (NPOV) and that is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Are vested interests in the coming US election reason to abandon NPOV and encourage use of reference desks for political smear speeches? If Yes then this provocative post by Lambiam brings an old crude American tradition to the reference desks. 84.209.119.241 ( talk) 09:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is legal advice not allowed here, while any other form of advice except medical advice like e.g. financial advice, is allowed? Count Iblis ( talk) 07:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
As I have stated I would do before, I have unhatted a simple factual question that was incorrectly shut down as a request for medical advice when it clearly wasn't. It did not contain any request for diagnosis. Stop doing this. Fgf10 ( talk) 09:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Food and drink should be categorized under one of the desk categories. Stuff like food history and dietary. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have just, assuming good faith, attempted to answer yet another question about interpreting (straightforward, for any English reader) food/drink advice from an IP. We've had a steady stream of these in the last few weeks, which may or may not be from the same user (I lack the Wiki-fu, and will, to check).
Firstly, if anyone thinks I've strayed too far towards giving medical advice (which is difficult not to do given the nature of queries), feel free to delete my post – I will have no objection.
Second: despite AGF, I'm beginning to think these questions might be a trolling campaign. I leave it to others to decide what, if anything, to do about it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 ( talk) 01:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Recently, a very important, and in some ways personal, question came into my mind as I was browsing the internet. I am trying to figure out if it would be suitable for the Reference Desk. The reason why I ask this is because of two main reasons.
The first reason is that to fully understand the question, I have to tell you about a sequence of events that began three years ago. This will require a very long explanation. I am a little worried that I might be flooding the Reference Desk with far too much information. Are my concerns here legitimate?
The second reason is to do with the personal aspects of this question. To answer this question will require a slight probing of my mind. I believe that the question will involve a little bit of psychology, though I am unsure of this. What I do know is that the purpose of the question is to deal with an obsession I have had for a while, so I feel that I am dangerously close to asking for medical advice. All I want to do here is to determine the best course of action to pursue the contents of my obsession and to keep calm and sane during the rather lengthy time it will take to complete pursuing my obsession.
I hope I can ask my question on the Reference Desk, though I will not be bothered if I cannot. I hope to have some answers soon. 95.148.142.31 ( talk) 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to note calling for subjective answers is the same as calling for debate which the ref desks don't do. Also see WP:TLDR. I would suggest that you search the web for other sites to ask your question. MarnetteD| Talk 03:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
There's been a difference of opinion between two respondents on the Entertainment Desk, as to the extent of our role. One view is that OPs should Google or search elsewhere first, before coming to us; the opposing view is that the searching is our role entirely.
I'm quite sure that our instructions at one time exhorted our users to make an effort using Google or whatever other search capacities they might have to find an answer to their question, and only come to us when they came up short. That seems to have gone. I don't remember whatever discussion we had about that, but I'm left wondering why it changed. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Inspired by Baseball Bugs' comment here that "you don't get to own the section". Maybe OPs should be allowed to own the section they created with their questions. What if OPs – and only OPs – were allowed to delete (but not to edit) other people's answers to their questions, if they considered the answer to be unhelpful? I for one would certainly be in favour of such a move. -- Viennese Waltz 08:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Jayron32 and Future Perfect at Sunrise:
Is the disruption sufficient that going to ANI and seeking a topic ban is justified, or will such an effort be quickly shot down in flames? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It turns out that now-blocked Answermeplease11 ( talk · contribs) is a sock of Iceage 101 ( talk · contribs). As was Nathan;dlsa ( talk · contribs). Just an FYI in case he turns up under yet another guise. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed a problem on this desk, which is that we have a (small number) of users asking large numbers of questions from varied topics, and then ignoring the answers. There is one user in particular that this applies to, who I'll name if others feel I should (I don't want to make this a personal attack), who is very regularly asking questions that even a read of the first paragraph of relevant articles, sometimes even a glance at the first photo of an article, would answer. We then go out of our way to provide them with answers to their questions, and their responses show that they aren't reading the articles we are sending them to and likely aren't reading the answers we give them ourselves. They labor under the same misconceptions that we told them were wrong, and they show now amount of attempt at understanding our answers to their questions. For one user in particular, this behavior has gone on for several months now, and it is tiresome. Is there anything we can do about this? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 18:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we are well past the point of having some sort of sanctions. Where can I seek administrator intervention? Clearly, it isn't on this page. That's fine, maybe they don't monitor this talk page, but where can we go? This latest post is beyond a joke and troll of a question. The very introduction to the article they linked to answers their question very simply and succinctly. Enough is enough. We aren't dealing with a language barrier. We are dealing with a troll. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Jayron32:, what are your thoughts, as an administrator who is active on the science desk? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam: Now I am staying on right track, I learnt my lesson. Rizosome ( talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@ OuroborosCobra: I don't see any problem in Rocket question. I am clearly pointing out my issue on infobox. Rizosome ( talk) 03:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @ OuroborosCobra: I got warnings for what not because of spamming. It's because of posting questions without research i.e homework dumps. So ultimatly I find my solution on how do I ask question here. Rizosome ( talk) 06:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@ OuroborosCobra: Is my question on Harry Potter is also a incredibly basic? Rizosome ( talk) 15:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
As an example of asking a question that the most cursory skim of the article would answer, Rizosome asked why AEW Winter Is Coming is not on List of All Elite Wrestling pay-per-view events, despite linking to Winter Is Coming twice, he seemed to have not read the intro to that article where it is described as having been "broadcast on TNT as a special of AEW's weekly television program, Dynamite." -- Khajidha ( talk) 10:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC) (Obviously not directly relevant as it wasn't on the ref desk, but illustrative of Rizosome's pattern of questioning)
@ Baseball Bugs: I believe mathematical formulation exist, you can see @ Count Iblis: edit here. Rizosome ( talk) 02:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Baseball Bugs:I don't see anything related to grandfather paradox in Rube Goldberg machine. Rizosome ( talk) 17:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo!Answers was shut down without even an archival. All the work by millions of people vanished just like that. Last week, StackOverflow was sold to a private company "Prosus" for $1.8 billion. [7] [8] Just-for-profit websites have been repeatedly shutting down themselves without caring about people. There is a void for reliable Q&A website that respects people and uses a public license for content. Sites with wiki ethics are the best for any crowdsourced content. A new site called WikiAsk has been proposed as a wikimedia sister project for Q&A, it would be of very helpful if you share your expertise there for the proposal: meta:WikiAsk_(recreated). - Vis M ( talk) 01:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
the Wikipedia reference desk, which is already the best place on the internet for reliable answers to questions- Poe's law strikes again, methinks. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
already the best place on the internet for reliable answersin to a full-fledged Q&A wiki.😇 - Vis M ( talk) 11:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This is to alert everyone that I've just felt impelled to apologise to a querent on the Misc desk and to chide Baseball Bugs for (what I perceive as) Bugs' discourtesy to the querant.
I fully expect a backlash from Bugs over this, and as a 'no-Account' editor of consequent little standing I'm not going to respond to it, or take further part in this discussion (if any) unless asked. I'm sure that we're all aware of the relevant background.
I invite third parties to assess the situation, to edit my response if they judge this appropriate, and to issue whatever ukases they see fit. I may have spoken inappropriately, but I could not bear to let the matter go unassuaged and unchallenged. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 ( talk) 16:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
When did we start dispensing medical advice? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Bagaimana cara memblokir akun yang melakukan vandalisme di Wikipedia Kalashnikov5427 ( talk) 02:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be missing from most of the desks? I could force it, I guess, but it's not clear to me why it's not showing. Humanities has two dozen questions on it, so it should automatically get the TOC, right? Matt Deres ( talk) 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this giant dump of content on the Science refdesk was not reverted on-sight? If you ignore all the initial copy-paste, it seems to be some sort of question about cryonics, but which one is hard to tell.
I would have removed it myself but apparently Tamfang saw fit to let it stand, so maybe it’s just me... Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8 § Computing reference desk.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
(Query moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities by Deor ( talk) 20:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC))
I am unsure if this is the proper reference desk for this inquiry but I would like to know how long discretionary sanctions last? I have been sanction in US politics post 1992 and am unsure what that means. I do realize that I have vandalized certain articles namely the Critical Race Theory Article and I intend to make right on my errors by going through the proper channels to seek guidance before editing controversial articles. Thank you for your help. Godspeed18 ( talk) 20:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I like to add just plain references w/o comment to the end of a question, but this seems to confuse everyone and SineBot. Tried {{ reflist-talk}} but that doesn't work very well. Would an HTML comment <!-- refs, don't sign --> work, or should i just sign everything? fiveby( zero) 18:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Help:Reference and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Help:Reference until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Not here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello is it illegal to have the freehold and deeds together on one document Kastley3 ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Ordinarily I try to refrain from criticising other editors, being on thin ice as an accountless IP user, but I'm worried by some recent posts from Sagittarian Milky Way on the Miscellaneous Ref desk topic Walking on a Manhattan road.
This user appears not only to be describing their own past recklessly dangerous behaviour of dodging on foot through fast-moving traffic on a motorway, but to be close to advising others of ways to practice in order to get better at it.
Fairly obviously, doing this has a high risk of injury or death not only for the pedestrian, but for the drivers and other occupants of cars who might well crash either through hitting the pedestrian or through taking avoiding action. Speaking as a driver, the described behaviour terrifies me.
Could someone please look at this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 ( talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Humanities desk here. Matt Deres ( talk) 15:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Humanities reference desk.
Unfortunate that most questions are looking for technical help rather than seeking knowledge.-- TZubiri ( talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to upload a movie poster for this article 09 Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by هۆگر صڵاح ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts on creating a list of useful (if not necessarily
reliable in the WP sense) online resources? For example, I think most people are aware of the
IMDb, but fewer are probably aware of offshoot sites like those listed at the
end of that article. And those are just the ones with articles. Until today, I had no idea that there was a site for watches worn by celebrities (in movies and not) at
https://www.watch-id.com. I assume there are many others, of varying degrees of quality.
While it would not be hidden or anything, it would perhaps be more targeted towards answerers than questioners, in the sense that we would then know in advance of places to go for the first stage in helping craft an answer. For example, knowing in advance of the existence of the
Internet Movie Firearms Database would help us research a question about a revolver used in a film.
In a related vein, we could also create a list of other online places where people can query users to get questions answered, especially ones more targeted or specialized than our merry band here. For example, the
Internet Movie Cars Database has a
place for pictures of vehicles in need of identification, as well as a forum where questions can be asked. While I think we have a great group here, it's bound to be the case that more targeted queries will tend to get better results. What do people think? Any value?
Matt Deres (
talk)
20:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This discussion mentions the reference desk quite some times so it may be of interest to users who help around here. Your opinions and comments are welcome there. :) - Klein Muçi ( talk) 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Meaning of humble 154.159.237.153 ( talk) 15:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is the best place to ask. I'm sure I've seen a template used in the past that highlights the fact that a ref desk Q&A exchange has resulted in the creation or improvement of a specific article. However I can't for the life of me find it. Any clues?-- Shantavira| feed me 08:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Page shows children. 7 She has 7 children in her family of origin. As far as I've read she has NO children. This is very misleading. Can someone research, site properly and correct? Thank you, Melanie Popp <e-mail address removed> 68.134.107.217 ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Please Google Greenland. Scroll down to Temperatures. The range should be far less than indicated here. This is more like subtropical Temperatures. Thank you. 2600:1700:5AF0:D4C0:254F:250A:DA4D:F3CB ( talk) 01:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Reference desk volunteers, I've been thinking about how we could do better at keeping IPs informed, when they get responses here at the Reference desk. Your feedback would be welcome at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to add a Talkback template at an IP talk page after they get responses at Help forums. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we get a bot to automatically remove date headers with no questions in them? Therapyisgood ( talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
When asking a new question, before publishing please preview your post. If the timestamp is for a day subsequent to the last date header provide a new date header.
The reason why I think this would be an improvement is that bots were not used to add dates until Crypticbot was devised in 2006. It was blocked in 2007 with the reason "...blocking here so it can't go berserk no matter how badly I manage to screw up." It was taken out of service on 1 July 2006 and date headers were added manually thereafter. A new "RefDeskBot" began work on 9th October - it was retired on 27 June 2007. Problems were flagged up by Root4(one) at 04:25, 26 May 2007 in a section headed "The Bot Has Failed!" It was replaced by Scsbot. At that time nobody needed to remove empty days because they became the subject of discussion (e.g. [12]).
The bot often doesn't bother to add a new date, saving editors the chore of removing it at the end of an empty day. Then it wakes up and adds two dates in inverse sequence (e.g. [13]). In this diff [14] a question asked on 2 January appears under 31 December and the next three dates follow in inverse order. Following a request a script was written which removed empty dates, but the bot didn't function for very long and a detailed scrutiny of revision histories would be needed to access its contribution record. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:D9B6:5B88:8E53:AED6 ( talk) 18:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Every single one of those dates was removed by a human being. The plot thickens. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:D549:172D:2E7C:BFE3 ( talk) 14:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
People have been asking me for years why scsbot couldn't remove empty date headers even as it added new ones, and I've always found various excuses, but lately the tide has turned, and I've been thinking, "Why not?". So give me a couple of days — the script is strangely written, and more complicated than you might think — and I'll see what I can do. — scs ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
scsbot hit a brick wall tonight and is no longer able to add date headers to the reference desks, or archive them. Something seems to have changed on the Mediawiki side, exposing a new, unsuspected incompatibility in the way scsbot mechanically edits Wikipedia pages.
I'm not sure how long it will take me to track this down and fix it. In the meantime, archiving will be interrupted, and people will probably have to add/delete date headers by hand.
See also Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Archiving may be interrupted.
If anyone knows of any specific Mediawiki change that might have been rolled out in the last 24 hours, please let me know! Thanks. — scs ( talk) 00:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Given the nature of User 86.140.120.168's Ref desk interactions on their queries posted on Miscellaneous August 7th & 19th [Edited to add: and 27th], and Humanities August 15th, does anyone else wonder if we're being trolled? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 ( talk) 22:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
When did the "New section" tab at the top of talk pages change to "Add topic"? Can someone point me to a discussion of this change? -- Viennese Waltz 09:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Replace the "new section" tab text with "+"gadget enabled. the wub "?!" 12:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago, I asked a question on the Computing Reference Desk about USB-C. [15] I got some great responses but now I have a follow-up question. But the discussion has since been archived. What's the best way for me to ask a follow-up question? Should I manually unarchive the discussion and pick up where I left off or should I create a brand new discussion and provide a link to the archive in question? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
As a reminder, per WP:DNFT and WP:RBI, please do not leave loud, obvious memorials to trolling. If it is serious enough to "box it up" with hat/hab tags, it is serious enough to just delete it. Revert and ignore; if a block is needed, WP:AIV is the place to go. All boxing up does is draw extra attention to the trolling. Please just delete it. -- Jayron 32 12:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
As many will recall - I gave up on writing answers for the RefDesk many years ago - for many reasons - and have been answering question on Quora ever since. I get between 1 and 2 million readers PER WEEK reading my answers - and have 45,000 people who requested notifications to read everything that I write. This, together with a much nicer set of interfaces to support commenting and such, is the reason Quora is so successful.
Pick any subject and you can find hundreds of questions that are worth answering, and the comments section is (mostly) filled with intelligent conversation.
However, Quora is for-profit and that causes all manner of problems.
So WikiAsk is once again springing into life - but this time, they have a usable beta version that actually functions.
Check it out: [16]
I really REALLY think that RefDesk denizens should be supporting this - and I know a lot of Quora folks who'd like to do so too. So I encourage everyone here to look at WikiAsk, not as a rival or something that will kill the RefDesk - but rather as an opportunity to kick the RefDesk's tiny audience and tiny pool of experts into the stratosphere.
You guys (mostly) do great work - and you deserve a much larger audience...and this is how that can happen.
So I'm strongly recommending that you support this proposal - and treat it, not as a rival - or a way to kill the RefDesk - but rather as the logical next step.
If WikiAsk springs into life this time around - I want to be there with you guys making it work.
SteveBaker ( talk) 11:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Several subpages of Wikipedia:Reference desk have been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Obsolete Reference desk subpages. — andrybak ( talk) 19:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cambalachero You deleted one of my questions on the Humanities reference desk and the one with already two other users replying no less. This is the second time one of the questions I posted to the Reference Desk got deleted by someone else. Last time I let the issue slide only because I managed to find the perfect answer elsewhere. This time, however, I cannot. First, you could have just moved on if you did not like my questions or lack the knowledge to answer them. Second, I did not ask this question for opinions, predictions, or debate. Math and Math education are either racist or they are not. There is no middle ground. I asked a yes or no question and anyone up to it may reply with an answer along with the justification for his/her choice and/or dispute the premises of the question. Third, what type of question would start controversy is subjective. Any question that is tangentially related to any type of controversy could be interpreted in such a way. For example, my Are all white people racist? question and Transgender children and suicide question. Even my overpopulation question is related to an ongoing race-related controversy. So, you do not have sufficient policy-related justification for removing my question. If you understand, please revert your action as soon as possible so that others may take a stab at my question. StellarHalo ( talk) 02:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Please join the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 10#Template:Rdconfigarray. — andrybak ( talk) 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
In the recent discussion on paintings in cartoons on the humanities desk, User:Card Zero made what I thought was a useful edit, see [17]. But for some unknown reason, the OP later deleted it, see [18]. I tried to undo the deletion, but received an error message saying that "the edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted." What's going on here? -- Viennese Waltz 10:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone miss the days when the talk page had more activity than all the desks put together? Nope, me neither! I don't know how exactly we got our shit together, but I'm glad we did. Matt Deres ( talk) 19:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
it may be a nitpick but it appears to me that the english wikipedia website is stuck in a mobile look on my PC instead of desktop one. i've checked other language wikipedias but for some reason this is the only that has this issue and i have no idea what's causing this. Tohchal ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Preferences
. Once there, go to
Preferences →
Appearance → Skins →
Hi fellow volunteers, am seeing people post answers generated using ChatGTP, and thought it would be worth discussing if this is a worthwhile use of the reference desk. I see some issues with it, mostly that ChatGTP does not provide its sources. The mild version of that as a problem is that therefore an answer generated by it is no better than some random person spitballing - the serious version is that its answers could be seriously skewed soon by whomever manages to game its dataset best. (To provide a reference, here's a thoughtful look at this issue.). 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we be equally concerned about ai questions at the Ref. desks? These two questions [20] and [21] are suspiciously vacuous and they have led to considerable work by responders that may not have enlightened anyone. Whether the IP-user OP is actually a human, a bot or a combination of the above their user-page declaration is unencouraging: I'm just here to ask questions in the science desk because I know how corrupt, and drama-ridden Wikipedia staff are, as well as fix miscellaneous errors if I happen to stumble across them. I hate enough Wikipedia admins, as too many of them are also big bullies.. I suggest that requiring questioners to pass a CAPTCHA test would be a negligible burden to our favoured humans but would be an effective barrier to bot invasion. Philvoids ( talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see Lone Ranger1999's latest query Japan casualties in war agaist USA [sic], and their previous series of similar queries, on the Humanities Ref desk. I always try to assume good faith, but to me this is beginning to have a whiff not unlike that of trolling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 ( talk) 10:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
US casualties in the Pacific War [22]
British losses in World War II [23]
And again about the losses in the Pacific War [24]
Hey everyone, I'm finishing the process of going through the article Wikipedia, and have one issue that I can't seem to solve. " Coverage of topics and systemic bias" discusses the distribution of topics on Wikipedia using data from a 2008 research study. I would like to bring this section up to date, but can't find anything on this topic past the 2008 study; JSTOR, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Taylor & Francis, and Academia.edu were the databases I checked, and nothing came up. I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library due to the age of my account (5 months and 17 days, so close...) and therefore cannot check there. I put this up on the talk page last week but received no responses. Can you find anything related to this topic? Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) 04:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I realized that the header of the archive subpages (such as, e.g.,
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/February 2023) contains a formatting flaw, as the line ! style="background: #5D7CBA; text-align: center; font-family:Arial; color:#FFFFFF;" | '''Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives'''
uses both the bold pipe !
and the bold marks '''
. How can this be fixed in a systematic way?
Hildeoc (
talk)
00:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
We used to be able to put two articles together, For example, one used to include the article on the films of Sean Connery with the main article on his life. Please can we have that facility again. Thanks, 87.115.182.131 ( talk) 01:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines#Responding to a question by a counterquestion. -- Lambiam 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Reference desk/Miscellaneous has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § Reference desk/Miscellaneous until a consensus is reached.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
At the moment, the Help Desk starts with May 18. The page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives has a row for May, with only the numbers 1 to 9. I presume those are days. 9 links to May 9. Oddly, the last few of these numbers are red and shouldn't be. I can edit the link to get to the other days above 9, but it's fiddly on Android. Thanks. David10244 ( talk) 04:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
A recent Science Ref desk question was answered by one User reproducing an answer they had obtained from ChatGTP, saying they had checked it and found it to be good.
I don't doubt the User's good faith, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea of allowing this to become regular practice. We all know that ChatGTP and its ilk can make both egregious and subtle mis-statements and even manufacture superficially plausible but completely false references. Particularly in the absence of an assurance by the respondent, I would feel unable to trust such an answer unless I were able to re-check every assertion within it, which for a lengthy piece, such as the one prompting this, would be onerous. Casual querants might or might not feel the same, and might trust an answer given on behalf of Wikipedia that actually did contain AI-generated falsity.
(Incidentally, I like an observation recently seen elsewhere – "What is 'Artificial Intelligence'?" "A poor choice of words 40 years ago . . . a more accurate term would be 'Applied Statistics'.") [Edited to add: John Scalzi has just reminded me that it was Ted Chiang writing in the Financial Times.]
I'm aware there's an ongoing discussion somewhere about using ChatGTP etc. on Wikipedia – has this yet come to a conclusion regarding the generation of Ref desk answers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.195.5 ( talk) 04:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
References
I was trying to find a discussion between editors from March 6, 2023 but the AFC Help Desk archives are only listed up to December 2022. The note at the top of the page said to post here if there were any problems so here's my message. I'm not sure what bot is responsible but now that we are almost halfway through 2023, it seems like there should be a 2023 calendar on the archives page. How can we make this happen? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Because it just happened that I lost my post on RD when the page got archived before I hit "Add topic", i learned that the policy here seems to be that “(non-empty) pages are archived a fixed number of days after they're started, irrespective of recent activity.” Why was it decided to deviate from the usual practice to respect activity? What is that fixed number of days? And why is that information not available on the page? (Cf. WP:ANI, which says “Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically …”.) Sebastian 18:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
are there people here with testimonies about their sexualities.such as me a im a lesbian.❤🥺👏 Lilitha Sqokwana ( talk) 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I have wondered what the benefits would be of creating an eighth reference desk on this dear wiki? I feel that are some options available for this, such as a desk for geographic affairs, or culinary affairs. I just think that there are some unexplored areas that we could look into for the greater good of the Wiki or the people who call it home. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 21:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this is appropriate, but what would be the best reliable source outside of Wikipedia to look up information that you all would recommend, if there's not an article with information on Wikipedia? Triviatronic9000 ( talk) 05:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks you two. Triviatronic9000 ( talk) 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone here explain how the question Cambalachero asked yesterday regarding the feasibility of building Star Trek-sized spaceships "at some point in the future" [26] could even theoretically be answered without involving either opinion or prediction? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the archiving period be extended to 14 days. Sometimes I feel that 7 is not enough, and it would be nice for questions to remain live for a bit longer.
You should also look into the possibility of discontinuing the date-based archives, in favour of a new system similar to that which exists on most talk pages. In this system, questions will remain on the live page until a certain number has been reached, in which case the oldest question is archived.
I say these things, as on most other pages, stuff lasts longer than a week, often by a considerable margin. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 13:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The start of my day would be incomplete without the customary evacuations, breakfast and a look at the activity on the Reference desks. I routinely enter WP:RD/S on the log-in page www.wikipedia.org and the Science reference desk routinely appears....EXCEPT something changed this week because now this message appears:
But something is fishy here because I have only to name an article on the log-in page (any article will do, it seems) to get the article on screen, and then enter WP:RD/S which is served routinely. This behaviour has been consistent for several days. It suggests to me that a bug has been introduced by a recent change to the Wikipedia log-in process. Philvoids ( talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me if this is an inappropriate thing to ask on this page, but how can I add sections to Wikipedia articles? I clicked a button that is something like a guide on how to operate in Wikipedia, but I couldn't find anything about my query, and I searched the topic on the Reference Desk's homepage, as it is I'm certain, but I didn't get an answer, and I tried being specific. Feel free to delete this after a while, if you want, because I know this isn't an appropriate question. Triviatronic9000 ( talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think User: AnonMoos doubled down on their closed mindedness by saying the neuter gender refers to "it" and forsook the opportunity to see things in a new way. It was upsetting to me because I felt it was a form of queer erasure. Moreover, originally the user's comment did not address any questions and had zero citations/references/sources, and instead relied on an appeal to authority. Schyler ( exquirito veritatem bonumque) 03:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Two users are removing my history question in Humanities and warning me on my talk page accusing me of using Wikipedia as forum. Can anyone look into this please? جانی گدار ( talk) 03:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I once again suggest that the archiving system be changed so that posts are archived after 14 days rather than the current practice of archiving after just 7 days. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 15:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
It's been 10 years since I last visited the Ref Desk, good to see you are all still here. This place hasn't changed at all haha! MahouAvril ( talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Where are the archives for those discussions? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I once again suggest that the archiving system be changed so that posts are archived after 14 days rather than the current practice of archiving after just 7 days. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 15:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
It's been 10 years since I last visited the Ref Desk, good to see you are all still here. This place hasn't changed at all haha! MahouAvril ( talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Where are the archives for those discussions? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
scsbot, which archives these desks, has never been a fully-automated bot. I invoke it manually, and I eyeball its log messages for errors, which it still occasionally makes.
However! I'll be traveling for the next two weeks, with no internet access at all. So, unless there are objections, the bot will be going fully automatic, for pretty much the first time in its 16-year lifetime.
I don't expect too many problems — the bot has been pretty reliable lately — but if anything goes wrong, I won't be around to help it. If it makes a mistake, someone may have to notice and fix it. If it gets stuck and stops archiving a desk, someone may have to archive that desk manually. And if (this is super unlikely; I mention it only for completeness) the bot runs amok, someone may have to ask an admin to block it.
I'll be returning to the real world (or, at least, the Internet-connected world) on February 26, and I'll start picking up any pieces then.
This notice (that is, this change in the automaticity of archiving) also applies to the Help and Articles For Creation desks. — scs ( talk) 22:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
RefDesk contributors may wish to take part in this discussion on adding a new RefDesk. Matt Deres ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Why doesn't Dave Bristol's biography list that he was also a teacher at Murphy, North Carolina, doesn't list his wife or if he had any children, is he is still alive? 2600:6C55:600:6B6A:6500:AF33:4D9C:3C19 ( talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe that user IP 172.56.186.104 who has started asking convoluted questions on the Humanities desk, is banned user Futurist110. This is from the style of his questions, and from the fact he randomly left a question on my user talk page, just like Futurist110 used to do. Could someone look into this? Xuxl ( talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the text of this reference (no. 37 of the Fabrizio De André page) isn't completely understandable (e.g.: "È durata poco più di un'ora la..."): https://www.repubblica.it/online/musica/de_andre/fune/fune.html. JacktheBrown ( talk) 16:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"There is a biennial international Genovese Pesto al Mortaio competition, in which 100 finalists use traditional mortars and pestles as well as the above ingredients, which 30 local and international judges then assess." This sentence is without reference; do I add the citation needed template or do I take the drastic solution of deleting it? JacktheBrown ( talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | Archive 133 |
I would like to propose that Baseball Bugs is banned from editing the reference desk. His answers are very rarely, if ever, of any use whatsoever and do not address the questions but almost invariably insult the questioner. I suspect that he/she may have created multiple articles, yet their "skills" on the reference desk are no more than a troll. Thank you. 109.151.74.96 ( talk) 15:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
We could compile a daily list of Baseball Bugs' unhelpful/useless RD contributions, if that would help ( here's yesterday's!). Despite what Bugs would like us to believe, the complaints are not coming from just some random anonymous IPs. This has been going on for, what, 10 years? Adam Bishop ( talk) 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
And today's unhelpful/useless RD contributions: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Creator of the motto "Land of the free, home of the brave" fiveby( zero) 17:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Baseball Bugs exhibits here the very same behavior that got the thread open in the first place. I would say it is somewhat related to sealioning in that they make posts that could on their face be reasonable but actually intend or manage to derail the conversation and make others uncivil; however, unlike sealions, the derailing happens not by walls of text but by excessive parcimony of words, forcing others to guess an interpretation which they will later deny.
See for instance the motorcycle/ferry stuff above ( last diff here). Presumably BB knows of the existence of ferries, and "I'm impressed he's got a motorcycle that can be driven across water" is a joke. But that kind of dry humor falls flat in context, so Fgf10 brings up ferries thinking it was serious. Then BB doubles down on the serious interpretation. BB presumably thought the last post was very funny, Fgf10 presumably thought it was inane, and outside observers presumably thought it was tone-deaf. Notice however that nobody fucking cares about the ferry thing and the result is only to derail the discussion (which up to this point included an accusation of sockpuppetry - which BB was wise to drop since that would actually be somewhat actionable under NPA/CIV).
I doubt one could get any sort of enforcement action. Making jokes that are not funny is not actionable. The only cause of action would be disruptive editing by leading other editors astray with their antics, but since they usually prey on unclear/polemic questions it is a bit of a "garbage in, garbage out" situation; plus, a fair fraction of outsiders think rightly or wrongly that the refdesk is a jungle and the monkeys only deserve attention for the most egregious cases of misconduct.
Just to be clear, I think BB should knock it off, and I have yet to see a single contribution of theirs to the refdesk that improved or answered the question in any way. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I used to be a regular contributor here on the Ref Desk. I have to say that having been gone for 5 or 6 years now it's really something to come back and see the exact same names arguing about the exact same things. I guess it's proof that things aren't really as bad as the complaints seem to make it sounds else this place would've been shut down years ago. That, or no one actually cares about the Ref Desk. Mingmingla ( talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What is our policy on editors who do nothing to build the encyclopedia other than asking huge numbers of refdesk questions?
In my opinion, these editors are causing us to wast a huge amount of time and effort answering questions nobody cares about, leaving fewer resources for those who ask questions that really want answers to.
In my opinion, the answer is a specialized topic ban, limiting the editor to only one question in any 24 or 48 hour period. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This question appears quite dispassionate—not a specific request for actual medical advice, but instead answerable in general with links to WP articles, references to scientific literature, or other WP:RS external sources. This response by Guy Macon seems to contain that that: although it is clearly written as medical advice because it's an extensive quote from the ref, Seattle Children's seems like a reliable source and there is neutral information in there. A statement such as a paraphrase of the "Sun exposure can darken scars permanently, making them more noticeable" portion, and maybe that sunscreen can mitigate that effect, cited to that ref seems like it would be valid in our scar article. Abductive thinks the question is a hopeless request-for-advice as a whole. I'd welcome others' comments on the suitability of the question, and at least a portion of the Seattle Children's info as a response. DMacks ( talk) 04:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@ DMacks: Debates that follow the removal of an edit on the grounds of medical advice always seem to focus on whether or not such edits should be removed. Instead, such debates should focus on the dual questions of what is the risk of harm caused by the answer, and what risk is avoided by removing the answer.
There is nothing intrinsically unacceptable about medical advice; the thing that is unacceptable is that some answers on Wikipedia might present a risk of harm to one or more potential victims. Besides, there is no litmus test for medical advice; one person’s helpful information is another person’s medical advice.
I have looked at the original question about wounds, sunlight and scars, and at Guy Macon’s answer. I have asked myself about the risk of harm that might flow from the answer. I can find none. I have asked myself about the risk that might be avoided by removing the answer. I can find none. I have gone in search of the victim of this answer. I can find none. The worst thing that might flow from Guy’s answer is that one or more people might apply sunscreen to a healed wound. No victim there.
One of the principles that applies to our interactions with others at Wikipedia is that we rarely remove another User’s signed edit. If we do so, we must have a damn good reason for doing so and, more importantly we must be willing and able to objectively and comprehensively explain our actions. We must expect our removal to be challenged so we must be willing to spend as much time as necessary to give an account of our decision to remove. A few hundred words would seem to be the minimum to adequately explain why we removed someone else’s edit. Abductive has dismissed DMack’s challenge in thirteen words. In my view it suggests that Abductive, while willing to remove Guy Macon’s answer, is not willing to objectively and comprehensively explain why. Abductive’s response is unsatisfactory because he makes no attempt to identify the risk of harm that he saw in Guy’s answer; or to identify the benefit that might flow from removing the answer. He has made no attempt to identify the potential victim of Guy’s answer. Dolphin ( t) 06:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I kindly ask some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. Thank you for collaboration -- Giuseppe Ardolino ( talk) 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
There are now many sites on the internet where students can get help without any requirement to show any effort, e.g. here: "Here you can ask reddit to do your homework assignments. There's no need to show effort or attempt to learn anything."
It's therefore better if we got rid of our policy because students will go to these other sites if we don't help them, so there is no gain by not providing the students help if they don't show effort. But by providing help in comprehensive way the student is likely going to learn more than if only answers are posted without much explanation. So, we then do make a difference by providing help to lazy students. Count Iblis ( talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I have seen several people claim that you cannot stop people from asking for advice but you can stop people from answering them. Have the reference desks changed in some way from "anybody can ask a question and anybody can answer a question?" Please explain the logic behind this claim. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
PLS see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Marked as a guideline page.-- Moxy 🍁 20:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please sign my comment. I can't do it with the limited tool I'm using during Coronavirus isolation without messing up the phonetic symbols... The message of "209.198.128.88 19:53, 22 August 2020". Thanks... AnonMoos ( talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from the neutral point of view (NPOV) and that is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Are vested interests in the coming US election reason to abandon NPOV and encourage use of reference desks for political smear speeches? If Yes then this provocative post by Lambiam brings an old crude American tradition to the reference desks. 84.209.119.241 ( talk) 09:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Why is legal advice not allowed here, while any other form of advice except medical advice like e.g. financial advice, is allowed? Count Iblis ( talk) 07:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
As I have stated I would do before, I have unhatted a simple factual question that was incorrectly shut down as a request for medical advice when it clearly wasn't. It did not contain any request for diagnosis. Stop doing this. Fgf10 ( talk) 09:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Food and drink should be categorized under one of the desk categories. Stuff like food history and dietary. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have just, assuming good faith, attempted to answer yet another question about interpreting (straightforward, for any English reader) food/drink advice from an IP. We've had a steady stream of these in the last few weeks, which may or may not be from the same user (I lack the Wiki-fu, and will, to check).
Firstly, if anyone thinks I've strayed too far towards giving medical advice (which is difficult not to do given the nature of queries), feel free to delete my post – I will have no objection.
Second: despite AGF, I'm beginning to think these questions might be a trolling campaign. I leave it to others to decide what, if anything, to do about it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 ( talk) 01:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Recently, a very important, and in some ways personal, question came into my mind as I was browsing the internet. I am trying to figure out if it would be suitable for the Reference Desk. The reason why I ask this is because of two main reasons.
The first reason is that to fully understand the question, I have to tell you about a sequence of events that began three years ago. This will require a very long explanation. I am a little worried that I might be flooding the Reference Desk with far too much information. Are my concerns here legitimate?
The second reason is to do with the personal aspects of this question. To answer this question will require a slight probing of my mind. I believe that the question will involve a little bit of psychology, though I am unsure of this. What I do know is that the purpose of the question is to deal with an obsession I have had for a while, so I feel that I am dangerously close to asking for medical advice. All I want to do here is to determine the best course of action to pursue the contents of my obsession and to keep calm and sane during the rather lengthy time it will take to complete pursuing my obsession.
I hope I can ask my question on the Reference Desk, though I will not be bothered if I cannot. I hope to have some answers soon. 95.148.142.31 ( talk) 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to note calling for subjective answers is the same as calling for debate which the ref desks don't do. Also see WP:TLDR. I would suggest that you search the web for other sites to ask your question. MarnetteD| Talk 03:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
There's been a difference of opinion between two respondents on the Entertainment Desk, as to the extent of our role. One view is that OPs should Google or search elsewhere first, before coming to us; the opposing view is that the searching is our role entirely.
I'm quite sure that our instructions at one time exhorted our users to make an effort using Google or whatever other search capacities they might have to find an answer to their question, and only come to us when they came up short. That seems to have gone. I don't remember whatever discussion we had about that, but I'm left wondering why it changed. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Inspired by Baseball Bugs' comment here that "you don't get to own the section". Maybe OPs should be allowed to own the section they created with their questions. What if OPs – and only OPs – were allowed to delete (but not to edit) other people's answers to their questions, if they considered the answer to be unhelpful? I for one would certainly be in favour of such a move. -- Viennese Waltz 08:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Jayron32 and Future Perfect at Sunrise:
Is the disruption sufficient that going to ANI and seeking a topic ban is justified, or will such an effort be quickly shot down in flames? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It turns out that now-blocked Answermeplease11 ( talk · contribs) is a sock of Iceage 101 ( talk · contribs). As was Nathan;dlsa ( talk · contribs). Just an FYI in case he turns up under yet another guise. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed a problem on this desk, which is that we have a (small number) of users asking large numbers of questions from varied topics, and then ignoring the answers. There is one user in particular that this applies to, who I'll name if others feel I should (I don't want to make this a personal attack), who is very regularly asking questions that even a read of the first paragraph of relevant articles, sometimes even a glance at the first photo of an article, would answer. We then go out of our way to provide them with answers to their questions, and their responses show that they aren't reading the articles we are sending them to and likely aren't reading the answers we give them ourselves. They labor under the same misconceptions that we told them were wrong, and they show now amount of attempt at understanding our answers to their questions. For one user in particular, this behavior has gone on for several months now, and it is tiresome. Is there anything we can do about this? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 18:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we are well past the point of having some sort of sanctions. Where can I seek administrator intervention? Clearly, it isn't on this page. That's fine, maybe they don't monitor this talk page, but where can we go? This latest post is beyond a joke and troll of a question. The very introduction to the article they linked to answers their question very simply and succinctly. Enough is enough. We aren't dealing with a language barrier. We are dealing with a troll. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Jayron32:, what are your thoughts, as an administrator who is active on the science desk? -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam: Now I am staying on right track, I learnt my lesson. Rizosome ( talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@ OuroborosCobra: I don't see any problem in Rocket question. I am clearly pointing out my issue on infobox. Rizosome ( talk) 03:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @ OuroborosCobra: I got warnings for what not because of spamming. It's because of posting questions without research i.e homework dumps. So ultimatly I find my solution on how do I ask question here. Rizosome ( talk) 06:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@ OuroborosCobra: Is my question on Harry Potter is also a incredibly basic? Rizosome ( talk) 15:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
As an example of asking a question that the most cursory skim of the article would answer, Rizosome asked why AEW Winter Is Coming is not on List of All Elite Wrestling pay-per-view events, despite linking to Winter Is Coming twice, he seemed to have not read the intro to that article where it is described as having been "broadcast on TNT as a special of AEW's weekly television program, Dynamite." -- Khajidha ( talk) 10:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC) (Obviously not directly relevant as it wasn't on the ref desk, but illustrative of Rizosome's pattern of questioning)
@ Baseball Bugs: I believe mathematical formulation exist, you can see @ Count Iblis: edit here. Rizosome ( talk) 02:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Baseball Bugs:I don't see anything related to grandfather paradox in Rube Goldberg machine. Rizosome ( talk) 17:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo!Answers was shut down without even an archival. All the work by millions of people vanished just like that. Last week, StackOverflow was sold to a private company "Prosus" for $1.8 billion. [7] [8] Just-for-profit websites have been repeatedly shutting down themselves without caring about people. There is a void for reliable Q&A website that respects people and uses a public license for content. Sites with wiki ethics are the best for any crowdsourced content. A new site called WikiAsk has been proposed as a wikimedia sister project for Q&A, it would be of very helpful if you share your expertise there for the proposal: meta:WikiAsk_(recreated). - Vis M ( talk) 01:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
the Wikipedia reference desk, which is already the best place on the internet for reliable answers to questions- Poe's law strikes again, methinks. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
already the best place on the internet for reliable answersin to a full-fledged Q&A wiki.😇 - Vis M ( talk) 11:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This is to alert everyone that I've just felt impelled to apologise to a querent on the Misc desk and to chide Baseball Bugs for (what I perceive as) Bugs' discourtesy to the querant.
I fully expect a backlash from Bugs over this, and as a 'no-Account' editor of consequent little standing I'm not going to respond to it, or take further part in this discussion (if any) unless asked. I'm sure that we're all aware of the relevant background.
I invite third parties to assess the situation, to edit my response if they judge this appropriate, and to issue whatever ukases they see fit. I may have spoken inappropriately, but I could not bear to let the matter go unassuaged and unchallenged. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 ( talk) 16:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
When did we start dispensing medical advice? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Bagaimana cara memblokir akun yang melakukan vandalisme di Wikipedia Kalashnikov5427 ( talk) 02:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be missing from most of the desks? I could force it, I guess, but it's not clear to me why it's not showing. Humanities has two dozen questions on it, so it should automatically get the TOC, right? Matt Deres ( talk) 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this giant dump of content on the Science refdesk was not reverted on-sight? If you ignore all the initial copy-paste, it seems to be some sort of question about cryonics, but which one is hard to tell.
I would have removed it myself but apparently Tamfang saw fit to let it stand, so maybe it’s just me... Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 8 § Computing reference desk.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
(Query moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities by Deor ( talk) 20:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC))
I am unsure if this is the proper reference desk for this inquiry but I would like to know how long discretionary sanctions last? I have been sanction in US politics post 1992 and am unsure what that means. I do realize that I have vandalized certain articles namely the Critical Race Theory Article and I intend to make right on my errors by going through the proper channels to seek guidance before editing controversial articles. Thank you for your help. Godspeed18 ( talk) 20:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I like to add just plain references w/o comment to the end of a question, but this seems to confuse everyone and SineBot. Tried {{ reflist-talk}} but that doesn't work very well. Would an HTML comment <!-- refs, don't sign --> work, or should i just sign everything? fiveby( zero) 18:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Help:Reference and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#Help:Reference until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Not here. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello is it illegal to have the freehold and deeds together on one document Kastley3 ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Ordinarily I try to refrain from criticising other editors, being on thin ice as an accountless IP user, but I'm worried by some recent posts from Sagittarian Milky Way on the Miscellaneous Ref desk topic Walking on a Manhattan road.
This user appears not only to be describing their own past recklessly dangerous behaviour of dodging on foot through fast-moving traffic on a motorway, but to be close to advising others of ways to practice in order to get better at it.
Fairly obviously, doing this has a high risk of injury or death not only for the pedestrian, but for the drivers and other occupants of cars who might well crash either through hitting the pedestrian or through taking avoiding action. Speaking as a driver, the described behaviour terrifies me.
Could someone please look at this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 ( talk) 06:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Humanities desk here. Matt Deres ( talk) 15:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Humanities reference desk.
Unfortunate that most questions are looking for technical help rather than seeking knowledge.-- TZubiri ( talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to upload a movie poster for this article 09 Film — Preceding unsigned comment added by هۆگر صڵاح ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts on creating a list of useful (if not necessarily
reliable in the WP sense) online resources? For example, I think most people are aware of the
IMDb, but fewer are probably aware of offshoot sites like those listed at the
end of that article. And those are just the ones with articles. Until today, I had no idea that there was a site for watches worn by celebrities (in movies and not) at
https://www.watch-id.com. I assume there are many others, of varying degrees of quality.
While it would not be hidden or anything, it would perhaps be more targeted towards answerers than questioners, in the sense that we would then know in advance of places to go for the first stage in helping craft an answer. For example, knowing in advance of the existence of the
Internet Movie Firearms Database would help us research a question about a revolver used in a film.
In a related vein, we could also create a list of other online places where people can query users to get questions answered, especially ones more targeted or specialized than our merry band here. For example, the
Internet Movie Cars Database has a
place for pictures of vehicles in need of identification, as well as a forum where questions can be asked. While I think we have a great group here, it's bound to be the case that more targeted queries will tend to get better results. What do people think? Any value?
Matt Deres (
talk)
20:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This discussion mentions the reference desk quite some times so it may be of interest to users who help around here. Your opinions and comments are welcome there. :) - Klein Muçi ( talk) 16:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Meaning of humble 154.159.237.153 ( talk) 15:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is the best place to ask. I'm sure I've seen a template used in the past that highlights the fact that a ref desk Q&A exchange has resulted in the creation or improvement of a specific article. However I can't for the life of me find it. Any clues?-- Shantavira| feed me 08:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Page shows children. 7 She has 7 children in her family of origin. As far as I've read she has NO children. This is very misleading. Can someone research, site properly and correct? Thank you, Melanie Popp <e-mail address removed> 68.134.107.217 ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Please Google Greenland. Scroll down to Temperatures. The range should be far less than indicated here. This is more like subtropical Temperatures. Thank you. 2600:1700:5AF0:D4C0:254F:250A:DA4D:F3CB ( talk) 01:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Reference desk volunteers, I've been thinking about how we could do better at keeping IPs informed, when they get responses here at the Reference desk. Your feedback would be welcome at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to add a Talkback template at an IP talk page after they get responses at Help forums. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we get a bot to automatically remove date headers with no questions in them? Therapyisgood ( talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
When asking a new question, before publishing please preview your post. If the timestamp is for a day subsequent to the last date header provide a new date header.
The reason why I think this would be an improvement is that bots were not used to add dates until Crypticbot was devised in 2006. It was blocked in 2007 with the reason "...blocking here so it can't go berserk no matter how badly I manage to screw up." It was taken out of service on 1 July 2006 and date headers were added manually thereafter. A new "RefDeskBot" began work on 9th October - it was retired on 27 June 2007. Problems were flagged up by Root4(one) at 04:25, 26 May 2007 in a section headed "The Bot Has Failed!" It was replaced by Scsbot. At that time nobody needed to remove empty days because they became the subject of discussion (e.g. [12]).
The bot often doesn't bother to add a new date, saving editors the chore of removing it at the end of an empty day. Then it wakes up and adds two dates in inverse sequence (e.g. [13]). In this diff [14] a question asked on 2 January appears under 31 December and the next three dates follow in inverse order. Following a request a script was written which removed empty dates, but the bot didn't function for very long and a detailed scrutiny of revision histories would be needed to access its contribution record. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:D9B6:5B88:8E53:AED6 ( talk) 18:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Every single one of those dates was removed by a human being. The plot thickens. 2A00:23C5:E148:1D01:D549:172D:2E7C:BFE3 ( talk) 14:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
People have been asking me for years why scsbot couldn't remove empty date headers even as it added new ones, and I've always found various excuses, but lately the tide has turned, and I've been thinking, "Why not?". So give me a couple of days — the script is strangely written, and more complicated than you might think — and I'll see what I can do. — scs ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
scsbot hit a brick wall tonight and is no longer able to add date headers to the reference desks, or archive them. Something seems to have changed on the Mediawiki side, exposing a new, unsuspected incompatibility in the way scsbot mechanically edits Wikipedia pages.
I'm not sure how long it will take me to track this down and fix it. In the meantime, archiving will be interrupted, and people will probably have to add/delete date headers by hand.
See also Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Archiving may be interrupted.
If anyone knows of any specific Mediawiki change that might have been rolled out in the last 24 hours, please let me know! Thanks. — scs ( talk) 00:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Given the nature of User 86.140.120.168's Ref desk interactions on their queries posted on Miscellaneous August 7th & 19th [Edited to add: and 27th], and Humanities August 15th, does anyone else wonder if we're being trolled? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 ( talk) 22:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
When did the "New section" tab at the top of talk pages change to "Add topic"? Can someone point me to a discussion of this change? -- Viennese Waltz 09:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Replace the "new section" tab text with "+"gadget enabled. the wub "?!" 12:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago, I asked a question on the Computing Reference Desk about USB-C. [15] I got some great responses but now I have a follow-up question. But the discussion has since been archived. What's the best way for me to ask a follow-up question? Should I manually unarchive the discussion and pick up where I left off or should I create a brand new discussion and provide a link to the archive in question? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
As a reminder, per WP:DNFT and WP:RBI, please do not leave loud, obvious memorials to trolling. If it is serious enough to "box it up" with hat/hab tags, it is serious enough to just delete it. Revert and ignore; if a block is needed, WP:AIV is the place to go. All boxing up does is draw extra attention to the trolling. Please just delete it. -- Jayron 32 12:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
As many will recall - I gave up on writing answers for the RefDesk many years ago - for many reasons - and have been answering question on Quora ever since. I get between 1 and 2 million readers PER WEEK reading my answers - and have 45,000 people who requested notifications to read everything that I write. This, together with a much nicer set of interfaces to support commenting and such, is the reason Quora is so successful.
Pick any subject and you can find hundreds of questions that are worth answering, and the comments section is (mostly) filled with intelligent conversation.
However, Quora is for-profit and that causes all manner of problems.
So WikiAsk is once again springing into life - but this time, they have a usable beta version that actually functions.
Check it out: [16]
I really REALLY think that RefDesk denizens should be supporting this - and I know a lot of Quora folks who'd like to do so too. So I encourage everyone here to look at WikiAsk, not as a rival or something that will kill the RefDesk - but rather as an opportunity to kick the RefDesk's tiny audience and tiny pool of experts into the stratosphere.
You guys (mostly) do great work - and you deserve a much larger audience...and this is how that can happen.
So I'm strongly recommending that you support this proposal - and treat it, not as a rival - or a way to kill the RefDesk - but rather as the logical next step.
If WikiAsk springs into life this time around - I want to be there with you guys making it work.
SteveBaker ( talk) 11:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Several subpages of Wikipedia:Reference desk have been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Obsolete Reference desk subpages. — andrybak ( talk) 19:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cambalachero You deleted one of my questions on the Humanities reference desk and the one with already two other users replying no less. This is the second time one of the questions I posted to the Reference Desk got deleted by someone else. Last time I let the issue slide only because I managed to find the perfect answer elsewhere. This time, however, I cannot. First, you could have just moved on if you did not like my questions or lack the knowledge to answer them. Second, I did not ask this question for opinions, predictions, or debate. Math and Math education are either racist or they are not. There is no middle ground. I asked a yes or no question and anyone up to it may reply with an answer along with the justification for his/her choice and/or dispute the premises of the question. Third, what type of question would start controversy is subjective. Any question that is tangentially related to any type of controversy could be interpreted in such a way. For example, my Are all white people racist? question and Transgender children and suicide question. Even my overpopulation question is related to an ongoing race-related controversy. So, you do not have sufficient policy-related justification for removing my question. If you understand, please revert your action as soon as possible so that others may take a stab at my question. StellarHalo ( talk) 02:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Please join the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 10#Template:Rdconfigarray. — andrybak ( talk) 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
In the recent discussion on paintings in cartoons on the humanities desk, User:Card Zero made what I thought was a useful edit, see [17]. But for some unknown reason, the OP later deleted it, see [18]. I tried to undo the deletion, but received an error message saying that "the edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted." What's going on here? -- Viennese Waltz 10:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone miss the days when the talk page had more activity than all the desks put together? Nope, me neither! I don't know how exactly we got our shit together, but I'm glad we did. Matt Deres ( talk) 19:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
it may be a nitpick but it appears to me that the english wikipedia website is stuck in a mobile look on my PC instead of desktop one. i've checked other language wikipedias but for some reason this is the only that has this issue and i have no idea what's causing this. Tohchal ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Preferences
. Once there, go to
Preferences →
Appearance → Skins →
Hi fellow volunteers, am seeing people post answers generated using ChatGTP, and thought it would be worth discussing if this is a worthwhile use of the reference desk. I see some issues with it, mostly that ChatGTP does not provide its sources. The mild version of that as a problem is that therefore an answer generated by it is no better than some random person spitballing - the serious version is that its answers could be seriously skewed soon by whomever manages to game its dataset best. (To provide a reference, here's a thoughtful look at this issue.). 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we be equally concerned about ai questions at the Ref. desks? These two questions [20] and [21] are suspiciously vacuous and they have led to considerable work by responders that may not have enlightened anyone. Whether the IP-user OP is actually a human, a bot or a combination of the above their user-page declaration is unencouraging: I'm just here to ask questions in the science desk because I know how corrupt, and drama-ridden Wikipedia staff are, as well as fix miscellaneous errors if I happen to stumble across them. I hate enough Wikipedia admins, as too many of them are also big bullies.. I suggest that requiring questioners to pass a CAPTCHA test would be a negligible burden to our favoured humans but would be an effective barrier to bot invasion. Philvoids ( talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see Lone Ranger1999's latest query Japan casualties in war agaist USA [sic], and their previous series of similar queries, on the Humanities Ref desk. I always try to assume good faith, but to me this is beginning to have a whiff not unlike that of trolling. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 ( talk) 10:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
US casualties in the Pacific War [22]
British losses in World War II [23]
And again about the losses in the Pacific War [24]
Hey everyone, I'm finishing the process of going through the article Wikipedia, and have one issue that I can't seem to solve. " Coverage of topics and systemic bias" discusses the distribution of topics on Wikipedia using data from a 2008 research study. I would like to bring this section up to date, but can't find anything on this topic past the 2008 study; JSTOR, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Taylor & Francis, and Academia.edu were the databases I checked, and nothing came up. I do not have access to the Wikipedia Library due to the age of my account (5 months and 17 days, so close...) and therefore cannot check there. I put this up on the talk page last week but received no responses. Can you find anything related to this topic? Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) 04:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I realized that the header of the archive subpages (such as, e.g.,
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/February 2023) contains a formatting flaw, as the line ! style="background: #5D7CBA; text-align: center; font-family:Arial; color:#FFFFFF;" | '''Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives'''
uses both the bold pipe !
and the bold marks '''
. How can this be fixed in a systematic way?
Hildeoc (
talk)
00:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
We used to be able to put two articles together, For example, one used to include the article on the films of Sean Connery with the main article on his life. Please can we have that facility again. Thanks, 87.115.182.131 ( talk) 01:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines#Responding to a question by a counterquestion. -- Lambiam 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Reference desk/Miscellaneous has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § Reference desk/Miscellaneous until a consensus is reached.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk)
18:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
At the moment, the Help Desk starts with May 18. The page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives has a row for May, with only the numbers 1 to 9. I presume those are days. 9 links to May 9. Oddly, the last few of these numbers are red and shouldn't be. I can edit the link to get to the other days above 9, but it's fiddly on Android. Thanks. David10244 ( talk) 04:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
A recent Science Ref desk question was answered by one User reproducing an answer they had obtained from ChatGTP, saying they had checked it and found it to be good.
I don't doubt the User's good faith, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea of allowing this to become regular practice. We all know that ChatGTP and its ilk can make both egregious and subtle mis-statements and even manufacture superficially plausible but completely false references. Particularly in the absence of an assurance by the respondent, I would feel unable to trust such an answer unless I were able to re-check every assertion within it, which for a lengthy piece, such as the one prompting this, would be onerous. Casual querants might or might not feel the same, and might trust an answer given on behalf of Wikipedia that actually did contain AI-generated falsity.
(Incidentally, I like an observation recently seen elsewhere – "What is 'Artificial Intelligence'?" "A poor choice of words 40 years ago . . . a more accurate term would be 'Applied Statistics'.") [Edited to add: John Scalzi has just reminded me that it was Ted Chiang writing in the Financial Times.]
I'm aware there's an ongoing discussion somewhere about using ChatGTP etc. on Wikipedia – has this yet come to a conclusion regarding the generation of Ref desk answers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.195.5 ( talk) 04:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
References
I was trying to find a discussion between editors from March 6, 2023 but the AFC Help Desk archives are only listed up to December 2022. The note at the top of the page said to post here if there were any problems so here's my message. I'm not sure what bot is responsible but now that we are almost halfway through 2023, it seems like there should be a 2023 calendar on the archives page. How can we make this happen? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Because it just happened that I lost my post on RD when the page got archived before I hit "Add topic", i learned that the policy here seems to be that “(non-empty) pages are archived a fixed number of days after they're started, irrespective of recent activity.” Why was it decided to deviate from the usual practice to respect activity? What is that fixed number of days? And why is that information not available on the page? (Cf. WP:ANI, which says “Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically …”.) Sebastian 18:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
are there people here with testimonies about their sexualities.such as me a im a lesbian.❤🥺👏 Lilitha Sqokwana ( talk) 21:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I have wondered what the benefits would be of creating an eighth reference desk on this dear wiki? I feel that are some options available for this, such as a desk for geographic affairs, or culinary affairs. I just think that there are some unexplored areas that we could look into for the greater good of the Wiki or the people who call it home. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 21:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if this is appropriate, but what would be the best reliable source outside of Wikipedia to look up information that you all would recommend, if there's not an article with information on Wikipedia? Triviatronic9000 ( talk) 05:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks you two. Triviatronic9000 ( talk) 23:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone here explain how the question Cambalachero asked yesterday regarding the feasibility of building Star Trek-sized spaceships "at some point in the future" [26] could even theoretically be answered without involving either opinion or prediction? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the archiving period be extended to 14 days. Sometimes I feel that 7 is not enough, and it would be nice for questions to remain live for a bit longer.
You should also look into the possibility of discontinuing the date-based archives, in favour of a new system similar to that which exists on most talk pages. In this system, questions will remain on the live page until a certain number has been reached, in which case the oldest question is archived.
I say these things, as on most other pages, stuff lasts longer than a week, often by a considerable margin. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 13:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The start of my day would be incomplete without the customary evacuations, breakfast and a look at the activity on the Reference desks. I routinely enter WP:RD/S on the log-in page www.wikipedia.org and the Science reference desk routinely appears....EXCEPT something changed this week because now this message appears:
But something is fishy here because I have only to name an article on the log-in page (any article will do, it seems) to get the article on screen, and then enter WP:RD/S which is served routinely. This behaviour has been consistent for several days. It suggests to me that a bug has been introduced by a recent change to the Wikipedia log-in process. Philvoids ( talk) 14:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Excuse me if this is an inappropriate thing to ask on this page, but how can I add sections to Wikipedia articles? I clicked a button that is something like a guide on how to operate in Wikipedia, but I couldn't find anything about my query, and I searched the topic on the Reference Desk's homepage, as it is I'm certain, but I didn't get an answer, and I tried being specific. Feel free to delete this after a while, if you want, because I know this isn't an appropriate question. Triviatronic9000 ( talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think User: AnonMoos doubled down on their closed mindedness by saying the neuter gender refers to "it" and forsook the opportunity to see things in a new way. It was upsetting to me because I felt it was a form of queer erasure. Moreover, originally the user's comment did not address any questions and had zero citations/references/sources, and instead relied on an appeal to authority. Schyler ( exquirito veritatem bonumque) 03:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Two users are removing my history question in Humanities and warning me on my talk page accusing me of using Wikipedia as forum. Can anyone look into this please? جانی گدار ( talk) 03:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I once again suggest that the archiving system be changed so that posts are archived after 14 days rather than the current practice of archiving after just 7 days. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 15:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
It's been 10 years since I last visited the Ref Desk, good to see you are all still here. This place hasn't changed at all haha! MahouAvril ( talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Where are the archives for those discussions? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I once again suggest that the archiving system be changed so that posts are archived after 14 days rather than the current practice of archiving after just 7 days. Pablothepenguin ( talk) 15:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
It's been 10 years since I last visited the Ref Desk, good to see you are all still here. This place hasn't changed at all haha! MahouAvril ( talk) 01:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Where are the archives for those discussions? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
scsbot, which archives these desks, has never been a fully-automated bot. I invoke it manually, and I eyeball its log messages for errors, which it still occasionally makes.
However! I'll be traveling for the next two weeks, with no internet access at all. So, unless there are objections, the bot will be going fully automatic, for pretty much the first time in its 16-year lifetime.
I don't expect too many problems — the bot has been pretty reliable lately — but if anything goes wrong, I won't be around to help it. If it makes a mistake, someone may have to notice and fix it. If it gets stuck and stops archiving a desk, someone may have to archive that desk manually. And if (this is super unlikely; I mention it only for completeness) the bot runs amok, someone may have to ask an admin to block it.
I'll be returning to the real world (or, at least, the Internet-connected world) on February 26, and I'll start picking up any pieces then.
This notice (that is, this change in the automaticity of archiving) also applies to the Help and Articles For Creation desks. — scs ( talk) 22:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
RefDesk contributors may wish to take part in this discussion on adding a new RefDesk. Matt Deres ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Why doesn't Dave Bristol's biography list that he was also a teacher at Murphy, North Carolina, doesn't list his wife or if he had any children, is he is still alive? 2600:6C55:600:6B6A:6500:AF33:4D9C:3C19 ( talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe that user IP 172.56.186.104 who has started asking convoluted questions on the Humanities desk, is banned user Futurist110. This is from the style of his questions, and from the fact he randomly left a question on my user talk page, just like Futurist110 used to do. Could someone look into this? Xuxl ( talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, the text of this reference (no. 37 of the Fabrizio De André page) isn't completely understandable (e.g.: "È durata poco più di un'ora la..."): https://www.repubblica.it/online/musica/de_andre/fune/fune.html. JacktheBrown ( talk) 16:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"There is a biennial international Genovese Pesto al Mortaio competition, in which 100 finalists use traditional mortars and pestles as well as the above ingredients, which 30 local and international judges then assess." This sentence is without reference; do I add the citation needed template or do I take the drastic solution of deleting it? JacktheBrown ( talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)