Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 24

It seems I have bad luck with replying to questions that are at the bottom of the page. Most of the time when I try to submit my response I'm told there's an edit conflict. The conflict is because someone has either edited the last question to add a new question or edited the whole page to add their new question. Am I the only one that's frustrated by this? Dismas|^(talk) 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

no--Light current 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

~LOL after edit conflict...~

It does happen to me but it doesn't bother me. I just hit the back button once, copy my reply, hit the back button once more, go into the edit of the question again, paste and save. I have another trick, which is that whenever I edit a section, I hit the 'spacebar' before typing my edit summary. Why? That means that every time I go back and edit the section again, when I hit the spacebar it shows me a drop list of all previous edit summaries for that section. So if I took the time to type something massive then 'lose' it due to an edit conflict, it isn't really lost. Also keeps me from being repetitive. Unless I want to be. Repetitive, that is. Because I hate to repeat myself. Except when I do. Want to, that is. Repeat myself, that is. Anchoress 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool advice, that thing with the spacebar, I had no idea. (You don't want to be repetitive in your edit summaries???) ---Sluzzelin 04:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx. ;-)) And yeah, it bugs me when I say the same thing over and over in edit summaries. Anchoress 05:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the spacebar deal. That should come in handy. Dismas|^(talk) 05:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My best, most carefully researched and revised posts are invariably eaten with some stupid message that Wikipedia does not respond or some such nonsense. This is in addition to edit conflicts. The edit conflict produces a second window at the bottom of the screen with my unsaved post, but then I have to scroll around a mass of unarchived Q & A to again find the place where I was trying to add a response, and then there is often a second edit conflict. Invariably, the times when Wikipedia is not responding and the post is simply lost are the occasions where I forgot to save a copy to the clipboard before trying to save to Wikipedia. The other frustrating thing is when I go back to insert something in a post which has not yet been saved, and the PC jumps out of insert mode, so I overtype the end of my previous message. I press "Insert" and it inserts for a while, then it goes back to overtype mode. In my previous post, this overtype phenomenon happened 3 times. The "back" button takes me to a screen before I typed anything. This seems to have gotten worse since an update to Internet Explorer a few weeks ago. Edison 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to check your internet settings in Explorer. Make sure "check for new versions of stored pages" is set to "never". Then the back button should take you back to your edit page with your original edits intact.--Shantavira 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If I have to recreate it, it becomes a second draft and is probably more polished and shorter. But I hate to lose the fruits of research, with links to Wikipedia articles and reliable sources from the internet. I will try changing the settings, but I can't find the setting you describe under Tools-Internet. Where is ?Thanks. Edison 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In IE 6 it's Tools | Internet Options | Settings.--Shantavira 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That topic at the end says: <!-- Place replies above this line. do not modify the {{-}} token -->{{-}} What is the point of that, what is the "token?" Edison 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Template:-, which is a pithily named template which "clears" both margins; it is often used before a header to make sure that the header will be the full width of the page. For technical XHTML details see Template talk:-. In this instance it is being used to ensure that the next subject ("Elephant Population") starts below the bottom of the image. Absent the template, "Elephant Population" would start higher up the page but would have (at least on my monitor) the third image of the Rocky triplet to its right. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I removed[1] the soapboxing portion of this question, as well as some responses[2] that consisted of pure speculation.—eric 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not alter questions and/or remove content just because you believe they are soap boxing or speculative in nature. --The Dark Side 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Soapboxing and speculation are not what a reference desk is for. -- SCZenz 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I highly resent you removing my response to the question about Chinese internment as "purely speculative." The question was not in regards to the Constitutional authority strictly but also about whether it was a realistic possibility. An answer which takes into accounts changes in attitudes towards the interments of the 1940s as well as the incredible change of racial/national politics in the United States since then is perfectly within the purview of the question. An answer which blindly cites aspects of the Constitution is in fact less likely to be useful to answering the question of whether it is likely or not. Removing soap boxing is of course valid but removing valid, thought-out, and quite topical responses is highly irritating and insulting. I have restored my response and others which I thought were potentially useful for thinking through the question as well, whether or not I agreed with them. It is not your place to mandate which responses are "purely speculative" and which are not, and it is not your place to remove "purely speculative" responses in the first place. If such a policy were mandated about 80% of all answers would be removed pronto! In the future please take into account that removing people's comments is irritating to them (and requires a lot of investigation and clicking on the history page to even figure out what has happened to them) and should only be done in situations which truly warrant it, and in such cases you should probably leave a message on the appropriate talk page if the responses are not just vandalism or nonsense. There are real people behind these questions and responses, as you no doubt know, so please try and treat them with a little respect. --24.147.86.187 01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page.—eric 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question called for unique synthesis of information, was designed to cause argument. I support all of EricR's actions unconditionally. That the user find that 80% of all answers engage in unique sysnthesis is a symptiom of the dire straits that the reference desks are currently in - 80% of all answers are bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These actions seem basically sensible, Eric. Despite what the speech above says, it is everyone's mandate to keep Wikipedia pages in line with their proper purpose. The ref desk is not a discussion forum; plenty of other places for discussion exist. -- SCZenz 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that 140.247.243.251's response, while inappropriate for the desk, was well considered and most likely an accurate representation of current and future attitudes. Nevertheless inappropriate as the question called for forward looking answers concerning a complex issue—answers that are inherently based on opinion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, "it is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis", instead we should report the opinions and analysis of others.

I'm not trying to mandate anything that happens on the desk, but rather attempting to bring about some gradual improvement from the (pessimistic!) 80% dire straits we are now in. The occasional deletion w/ subsequent discussion is, i think, the best way we have to improve the desk. In retrospect though, i'm not so sure that it was best to do so where an IP editor was involved and had made a good faith response, an editor who does not have the benefit of a watchlist and may not have been exposed to all the prior discussion. In the future, i'll try and be careful when IP editors are involved, and i apologize for any insult felt, certainly none was intended.—eric 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the "(pessimistic!) 80% dire straits" that Eric sees on the Reference Desk. His pessimism and dire outlook bear discussion. In this case. I do not agree that the removed text was unacceptably soapboxing or speculative. It is great to try and improve the objectivity of RD and to keep responses factual. If a question posits a hypothetical situation, then the responses will inevitably be a combination of noting what has happened in the past, how today's society has changed from the times of the past occurrences, what laws, treaties and constitutional interpretations apply, and then giving a projection. I do not agree with Eric's interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL when thoughtful and informed projections are given in response to such a hypothetical question. The answer should not be a prediction of what WILL happen, but more of a forecast, along the lines of "If recent federal legislation and Supreme Court rulings are adhered to, the result would be X, but if popular passions arise as in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the result could be Y." Edison 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think questions which call for speculation and discussion are really appropriate for the reference desk. We can do a good job at finding referenced facts for people; if we're speculating, we're just a bunch of random people arguing our opinions. Wikipedia's strength comes from verifiability, not the authority or analysis of its users. -- SCZenz 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Edison on the informed projections to hypothetical questions. Questions calling for speculation often have already been raised some other time, some other place, by academia, think tanks, journalists, authors and so forth. Frequently, these are questions many people ask themselves, and they might like to learn more. In this case, why not reference what other notable sources have speculated or prognosticized on this topic? Just like WP's articles ideally report on different points of view, approaches, or prognoses without turning them into unverifiable facts. The statements are verifiable. ---Sluzzelin 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions of "What could happen, is such and such likely, is such and such possible" are very appropriate. The laws, the treaties, and the history are verifiable and (ideally) sourced facts, which are a vast improvement over mere crystal ball gazing or speculation. I have seen no prohibition of questions which lead to discussion. "Speculation" is a pejoritive and demeaning term when applied to a discussion of what the laws of physics or society permit or prohibit from happening, oe what they make likely or unlikely. I do not agree with the implied proposal by Eric and SCZenz to ban discussion or forecasts on Ref Desk. Edison 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When one is answering a question it is always a temptation to soapbox. perhaps by sarcasm, or by a "zinger" of a double entendre. If we do that, it is quite appropriate to post on the offender's talk page a request to remove the offending text. Edison 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't mind (as was demonstrated ^_^) if anything I say that is out of line is immediately removed before asking me. In some cases, though, it'd be good to post my talk page explaining the removal. V-Man737 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't propose to ban anything. What I suggest is that everyone remember what we're trying to achieve here, and what our strengths (and weaknesses) are as anonymous users with access to the internet. I tend to prefer discussion before removing comments myself, but I also know that this is a wiki, and that cleaning up pages by removing a few things is not an insult of any kind. I propose to use common sense to judge between simple synthesis that explains likely possibilities and wild speculation/soapboxing. -- SCZenz 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Sluzzelin above, questions which ask for opinions or forecasts are a problem only if we answer w/ our own opinions and analysis. Citing the notable views of others is the way to go. The original post was not much of a question of course, but minus all the soapboxing was something i think we ought to be able to handle by referring the asker to previously published material.—eric 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked my question here because I DID NOT GET AN ANSWER AT THE LANGUAGE DESK. Why on earth did you move the question back thare?!? I know it's linguistic, but I DID NOT GET AN ANSWER. Hence, I moved it here to the humanities, in the hope of getting a religions expert's answer.--Snowgrouse 12:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Snowgrouse. I moved your question to the most appropriate place for you to get an answer. If nobody responds I'm afraid it means that no one here knows. As per the instructions, we prefer people not to double post.--Shantavira 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A lack of immediately spouting off opinion at every single opportunity is perhaps the main difference the RD has from things like Yahoo! Answers. (Can you smell the disdain?!) Sometimes in the RD, questions just don't get answered. We strive to get all of them, but occasionally we get some really good ones that are difficult to research. Usually if a small, polite reminder (in conventional capitalization) is posted some time later, editors who've not seen the question before may take a crack at it. ^_^ V-Man737 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

martianlostinspace 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think everything up to and including Restoration_of_dangerous_incorrect_information_and_argument can be archived without anyone protesting. As far as I'm concerned quite a bit more can be archived, but then I always like the clean slate. I can't archive myself on this computer or operating system or whatever is the problem, it can't handle chunks of this size. ---Sluzzelin 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think people should feel free to archive any threads that haven't been discussed in a day or two, whenever they think the page is too long. -- SCZenz 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In there a standard or recommended method for 'bracketing off' comments - in the case where there has been a misunderstanding - and a discussion on that point followed by closure - where that part of the discussion is no longer relevant to the question. It's not right to delete it I suppose - but is there a good way of fencing/boxing of parts of discussion where the thread doesn't need to be read except for purposes of completeness...?

eg such as this :

First, it's not a hyperboloid of one sheet, it's one sheet (chosen arbitrarily) of a hyperboloid of two sheets.

?? Are you sure about this - this image shows only one sheet - that's the equation I gave? Image:HyperboloidOfOneSheet.PNG 87.102.4.6 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

True, that's the equation you gave, and I ought to have looked closer at it, rather than assuming that you had in mind the hyperboloid model of the hyperbolic plane. Since I can't tell you anything about geodesics on the hyperboloid of one sheet (other than to agree with your guess about both questions above), I'd delete my remarks below but that's bad form. —Tamfang 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. thanks.83.100.183.48 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

or here: Mathematics#Triangle_angle_bisectors where much of what I added what flawed because I made a basic mistake - it would be good if such things could be greyed out or something so people know they don't need to read them...

Any suggestions.?83.100.183.48 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to deprecate some of your own comments, the easiest way is to strike through them, using the <s> and </s> tags. The wikicode

This is a <s>deleted</s> bit of text.

appears as

This is a deleted bit of text.

Remember to include a short, signed explanation at the end of any comment that you edit, so that people know that you struck it through yourself. Putting the explanatory note in <small> </small> tags is often a good idea. So, starting with:

Can anyone tell me the importance of Manila in the Third Punic War? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Amend that to:

Can anyone tell me the importance of <s>Manila</s> Manilius in the Third Punic War? ~~~~ <small>amended by ~~~~</small>

Which looks like:

Can anyone tell me the importance of Manila Manilius in the Third Punic War? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC) amended by TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Did that make sense?

Yes sort of - except it looks awful on a lot of text and doesn't seem polite to do to someones elses text. Are there any other options?83.100.183.48 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Effectively I would like to be able to take an entire thread and render it small or somehow unobtrusive - a box round it and greyed out is the sort of thing I'm thinking of..83.100.183.48 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of complete curioustiy how much space does wikipedia really have?mickyfitz13^Talk 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlimited. --Parker007 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that. Is it ready for a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gig upload?Edison 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubted it too, due to (in relative terms) there is no such thing as infinite, unlimeted or ∞. I was really thinking along the range of a Terabite or two.

mickyfitz13 ^Talk 09:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking in the archives it seems jan 18 to jan 28 has dissapeared...87.102.33.144 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_19
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_20
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_21
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_22
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_23
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_24
• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_25

They were manually archived by hand. --Parker007 12:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not appearing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/January_2007

87.102.33.144 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done up to Jan 25th. Skittle 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent manual archivals of the science desk are not appearing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/January_200787.102.33.144 12:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about the RefDesk archival problems recently. As a result of the overhead phone line which I use going down, I only had intermittent internet access for a few weeks, making it near impossible to run the bot unless in debug mode, to counter any internet outages. As of Friday, the whole connection dropped, and is unlikely to be repaired until the end of next week, and so my internet access is limited, and is not on my "bot" system. Can I suggest that those who can, do the manual archives to the daily archive pages, and transculde them in the same manner as the bot would. It's probably too much time wasted putting all of the topics into the TOC on the monthly pages, so I'll code the bot to complete that page when my internet is back up. Again, my apologies for this. Martinp23 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_January_19_to_25 --Parker007 08:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_26_&_27 --Parker007 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_28_&_29 --Parker007 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Manually archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_January_30_to_31 --Parker007 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Manually Archived Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_January_20_to_31 --Parker007 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This time as "Garb wire", see Special:Contributions/Garb_wire. We should take care how we respond. Friday (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Transparent ban evasion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note: This relates to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Valentine_day_concept.

Moved (most of it at least) from my talk page --Justanother 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am insulted by Hipocrite's preemptive strike which assumes that the RD editors cannot add to the discussion of those questions without violating the principles that we have spent months discussing! Especially as the worst offenders are seriously chastized. I am insulted. If the question or part of the question is offensive then remove it but don't try to "be the boss of us". I am a grown-up and the only boss-of-me pays me a lot of money. That was mild compared to what I really think. --Justanother 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you disagree, there are better ways to express that. I don't see that anyone was chastised- I just see someone trying to nip this in the bud. If everyone had the sense not to respond to trolling, that would be ideal, but we've seen over and over that this isn't the case. I don't see why you'd take this personally- is there something I missed? This could have been removed IMO but removals have raised a huge stink. I thought the preference lately was to do things other than outright removal. Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS- Actually, I suppose the merits of Hipocrite's template ought to be discussed at WT:RD. Friday (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal but the implied assumption that "OK, one grownup answered the question and I don't trust the rest of you." But I am not a on a crusade and I expressed my displeasure already and to the degree that I care to. I just want it on record that, as a precedent, IMO Hipocrite's action stinks. I think removal of the porn part or division into two questions would have been better had someone wanted to address it. I never even saw it before Hipocrite did his thing so I do not know what I might have done; likely divided into two questions. --Justanother 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't think we should discourage people from responding in cases like this? Is there some better way to do it? Friday (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Development of policy and enforcement of policy, in a nutshell. Removal of inappropriate questions and inappropriate responses. Exactly the direction we were moving in, I thought. --Justanother 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out what the problem is here. If removing it outright would have been OK, how is the "please do not modify this" template insulting? At any rate, meta-comment about this belongs here on the talk page, not on the actual ref desk. Friday (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another feels as I do and can explain it better. Or maybe I am alone in my opinion. Yes, you are right about meta-discussion. --Justanother 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I agree with you that there has been inappropriate behavior on the RD. I just strongly disagree that the solution is for any one editor to close the discussion. If the question or response is inappropriate it should be removed. I do that (for example). But no-one needs to tell us that we "are done now". --Justanother 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A removal, or an archive as Hipocrite did, both mean "I think we should be done with this and not respond further", right? Aren't we just quibbling over formatting? Friday (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Removal to me means "I think this is an inappropriate question". That is OK with me; if I disagree I will reverse it or discuss. "Archiving" says to me "I guess this is an appropriate question but I just don't trust you'all to keep it clean". Big diff to me. Should never be done so it is not about me reversing it. But I have gone over this enough. Maybe I am alone in my feeling. I am on record, that is enough for me. I'm out now as I have some work to do for the real boss-of-me. --Justanother 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I prefer moving inappropriate comments (which we now have some consensus is needed at times) to shutting down discussions. It seems very abrupt, and it's not at all clear in this case that there wasn't more to say in answer to the questions—which can be taken seriously whether they were trolling or not. -- SCZenz 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Placing a "this-discussion-is-over" or "don't-feed-the-trolls" template is evidently offensive to some editors, and catches the attention of readers in all shades and colors, increasing the likelihood of answers that are unwelcome to Hipocrite offensive to many people. (unnecessary remark crossed out and substituted by me, see user's talk page ---Sluzzelin 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)).
• Removing the question might cause offense, but wont invite for chatty comments and trolling.
• Leaving the question alone might also cause offense, and might attract inane comments (which can be removed, if offensive).

I guess I think posting a template is the worst of all options. ---Sluzzelin 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume that everyone who is now tearing into me for posting archival notices will defend me when the other segment of the population tears into me for removing obvious trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you included me in those "tearing into you", your assumption is wrong. I most likely wont defend you. I might offer my opinion though, the way I did just now. ---Sluzzelin 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of soapboaxing going on at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Israeli_Support. I'd say this one is a good candidate for "this is going nowhere good" archiving, but that was not well received last time. Looking back, this perhaps should have been removed before anyone answered it, but it's too late now. What can be done about these, since we have no shortage of people willing to take the bait? Some people are trying to answer the question in an appropriate way- I see nothing wrong with this, but it's s bit like trying to hold back the tide with your hands. Friday (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I gave an AGF answer to the question and I was threatened with a block. Oh well. --Justanother 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your comment was not intended as a personal attack, and unless I've missed something you've done nothing blockable. -- SCZenz 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is why some object to admin's waving a "[expletive and ALLCAPS deleted] big stick". I would have felt a lot better about Proto's action if he/she had refrained from answering the question himself. That makes it look like "My way or the highway". Very bad form. --Justanother 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading your comment more carefully, it was a very confrontational comment; I can see why it was mistaken for a deliberate personal attack. I disagree with the block threat, though, and I will tell Proto so. -- SCZenz 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. While I may have intended my remark to be thought-provoking, I did not intend it to be insulting or confrontational and I thought it was much nicer than the previous clear insults like gullible, lemming, or golem; that no-one had removed. I still feel that "zealot" is NPOV though "fanatic" may not be. --Justanother 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just investigated more. That was an unnecessarily nasty and pointed example you picked, and you shouldn't have edit warred to restore it; instead, you should have reworded it to more carefully reflect what you intended. -- SCZenz 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The example was a logical extension of the OP's expressed opinion and I was curious if the OP saw that. I think you are attributing an intention to me that was not in evidence. WP:AGF please. --Justanother 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I said that wrong, and I apologize. Let me try again. I think you made a mistake in picking a very emotionally-charged example for your reductio ad absurdum, and that it appeared nasty and pointed. Ideally, you would have seen that and rewritten your answer after it was removed. -- SCZenz 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. OK, I did not take into consideration the strong feelings that some have on Israel. I have strong opinions on it but not strong feelings. --Justanother 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed some comments that were clearly irrelevant, including meta-discussion of previously removed comment. This is one that ought to be brought under control, but the poor judgement of many of the editors who have replied (in failing to differentiate between opinion, personal experience, and well-sourced information) has made it very difficult. I'm going to wade in again now... -- SCZenz 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now Hipocrite has replaced all answers with his own, and declared it archived. The problem is that I think many other users tried to give helpful answers. But here's what I'm distressed about, and the reason I think we should give this one up as a bad job and move on: Most of the users chose to editorialize. You disagree with the idea of supporting everything a country does, and so you introduced words with heavily-negative connotations to describe the question-askers purpoted position. "Lemming," "automoton," "zealot," etc. all fit in this category. My personal views on blind support of countries notwithstanding, it is soapboxing to label such a view in that manner.

(ec) Zealot is hardly a pejorative term. What one calls a "patriot" another calls a "zealot". It is all in the POV and I submit that "zealot" is the more NPOV term. And that is all I was trying to say. --Justanother 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC

A new idea. Instead of archiving, let's go back to the original question and encourage people to answer neutrally. What do you think? -- SCZenz 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, whatever.. I'd like to note that the original question included the phrase "..without question" - personally I'm disgusted with whatever 'admin' threatened User:justanother with a block - I'd suggest that anyone who supports a thing 'without question' is fairly entitled to be described as an automoton (or golem if there is anyone left willing to read that excellent article).

As an alternative (with hindsight) how about not putting the question back in a labelling the whole thing with the label "troll". What do you think?87.102.13.26 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. --Justanother 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Given what is below it is highly unlikely that this question can be answered neutrally without blocking some users from participating. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite's edit

<edit conflict> Why remove my careful, considered responses? Worse, in Hipocrite's replacement answer, describing the OP's position "Likudnik" is beyond POV it's utterly factually incorrect and insulting to the millions of Israelis who voted Likud since its formation. I've never met an Israeli, regardless of political affiliation who would fit within the OP's description. --Dweller 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the question and tried to seperate wheat from chaff - what follows is my alternative. Remove Dweller's comments with prejudice, remove Ricardo's comments with prejudice, remove Proto's comments without prejudice, leaving only the question, unanswered. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your answer is utterlyand iredeemably prejudiced to the point of it being untrue. Mine was accurate. --Dweller 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

But Dweller, you weren't answering the question. You were editorializing about how the editor's statement wasn't realistic; that's a very poor way to deal with what was, in all likelihood, trolling. -- SCZenz 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith that the questioner misunderstands what a Zionist is. Hipocrite fundamentally misunderstands what Likud means and should remove or modify his answer immediately as it is factually incorrect (something he himself has previously berated other users for doing in the past) hopelessly POV and insulting to millions of Israelis. --Dweller 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought Dweller's answer to be the best of the lot. He stuck to the Zionist theme. --Justanother 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of Likudnik being used as a slightly derogatory phtase for people who agree with all of the policies of Israel but don't live there: [3][4][5][6]... Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an article on likudnik is in order since the current link to likud just doesn't explain the term at all.87.102.13.26 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A "Likudnik" is, as Hipocrite's 3rd diff specifically states, "a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party." At the time of the article being written, Sharon was leader of the Likud. It doesn't mean someone who lives overseas and blindly supports the State of Israel. It doesn't need an article - it's a common Ivrit usage to take a word and add "nik" as a suffix to attach that person to that category, c.f. "Kibbutznik" (someone who lives on a Kibbutz) --Dweller 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You clearly are misunderstanding. I suggest you ignore all evil motives you presume to ascribe to me and read only the words that I wrote - "One somewhat-derogatory phrase for this is Likudnik." You, of course, are aware that some use that phrase to describe it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Right - because the answer gave me the impression that a lidkudnik was "someone who lives overseas and blindly supports the State of Israel"87.102.13.26 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But Dweller, you were giving your view of his own stated opinion. He didn't say he was a zionist, he gave his opinion and asked if he was one. Still, upon reflection, I think you were going in the right direction by clarifying that Zionists don't have to believe what he does. -- SCZenz 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What we could have said

Here's the best I can come up with:

Supporting the State of Israel is what defines a zionist, but most self-described zionists do not give the blind support that you describe. See zionist to learn about what the term usually means.

And then we should, ideally, have more or less left it at that. -- SCZenz 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that answer. Friday (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. --Dweller 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that "unwavering" support can be seen as a positive, see patriot, or a negative, see fanaticism, depending on point-of-view. --Justanother 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, if Proto had responded to my mention that such stands often are consistent with zealotry or fanaticism with his position that it could well be termed patriotism then I would have agreed and we would have moved toward a more complete answer which is how this darn exercise works! --Justanother 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, I think that is a more neutral way of putting it than people managed at the time. Since both those words have strong negative/positive connotations, presenting both together and avoiding indicating your own viewpoint is important. -- SCZenz 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But I did not indicate my viewpoint on Israel though I likely did on "unthinking allegiance" so if you meant that then right. I think Proto misinterpreted and over-reacted to my comment, that is all. --Justanother 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't help thinking my original <sorry>joke</sorry> ("...hysterical rabbis.."etc) that was tacked on to my response could be the main cause if the admins reaction.. Perhaps I should have been clearer that humour was involved, or not answered at all... sorry.87.102.13.26 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I think the objectionable bit is my failure to use the "proper" passive voice. Instead of "You sound more like . . ."; I could have said "It is sometimes considered that those that offer support "without question" as part of their "belief system" are expressive of a stand that some might consider . . ." Means the same thing. 'Scuse me for being blunt (smile). --Justanother 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated my objection to the "archive - all done now" solution. So do we remove the post or answer it?

• Very weak remove --Justanother 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I want the reference desk to be able to handle even dubious questions like this with maturity. I am tempted to suggest that we start from scratch and try again, as practice, but I fear it would lead to more arguments. -- SCZenz 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - let the questionaire re-ask the question if they wish. Not a perfect solution, but a practical one, given that all those originally involved in answering have spoken on this talk page - and hopefully any misunderstandings have been sorted out.87.102.13.26 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I accept that the current answer is fair and even and good eg acceptable http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=106090505&oldid=106088300 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.13.26 (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• Delete the refererence desks - Failed experiment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we can take that as "remove" (smile). --Justanother 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If I felt someone had "archived" a discussion just to have the last word, or because the question was contrary to their personal viewpoint but actually in accord with the generally accepted rules of the Reference Desk, I would feel quite free to respond or to "unarchive" it. It should not be a tool for silencing reasonable questions or for "having the last word." In the recent question about Zionism the question seemed to be argumentative and inappropriate and the answer before archiving seemed reasonable, but the archiving headed off a flame war. Refer the questioner to the Wikipedia pages most relevant. Many newcomers will expect this to be just another blog where people can rant and rave and post boilerplate proofs of this or that. I think we can use this technique to head that off. Edison 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed this harmless question

" food for big breast

my girlfriend doesn't have big breast, and she wants to make them big. she doesn't want to undergo breast implant. she's resorting to natural means. is there any food (vegetables or fruit maybe) that will help in making girls' breasts big? thank you."

Was that right - I think I am old enough to be able to detect 14 year old boys giggling at the back of the class or very similar... I have assumed good faith - and in good faith I know the question to be a 'silly' one. I hope this is ok.83.100.251.239 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this a bit extreme, it might have just as easily been an honest question. It's better to leave questions like that on, what harm does it do? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds kind of creepy to me... V-Man737 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

By removing it, you missed the chance to inform the questioner and his putative girlfriend that no food will increase breast size. - Nunh-huh 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think fat would definitely do the trick. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#changing iris colour

http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=106395547&oldid=106394602

Bit of a lapse...(we have your names..(joke))83.100.250.165 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User TWASNOW could do with a hint I suppose - am I supposed to do it or can someone else do this unpleasant task. Thanks.83.100.158.135 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:\. That's okay; you can do it. Point to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE along with it if you want. 130.179.244.155 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ok I'll do that.83.100.158.135 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE should apply only to newcomers. Assuming User:Juliet5935 did not make edits to Wikipedia using the two IP addresses she used to edit Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Wellbrutrin (12.33.211.29 and 209.0.0.29), as these may be used by the public, she has been making edits only two weeks less than myself. Anyway, I have posted a reply at User talk:83.100.158.135#Are you the original Wellbrutrin inquirer? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great, you're still lacking the assumption of good faith, and civility. The user's response might be a bit much, but it is more understandable than your own provocation of it. There was no reason to continue like this either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no way of knowing that I was responding to the same user who posted the question. The initial question was asked by User:Juliet5935 (unsigned), the first response to me was made by 12.33.211.29 (unsigned), and the last response to me was made by 209.0.0.29 (unsigned). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversation on the side between 83.100 and Twas Now

Note: I am copying this from my userpage and the userpage of 83.100.158.135:

Hi! I need to point out "assume good faith" to you in terms of your replies on the science desk.

Also using a bit of common sense you could have guessed that you had not made a big hit with the questionare and "Yes, I bet you are female. How did I underestimate your intention to gain more knowledge? Through the process of questionizationing? Oh I love verbal superfluousness." is not a peace-maker. An apology would have been better.

If you feel this is not right please feel free to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#No.

I have noticed that we do sometimes get 'creepy' questions - so I'm not attempting tp judge you for pointing it out.. But when you are asked not to respond further - I suggest that you do so - or again if you feel you have been treated unfairily - bring it up on the talk page.83.100.158.135 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Were you the originator of the science desk Wellbutrin inquiry? In other words, are you User:Juliet5935, 12.33.211.29, and 209.0.0.29? Anyway, this user has made statements which amount to claiming ownership over the reference desk, as well as personal attacks. See both 12.33's attack and claim to ownership and 209.0's attack and claim to ownership. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - no I was not the original question asker - nor did I give any of the replies to that question. You are right that you too suffered a personal attack.

I think though that your initial statement "...find this creepy" may have precipitated the conflict. Given that someone clearly took offense at your comment the best course of action woudl have either to apologise or take no further part in the discussion or report the incident.

"Yes, I bet you are female..." is not an apology in any way and is not civil either. I can only suggest that you bring the subject up on the reference desk talk pages for further feedback or use one of the other many methods for reporting problems (you can easily find out about these by asking at the help desk..) The other user (or users) did not behave well either. Sorry.83.100.158.135 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How is "Yes, I bet you are female" uncivil? It was an honest statement, and I think it is an assumption of bad faith if one attributes a sarcastic tone to it. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(reply to your message)(PS could you reply on the reference desk talk page please as my IP address sometimes changes and I may miss your messages.)

Quoting your message to me here:

"How is "Yes, I bet you are female" uncivil? It was an honest statement, and I think it is an assumption of bad faith if one attributes a sarcastic tone to it."

sarcasm is the problem I think. i.e. your response to the questioner seemed sarcastic.83.100.158.135 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The following did not occur on our talk pages (i.e. it is exclusive to this page):

And just as it may have seemed sarcastic, the initial question seemed creepy. The difference might be that I asked whether it sounded creepy, to find out if it was just me, with my crazy brain, who thought so. This user blatantly attacked me afterward, though using a different account, and when asked where she could file a complaint against me—partially because I did not follow her suggestion that I no longer comment—I pointed her to the proper avenues (Wikipedia:Resolving disputes). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment POINT/NOTE - we (I) have no idea if the two unsigned users who responded were actually the same person who asked the question - and may not be - bizarre as that may seem.87.102.37.185 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Light current? I thought you were blocked. Natgoo 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not 'me' - you are not the first to ask... Apparently Light current has the same IP server or whatever as me.. Hence the confusion.87.102.37.185 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Natgoo 19:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Such as here http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&diff=106086340&oldid=106086178 and User_talk:Hipocrite#Anon_IP etc87.102.37.185 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I must state that the the user asking the question was mean. Whereas, User:Twas Now has helped in so many questions on the reference desk. It seems we are losing more and more answerers in the reference desk per day. You know why, because you all critisize the people who answer and they leave. Please continue your good work User:Twas Now, and thanks for helping people out at the reference desk. --Parker007 06:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree - user:TwasNow's input is helpful - I was the one who removed the whole thing. I left a message on Twasnow's page as well as the original poster. I definately am not blaiming Twasnow for this - I just wanted to point out to him/her to avoid stuff like this in future. I didn't affect my personal opinion of them - which is a good opinion.87.102.6.170 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this could in any way be construed as medical advice, it's sharing common knowledge. And - I'm not in the US, it is highly unlikely I could be sued (from my understanding of the discussions on this talk page personal liability is the main consideration, Wikipedia is not responsible), and I just don't care either way. It was a legitimate, valid answer to the question containing non-advice that is unobtainable without seeing a doctor anyway. Natgoo 19:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You were giving your opinion about what advice a doctor would give. To me, this is close enough to medical advice that it's best not to say things like that. Friday (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus 'ural' is not an antibiotic.. making any info given dubious....87.102.37.185 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was confused by this too, but I think it was a list of things, not implying that ural is the antibiotic. Friday (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes - re-reading it was a list - didn't spot that.87.102.37.185 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't see why common knowledge can't be shared, when we have been told there is no threat to the project. There really is very little else you can do for that sort of infection, and Jpgordon had already recommended a visit to the doctor - my comment was in addition and appropriate. Natgoo 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is exactly and only medical advice couched in roundabout terms. I could care less personally but if we are not giving medical advice then what say we don't. My main thing is simply that it is OK to have rules and to enforce them. --Justanother 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify my point, let me make a minor change "...which is most likely to my prescription would be a general antibiotic, a product to make your urine less acidic such as Ural and plenty of water and rest." --Justanother 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are lots of things you can do without using antibiotics (I have a great remedy I use that works most of the time). But I'm not a doctor and it's a folk remedy, so it'll stay in the file folder in my bookshelf. ;-) BTW my $.02 is that the removed entry wasn't at the egregious end of medical advice, but it was drawing a conclusion and it really didn't add anything to the discussion. I'm not voting yay or nay on whether the deletion was justified, but I myself have been making a concerted effort over the past weeks to restrain myself from adding... my $.02 lol. Anchoress 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is your remedy dark red and tastes purty bad (smile - though I don't mind it too much; my ex made a big deal out of the taste)? I like Natgoo's current response and it should be "template" for medical questions, i.e. point at the article. --Justanother 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

lol You think cranberry juice tastes bad??? Hmmm, I love it. But no, cranberry juice isn't my remedy. It works OK, but not as well as my way. Will check the latest entry. Anchoress 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You like straight cranberry juice? Not the cranberry juice cocktail from the supermarket but the pure stuff from the health food store? Well, then you are hard core, my dear (smile). I can drink it down but wouldn't say I like it. The ex had to mix it with something. --Justanother 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I mix it with water, is that what you mean? It'd make me vomit if I drank it straight, but it's not because of the taste. Anchoress 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Naw, she was mixing it with something else, can't remember what. Not water. I used some myself about a year ago; just chugged it down. Worked great. --Justanother 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vodka. V-Man737 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for the chatting, y'all. I have to get back to work anyway. --Justanother 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I accept the admonishment - I just don't see the need to be so carefully in fear of litigation when the potential for adverse effects (to the project and the questioner) is so minimal, but if that's the line the community has drawn I'll toe it. And I mix straight cranberry juice with soda water and lime juice for a healthful virgin cosmopolitan :) Natgoo 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we make it mandatory for people to put ~~~~ when they ask a question or post an answer? It makes them a shade more accountable and (more importantly to me) leaves the time that they posted. --The Dark Side 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How would we enforce that − ban users who don't comply? That wouldn't project a very friendly image towards non-registered users who come here for answers. Occasionally HagermanBot catches them in the act, but not often. Maybe Hagey needs upgrading? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not ban, but just delete those questions without tildes. After all, it does say to sign with ~~~~. --The Dark Side 02:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just tell them on the talk page to "SIGN YOU QUESTION"? --Parker007 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Users cannot be expected to understand arcane stuff like four tildes, not should we expect them to read and understand the rules for posting questions. If we really want to know we can look at the history. Your reasons for wanting to enforce tilde sigs are not at all compelling. Questioners do not exist to serve your interest in the time and identity of the questioner. Rather, the ref desks exist to satisfy the curiosity of questioners, hoefully without encumbering them with needless hoops to jump through or worse, the false promise of an answer met with [we deleted your question for procedural reasons]. mutter mutter mutter. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I agree with Tagishsimon. The Dark Side, if it's that important to you, consider assisting HagermanBot (who only acts immediately) and comb through the desks from time to time, checking on the the history of missing signatures, so you can add them and the dates. I don't think it's necessary, but don't assume anyone would mind either, since no one can claim the right to this kind of absolute anonymity here, and I haven't seen anyone protest HagermanBot's actions sofar. As for accountability, when it does become important (false info, offensive remarks, trolling etc.), someone is always going to be checking the history and identifiying the editor. I'm very opposed to deleting edits just for being unsigned. ---Sluzzelin 06:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason the reference desk for Computing/IT is becoming so large? Is there really a need to keep discussions from as far back as January 20? It's causing long load times, at least on my computer (though probably not on the computers of people who answer at that desk). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot that archives the reference desks is temporarily out of service. Right now all reference desks must be archived by hand. --The Dark Side 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Broadband or DSL will solve the slow loading problem. Edison 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just archived the rest of January by hand, halving its size; do you have any idea on when will the bot (or a replacement bot) be back up? I shudder thinking how many edit conflicts I caused with my slow hand-archiving. --cesarb 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at everything I can think of on Wikipedia which might conceivably be interesting. Oh, well. Edison 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Even feral child? Dang, that held me captive for a good month almost. V-Man737 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that by some standards, I was one such. Edison 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well when that happens, there's only one solution. Improve a boring article until it's interesting enough even for you. Anchoress 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried the Suggest Bot? It suggests articles you might want to edit. Oh and if you are interested in neurology or psychology, or business send me a message on my talk page. Every wiki editor is valuable.--Parker007 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When you think you've seen it all, take refuge with Mike the Headless Chicken. Rockpocket 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could he have gotten it on with Henrietta the four legged chicken, who is currently up for deletion? (Oops, looks like she got deleted. See [7]. Edison 07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When in lack of reading material, or when glued to my laptop, forced to keep the lights out so other people can sleep, I've spent nights reading fascinating accounts at the gutenberg project. I often browse through wikipedia first, until an author I'd never heard of catches my eye. If there's a link to the g.p., I go there. Another treasure chest of surprises. ---Sluzzelin 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In grade school I would spend recess reading the World Book Encyclopedia. Sadly, it could only be edited by sheer vandalism. Reading random articles on Wikipedia only leads to the urge to delete. Looking at the illustration for the ancient Britannica, I realize that somehow I acquired the bookcase which was supplied with it. Edison 07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this list of experimental aircraft interesting. Ooh! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've read Exploding whale, I assume? – Qxz 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 1.6 MILLION articles...there is no possible way that you can know whether there are articles that you have not yet read that might hypothetically interest you. I hit 'Random article' three times every evening before I go to bed and make a point of reading whatever comes up. There is almost always roughly one of out of those three that is interesting enough to keep my attention - and it's rare that I don't end up clicking on a few links that pop up along the way. On that basis, I expect there to be about half a million articles that might interest me - if I did nothing else but read articles day and night for the rest of my life, I'd never be able to read them all because new articles are being written far faster than I could possibly ever read them. For the jaded palette, may I suggest Wikipedia:Unusual articles. SteveBaker 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are you a participant in any WikiProject at all? --Parker007 06:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I removed some comments here. This is because the questioner sounded confused enough already, and I thought the comments people had made (including an internal Wikipedia link) would confuse them further. Hope this hasn't upset anyone. Skittle 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It was getting ridiculously long (almost 500k), so I archived the rest of January. Dave6 talk 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed this - after a bit - probably should a have done so at beginning - some people finding it difficult to assume good faith, question not very well thought out etc...

See http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&diff=107138247&oldid=107131258

87.102.9.117 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the rest here http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FHumanities&diff=107148436&oldid=107148410 and left a message on the questioners talk page trying to explain and asking that they reask the question more clearly if the want to.

I am guessing that I have not done this 100% right. So apologies to all in advance.87.102.9.117 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear trolling - you did it correctly. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You had no right to remove the question. And now, of all things, you accuse those who replied (me) of not assuming good faith? I don't know who's worse: you or Barringa.

For those who missed it, the question was Is Money the True God of the Jews?.

Please restore the question immediately. It helps no one to have this kind of ugliness swept under the rug and to pretend it doen't exist. If you don't restore it, I will. Loomis 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I'll reproduce the discussion here:

== True God of the Jews...? ==

Question removed to : Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#question about jews see there.87.102.9.117 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not anti-semetic anymore than the act of Jesus Christ in overturning the tables of the money changers and I'm sure than Jews who truly beleive in God (verus the Jews who beleive that God is money) already know this. Its a bit obvious that only Jews who lie and cheat and steal and beleive that money is God would react in such a way and make a vain attempt to claim anti-semitism so as to devert attention from the truth. Besides if you beleive that money is God then I do not consider you to be a Jew but only to be hiding behind the claim of being a Jew rather than actually being one. -- Barringa 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_Wikipedia_is_not - see "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox".

If you have already formed an opinion there is no need to ask a question about it here. From your reply it seems that you had already some of the answer.87.102.9.117 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that wikipedia does not have a specific article on the relationship between money and jews or anyone else for that matter - but if you search (eg google) for "money jews" you will find a wide varity of articles on the subject from many points of view. 87.102.9.117 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Loomis 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic sandbox trolling is not welcome here or anywhere on WP. This is not a question, it is an opinion guised as a question. "Money, True God of the Jews" is something you'd expect on someone like Hal Turner's blog, not here, and while wikipedia is not censored, clear trolling and sandboxes has already been deleted - there is a precedent. The IP had it absolutely and completely right. Where the hell is Scz when you need him? The reference desk is for questions, not opinions, regardless of their content. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already, take a look at the original question -- click on the first link in the section as it hasn't been copied here. This is blatant trolling. It's clear that the person who asked it is not interested in obtaining information. WP:NOT Slashdot with the comment threshold set at -1. Good job to the person who removed it. Dave6 ^talk 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the question was a disgusting one, that's my point. Though it's my POV that this kind of ugliness is best exposed, rather than hidden, if removing it is Wiki policy, then so be it. What really got me was the undue delicate and polite manner by which it was explained to the OP that the question was inapropriate:

Hello - I removed your question from the humanities desk since it seemed to be being taken as 'flamebait' or similar by some answerers.

Here is part of my reply:

I think you should read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_Wikipedia_is_not - see "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox".

If you have already formed an opinion there is no need to ask a question about it here. From your reply it seems that you had already some of the answer.87.102.9.117 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that wikipedia does not have a specific article on the relationship between money and jews or anyone else for that matter - but if you search (eg google) for "money jews" you will find a wide varity of articles on the subject from many points of view. 87.102.9.117 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can recommend the google search. It is probable that you may not get any good answers from wikipedia - I hope you do not take any offence at me removing the question.

Please feel free to ask the question again if you need to do so - but I would suggest you give a little more background to it so people can understand what you want answering.

"It seemed to be taken as flamebait or similar by some answerers (me)"? "Try google"? "I hope you don't take any offense at me removing the question"? "Feel free to ask the question again"? C'mon! Say it like it is! "Your question was reprehensibly anti-semitic and I removed it because Wikipedia will not stand for such disgusting bigotry". Had this been the fashion by which the question had been removed, I likely would have just let the whole thing go and not made any fuss about it. Loomis 14:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Loomis, you don't understand. We don't remove questions based on whether they're racist, sexist, or the like. If it's a clear question, such as "why are Jews associated with wealth in popular culture", we'll answer it. In this case, it has to do with the fact that Jews could loan money at interest, and Christians could not until the Pope said otherwise. If it were asked like that, and someone were to remove it, that would be a violation of [[WP:CENSOR][. If we were to remove the OP because of the content, it would again be a violation of WP:CENSOR. However, the fact that this question is not a question, not the fact it's Anti-semitic, is the reason why it should be (and was) removed. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The question was clearly not really a question but an attempt to make some kind of point, violating WP:SOAPBOX. Racism aside, I think it's a good idea to prevent the Reference Desks from descending into the kind of point-making non-question questions that characterize Question Period. ("The government says that it is a global marketplace, that the market will take care of it, but the market is not fair. Those other countries can sell their cars in Canada without limit, but we cannot sell good Canadian cars, built right here, to countries like China, Korea and Japan. Is that why the Prime Minister thinks it is a good idea to sign a free trade deal, signing away our auto industry to Korea?" -- Jack Layton to Stephen Harper, Feb. 8, 2007.) -- Mwalcoff 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The only point trying to be made is the one you are trying to make. One need not have any response to reach a conclusion as to the answer but in a civilized society one discusses questions and relevant answers. Apparently this fact is lost on you and Wooty. -- Barringa 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

References were being sought to help refute or to establish the following:

1. The Jews looted Egypt during the Exodus.

2. The Egyption Army persued the Jews during the [[Exodus] to recover the loot that was stolen and to arrest those responsible for taking it.

3. The gold looted during the Exodus was later melted down, cast into the form of a Golden Calf and worshipped by the Jews.

4. Jesus Christ overturned the tables of the money changers because their tables were located within the Temple which is God's House and not the House of Money.

5. Current day Jews draw a line between those who have money and those who do not, i.e., between the rich and the poor.

6. et. el.

The purpose for these references was to provide quidance for the Counsel of 10 which seeks merely to confirm or to deny any conclusion that may have been reached as to the true God of the [some] Jews being gold (money) or the Love of Money being their God. The asker is quite impartial as to the answer I might add but troubled by the attempted cover up of the question. -- Barringa 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, there was no attempt to silence you. If you read through the Reference Desk archives, you'll see many questions on sensitive topics were answered without complaint. Your question was deleted because it didn't look like a real question, but rather an attempt to make a point in question form, which is against RD rules. If you ask your question in a way that actually appears to be a question (e.g., "Did the Israelites loot Egypt during the Exodus?") Incidentally, the Talmud says God made the Egyptians give gold to the Israelites to fulfill the prophecy in Genesis 15: "Know that your children shall be strangers in a foreign land, [where] they will be enslaved and afflicted ... and afterwards they will go out with great wealth." -- Mwalcoff 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if others had not already responded deleting the question instead of posting your objections to it and then seeking consensus would have been the right thing to do. As is the impression that was left is that the Wikipedia is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money. Nontheless the deletion only prevented the right conclusion from being argued and reached by a consensus of users which greatly saddens me. What possible benefit do you think the Jews might gain if such questions are interupted and their resolution is prevented here versus a nuclear device being detonated inside Iseal by Iran and its growing numebr of supporters due to the answers to such questions being supressed. You and Wooty need to blame yourselves if such a thing were to happen. -- Barringa 03:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'll defer to Wiki policy against turning the RefDesk into a soapbox. Mwalcoff's point is understandable: "Racism aside, I think it's a good idea to prevent the Reference Desks from descending into the kind of point-making non-question questions that characterize Question Period." Fair enough.

But as I said, it wasn't the removal of the question that I took issue with so much as the nature of the explanation given for its removal. If Barringa was simply told that his question was removed because it was offensive and trollish, I'd shut up and keep my peace. Unfortunately, though, this was not the case. What really pissed me off was the "kid-gloves, bending-over-backward" effort to repeatedly console Barringa by explaining to him that his question was removed for matters of form only. That the issue of "The Jews worshipping Money as their God" was a legitimate one, and that Barringa's only fault was in his phrasing.

However, Mwalcoff, I believe that you're fooling you're fooling yourself if you actually believe what you said, that the reason the question was removed was because "the question was clearly not really a question but an attempt to make some kind of point, violating WP:SOAPBOX". Nonsense. The offensive, trollish nature of the question was the only legitimate reason for its removal. Otherwise, I actually agree with Barringa. Had the question been asked in exactly the same format, only on a far less sensitive issue, it would clearly be accepted as a question.

For convenience, I'll reproduce Barringa's original question in its entirety:

== True God of the Jews...? ==

Beginning with the gold looted from Egypt and eventually formed the Golden Calf all the way up to Howard K Stern's persuit of money via a relationship with Anna Nicole Smith is money the true God of the Jews? -- Barringa 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Now consider the following question:

== Why is UK Cuisine so Bad? ==

Beginning with their lukewarm, weak ales, all the way up to such revolting dishes as blood pudding, brawn, jellied eels, and, last but not least, haggis, do Brits truly have such bad taste that they actually enjoy these disgusting dishes?

Do you honestly believe that this question would be removed? Of course not. Though perhaps mildly offensive to Brits, and formed in precisely the same manner as Barringa's question, the topic is a fairly light one. As such it would probably even be taken seriously, and provoke an interesting discussion.

(OK - this is getting off-topic...but it needs to be said. Actually, I'm a Brit living in Texas - and I'm not even mildly offended because the post is so ill-informed - it's more amusing to hear the stereotypes. Hardly anyone eats blood pudding, brawn, or jellied eels - and only Scots eat haggis. Most Brits have similar feelings to Americans about those kinds of foods. Yes - we do have some odd foods that we enjoy - Steak & Kidney pie for example - which we've served to Americans without going into great detail about what it contains - and they love it. But we also have dishes like Beef Wellington that has real sophistication. British tastes are DIFFERENT - just because we speak roughly the same language doesn't mean we have the same culinary history. If you look at any other country (and I mean ANY), you'll find foods that you wouldn't want to consider eating. I find Catfish utterly disgusting (bottom feeder - and it tastes like mud too), Bolognia...urgh, those things you laugably call "sausages" - the way you carefully cut bacon to make absolutely certain there is only enough meat on it to make it look good in the packet, strawberries that are utterly devoid of flavor...trust me - there is much to be said against American cuisine too! Our beer is indeed lukewarm. But think of it like a French red wine - you don't drink red wine straight out of the freezer (OK maybe you do - but you SHOULDN'T!) - it's supposed to be drunk at room temperature. Sadly, most young people interpret 'room temperature' as 72 degF of a modern air-conditioned/heated home - but in reality, British beer is best at pre-WWI typical British room temperature - which would be more like 50 to 60 degF. This is because British beer is darker and heavier than most US beers - and it's just like red wine (Room temp) versus white wine (Chilled). But you absolutely can't call British Beer "weak". There are facts to be pointed out here: compare (to pick one brewery at random) Youngs beers - they vary from 3.7% to 7.2% alcohol by volume. Coors and Budweiser both come in at 4.2% and Sam Adams is around 4.9%). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

You've SOOOOOOO missed my point. Of course it's all nonsense. I merely provided it as an example of a similarly phrased nonsensical question. I've spent quite some time in England and loved it, including the REAL dishes served. Indeed, I think it would be more than safe to say I'm quite the Anglophile. It's disapointing though, that despite the far more important issue being discussed here, your only point of contention is some silly nonsense about British Cuisine. How very un-British of you. Loomis 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no! You aren't dragging me into this flame-fest. This thread has already reached the point where every point of any importance on either side of the debate has already been said. Anyone who's opinions are ever going to be swayed have already been swayed. There is simply nothing more to be said...so I'm not going to say it. I hope everyone is enjoying the opportunity to vent - but this debate is going nowhere...let it die. Mmmmm - beeeer. SteveBaker 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wooty, why have you completely reinterpreted and legitimized Barringa's question stating: "In this case, it has to do with the fact that Jews could loan money at interest, and Christians could not until the Pope said otherwise". Really? Is that why the Jews "looted [gold] from Egypt and eventually formed the Golden Calf"? Is the rational behind "Howard K Stern's persuit [sic] of money via a relationship with Anna Nicole Smith"? All because "Jews could loan money at interest"?

First off, that's factually incorrect. Jewish law contains similar restrictions concerning the charging of interest (as well as the paying of it). However, to both Jews AND Christians, these rules did not apply to non-coreligionists. In other words, according to Jewish law, a Jew may charge interest to a non-Jew, and likewise, according to Christian law, a Christian may pay interest to a non-Christian. Jews, therefore, being a minority, and being forbidden from owning land, found themselves a sort of "specialty-niche" in money lending to Christians. But all that's beside the point, as money lending had absolutely nothing to do with Barringa's question.

Further, Barringa's points above are completely off base:

Points 1&2: The Jews were slaves in Egypt and performed over 200 years of unpaid labour. Should the taking of some gold in compensation be considered "looting"? Were we actually in the wrong? Did the Egyptians actually have a legitimate claim to arrest us?

3. According to the Torah, when Moses saw the Golden Calf, he caused the Earth to open and all those who worshipped it were swallowed up. Only those who rejected it survived, and on to be the ancestors of today's Jews. Barringa's point therefore couldn't be any more wrong. On the contrary. Only those Jews who rejected the materialism of the Golden Calf survived.

Point 4 refers to the New Testament and therefore I have no interest in answering it, as it's not an article of history, but rather an article of the Christian Faith. With respect to my Christian friends, I don't consider the accounts of the New Testament to be of absolute historical authority.

Point 5 is absolute nonsense.

Keep the question removed if you wish. But please, don't whitewash the whole thing as being a "soapbox" thing, when it's obviously the case of a question being removed due its utterly offensive content. It's actually quite surreal: the reprimands I dealt with for my previous conduct, and the complete, total lack of even the slightest of slaps on Barringa's wrist for his disgusting behaviour. I've rarely encountered a more shameful of double-standards. Loomis 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you both need to read policy. Like I said, we don't remove questions for their content. We remove them because they're not questions. This question is about as valid as someone posting "Is George Bush a big stupid doo-doo head?". It's trolling disguised as a question. No more personal attacks, no more trolling, please. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is really silly to fight over why the question was removed. The fact that it was removed because of WP:SOAPBOX doesn't mean that the questioner is any less of a racist, or whatever. But if David Duke were to come on to the RD and ask a legitimate question, like, "What is the origin of the 'Jews as greedy' stereotype?" it would be answered. Even if Barringa had asked "Is it true that Jews love money more than other people do?" I wouldn't remove it but rather would answer in the negative. The difference between the Jewish question and the British-food question above is that the British question was really a question -- the person (perhaps mistaken about British cuisine) wanted to know how British people could eat British food. (Personally, I think stuff like "spotted dick" is just a joke they play on tourists.) But Barringa clearly knows that money is not "the God of the Jews." Everyone knows that God is the God of the Jews. So he wasn't asking a question, he was trying to make a point (as it happens, a racist one) in pseudo-question format. -- Mwalcoff 05:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, Mwalcoff. I'm basically splitting hairs here, which is indeed silly. Though I admire you greatly as a contributor, I have but one small criticism. You say "Everyone knows that God is the God of the Jews". Do you really believe that? Do you think that David Duke knows that? Do you think that Iranian President Muhammed What's-His-Name knows that? Do you really believe that all anti-semites, in spouting their hatred and lies, are actually aware of the truth and the fact that they're lying? I don't think so. I honestly believe that many anti-semites genuinely believe that Jews are basically evil. That we're a bunch of Christ-killing, Christian-Baby-Blood-Drinking Devil worshippers. Who knows what Barringa "clearly knows". I wouldn't at all be surprised if he actually, genuinely believes that Jews worship Money as our "God". In short, Mwalcoff, I believe you're overestimating the intelligence of anti-semites. But this is a minor difference of opinion. All in all I have great respect for you as a contributor. Loomis 06:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Presented here because it seems to belong here.

== Articles for creation ==

So you submit an article for creation; over 90% of them are rejected, and the other few % are accepted. What about the ones that have been sitting there for months that have not been accepted or rejected?

Good question. The thing is that the people who patrol that list are humans just like you and me - and it's a thankless task.

I patrolled that list for a long while. The problem is that way more than 95% of the submissions are complete junk. So many articles about bands and songs and albums that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. So many efforts of people to start articles about themselves or their family members or (worst of all) recent dead family members who they'd like to memorialise in some way. But Wikipedia has rules about what people are "notable" and we have to reject the ones that are quite simply not relevent to the encyclopedia. You get to dread article proposals that start "Johnnie was a good son, right up to when he died in Iraq last week..." and goes on to list lots of banal trivia about this guy. Sure he was probably brave and gave his life for his country - but Wikipedia's article guidelines specifically rule out articles like this unless the person was NOTABLE. OK - so this is a non-article. Do you want to tell the grieving mother that her son was not notable? I didn't think so. But it's the same for bands - someone is a fan of a really obscure band who made a few CD's to hand out to fans at gigs they played at some minor venue - it's hard to tell those fans that this band is a bunch of total no-hopers who don't rate an article. But rules are rules - so you try your best to be polite and helpful and tactful.

Well, when you go through that list day after day, it starts off being reasonable to do "due diligence" for each and every article, double checking that the person they are talking about truly is notable - or that the rock band has had two or more albums released by a major record label - or that some artist has been exhibited in some major exhibition...or whatever the guidelines are. But after a few weeks of this, it just gets unbearable because it takes four hours out of your life every evening doing nothing but finding reasons to reject crap! You can usually tell within 10 seconds of looking at a proposed article that it doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being a valid article - and frankly, it's not even worth the 10 to 20 minutes it's going to take you to check, prove it and post a coherent response saying "This person/band/company/whatever isn't notable".

In the end, you go through the list (which is dozens and dozens of proposals every day) ignoring the 'no hope' proposals, researching (and replying) to the ones that might just have had a chance - and ultimately being overjoyed when you find a speck of gold that you can pick out and turn into an article. But it's unusual to find even one solid proposal per day - so a few things that perhaps are marginal make it in, lots more that were worth researching get a nice rejection message and lots of completely and obviously junk ones go completely ignored. Other ones that tend to get ignored tend to be the long quasi-religious or pseudo-science diatribes that it's just too much effort to debunk. Some are just so incoherent that it's impossible to understand what the person is ranting on about - much less come up with a reason why it can't be an article. It's just easier to ignore them.

Yeah - it's not a perfect process - lots of people are in favor of just shutting down the entire service. Bottom line - if you are serious about Wikipedia and have a solid article you'd like to submit, just sign up for an account. It takes you 10 minutes - and four days later you have the same privilages as someone who has been here since the very beginning. Meanwhile, skim the notability standards - and PLEASE don't create articles that are junk - the effort to clean them up is sapping the energy of otherwise useful editors. SteveBaker 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Steve, I hardly know where to begin. That was so damn eloquent that I wish I could borrow your brain now and again. I've not been active at WP for a few weeks and have just returned to find your gem above. Well put! I suspected that on my return I'd find a post such as yours that would provide an example of what many of us mean when we say common sense and which sometimes is deliberately confounded with excuses and word-smithing. Thank you for your frank assessment. hydnjo talk 00:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

addendum: For those who don't know what I'm talking about, see this academic discussion. hydnjo talk 01:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This question and my response copied from the /M page to here for any further discussion. hydnjo talk 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea that can be fun and improve the project at the same time! Each day, let's start a new article or series of articles based on the questions asked on the ref desks. So if a question is asked that reveals an area that needs new articles, we ref desk volunteers can have some fun stubbing it out and fleshing it in. The topic should be non-controversial. Since this is my idea, I will go first: Guard tour patrol system. Gets into fun stuff like Watchclock. Atlant is already helping! What do you think? --Justanother 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good idea; topics posted on the various Reference Desks often provoke at least some editing of the existing articles and I wouldn't be surprised to find that we could discover "missing articles" as well; thanks for starting us! :Atlant 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Something like this helps rationalise the very existence of the Ref Desks, so I'm all for it. --Dweller 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If the idea flies, a template for the talk page, explaining the genesis of the page would help draw attention to the concept. --Dweller 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! And we can set a few simple guidelines. Like the first one someone suggests that seems viable is what we go with - let's not get complex with votes and polls. And the theme should include at least one new article! --Justanother 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE the idea. There are actually several articles I could suggest (would have to go through my recent contributions to find them). Anchoress 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been hanging around here for years waiting for a topic that wiki doesn't have an article on that I could actually write. Still waiting. You can take that as an I will help too.87.102.16.197 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Do a bit of reading on the net and start the article on watchclock --Justanother 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference desk is what prompted me to start bedtime. RAWK! V-Man737 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can create this to keep track of what we are working on. Better that keeping it in Talk Space. --Justanother 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, I was going to suggest it. Can it be a creation/improvement page? So we can link to threads that include info that could be used to improve existing articles? Anchoress 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And find the questions which is very important from the archives, and try to solve them. Eh, you know what if there aint no studies out there, we should do a study (regarding science questions) or pass it on to some proffessors, or make an article regarding a related study. Hurray we all scientists now :). Or Scholars if we make articles regarding "non technical" stuff--Parker007 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! ---Sluzzelin 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spotting needed articles is a great function for RD, and the person who can answer a question about the topic is probably a good one to write the article. A link to the original q and a on RD should be on the talk page of the article. It would be good if there were some statement that the article is created due to a Ref Desk Q and A, and that it is under active development, so as to make it less likely some New Article patroller will try to delete it instantly before it is fleshed out. I suggest writing the intial stub offline on your word processor or in your user sandbox, to keep it out of the clutches of New Article Patrol until you have added a couple of references (you do use inline references, right? to multiple reliable sources independent of the subject?) Another obvious RD function is to go to the relevant Wikipdeia article and improve it so as to make it easier for the next questioner to find it on his own, or so it is less confusing. Edison 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to find my answer on the Humanities Desk this morning came up with a redlink for Mixer tap. --Dweller 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Name?

Hi. So my first thought was:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Team

But now I think this is better?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

Both of those are a bit stodgy and I would love a funner name but sometimes people do not so much agree with "fun" names and stodgy is safe :-(

I would not like to see us choose a name that we later have to change.

Any other ideas or comments on the above? --Justanother 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just make it Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk and have it include people that do answer-patrol as well as people who make articles based on the RD? Or alternatively if you really need a "fun" name, how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Purple People Eaters? --Maelwys 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We'd get complaints from purple people (smile). --Justanother 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have one yet?

Because I have an entry. Don't know what to call it, but I'm pretty sure we don't have an article on it yet; compressed air cannisters for plugged drains. I've looked in compressed air, drain cleaners, and plungers. Also, those entries can all be cross-referenced in the See Also section. See Blocked sink. Anchoress 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest mentioning this application as part of an existing article (probably compressed air) rather than making an article just about this. Friday (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there isn't an article on compressed air, it's a disambig page. Anchoress 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't catch this but I guess you mean this thing.[8][9][10] Is it notable enough to have its own article? Yes, if it is widely sold and used. --Justanother 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)