|
'''Nick Tyler''' is
<div style="color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all;"><div style="font-size:150%;">'''This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only.'''</div>Please post general questions on the relevant [[Wikipedia:reference desk|reference desk]].<br>Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.</div>
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
|-
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 3|Archive 3]]
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 4|Archive 4]]
|-
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 5|Archive 5]]
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 6|Archive 6]]
|-
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 7|Archive 7]]
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 8|Archive 8]]
|-
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 9|Archive 9]]
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 10|Archive 10]]
|-
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 11|Archive 11]]
|[[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 12|Archive 12]]
|-
|colspan="2"|
----
|-
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[meta:Association of Reference Desk Volunteers|Association of Reference Desk Volunteers]]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
__TOC__
== Should we start reverting stupid questions? ==
The misc desk in particular attracts a huge number of daft questions with no sensible answers. For example:[[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Legal_in_US.3F|here]], [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#The_Deletion_of_Good_Burger_2|here]], or [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#someone_help_me.21.21.21.21|here]]. I propose that in future such questions be rv'd as if they were vandalism. We're in danger of losing sight of the goal of the reference desk, which should be to help people ''use wikipedia'' to answer their questions.
Anyone agree? [[User:Offtherails|Howard Train]] 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'd have no problem if anyone reverted the three examples you've given; I think Wikipedia's general guidelines about removing unhelpful content would be enough to justify that. But I'd be nervous about trying to make specific guidelines about what kinds of questions should be reverted. It seems to me that the majority of questions, even on the misc desk, are legitimate. And in my experience, legitimate questions are called illegitimate more often than illegitimate questions are asked. Also, questions that look like they were probably asked as a joke often turn out to have interesting answers, even answers found within Wikipedia. (Not that you're necessarily proposing any specific guidelines; I'm just saying this because someone might suggest it as a solution here.) --[[User:Amcbride|Allen]] 06:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::That sounds sensible. I have to admit that I've been put off trying to help with Refdesk questions recently, because the ''impression'' being given (rightly or wrongly) by a number of contributors (on both sides) is that it's an cliquey in-joke farm first and a reference desk second. I'm not saying nobody should ever have fun, of course not, but I ''do'' think that if there's a clash between giving a clear answer and making a silly joke, the clear answer should always take priority. [[User:Loganberry|Loganberry]] ([[User talk:Loganberry|Talk]]) 08:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Many users have fun by posting stupid questions on the refrence desk. If this is going to be done, could a section called ''Pointless'' be added along with Math, Science, ect.? If [[WP:BJAODN]] is allowed to exist, so should this. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Blue">T</font>]][[User:The Hybrid|<font color="Red">H</font>]][[User Talk:The Hybrid|<font color="Green">L</font>]]''' 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:Not quite. BJAODN was created because we ''delete'' those stupid articles, not because we want to keep them. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 07:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be normally better to not revert, and instead just ignore. Reverting...for one, may get messy when one editor decides a question is sensible and one editor decides it's not. It would be better to just reply telling people the question is not suitable, or just give them an appropriate link (and other editors should just ignore it unless they feel the question is sensible and plan to answer it.) So in the three examples above - I'd say the first question should get a reply simply saying the question is inappropriate. The second question should get a reply with a link to either our deletion policy, or to our policy page for verificability. The third one ''should'' get reverted because it's not a question at all, it's almost vandalism. --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 12:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:This question about reverting silly questions is one that keeps croping up every now and then. The simple way to handle it is just to ignore it, but if it is really disruptive, simply remove it. I used to do this every now and then - the trick is to do this right when the question is posted, and to request the poster add a question that is more relevant for an encyclopedia. Sometimes, others will spot this removal, and reinstate the question, so if this happens, just let the question be - another Wikipedian has implicitly stated "I'd like to take responsibility for its presence on the RD". These situations are good places to practice conflict management and resolution, if you aspire to become an administrator. However, I wouldn't advise being too aggressive with question removal. More often than not, the RD handles them well, even though they are blatantly "non-encyclopedic" questions.
:There aren't any hard written rules about this for the reason that we cannot codify and modulate every nuance of behaviour that occurs on the RD - simply do what is reasonable without compromising your enjoyment of volunteering at the reference desks, and this usually works for the best. Be consistent with professionalism, and be in tune with how people are like on the desks. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:I still don't get what's wrong with giving pointless questions their own section. Why take away fun, all the fun is in the stupid answers to stupid questions? If pointless questions have their own section, people like me would answer them, and you all wouldn't have to deal with it; you wouldn't even have to see it. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Blue">T</font>]][[User:The Hybrid|<font color="Red">H</font>]][[User Talk:The Hybrid|<font color="Green">L</font>]]''' 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, bad idea. --[[User:Froth|froth]]<sup>'''[[User_talk:Froth|<small>T</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Froth|<small>C</small>]]'''</sup> 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:Why is it a bad idea? '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Blue">T</font>]][[User:The Hybrid|<font color="Red">H</font>]][[User Talk:The Hybrid|<font color="Green">L</font>]]''' 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::Because i don't see the people who ask those stupid questions would bother to go to a section titled "stupid questions". You'd just have to manually move stupid questions to a seperate section. And the seperate section for stupid question will turn into something more like a chat box. --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 22:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Another way to look at it is to do your best to answer legitimate questions, give some guidance to reasonable homework questions and ignore the rest. The only thing that I would do in addition is to add <nowiki>{{unsigned | ip#}}</nowiki> to the question being "ignored" and delete any email address if you have the time or inclination. It's obvious that the questioners have some savvy just by the fact that they know how to make a header (well, most do). So, a common stance will eventually influence the past questioner which in turn will guide their influence on the next layer and so on. There will always be rogue (or is it [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin|rouge]]) questioners bouncing in for a laugh and the worst thing is to give them recognition. If the post is profane or whatever then of course delete it but that should be the exception. Ignoring the trolls is best in that it well, ignores them which will make them reluctant to repeat whereas "finger-wagging" on our part means that "the terrorists have won". Our behaving in an angry way is exactly ''their'' point to make so, don't. ;-) --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC) '''addendum:''' Another thought that I had some time ago was to surround the "stupid" questions with <nowiki><small>...''question''...</small> or <font color="grey">..."question"...</font></nowiki> but again, that would give recognition and status to the undeserved. Besides which if another one of us comes along and thinks differently about the question then no harm or prejudice done if the post was just ignored (no back-tracking required). Passive ''non''-response is our ''best'' response; those unanswered questions will stand out glaringly enough for others to notice. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about this subject the angrier I become. Who the hell are any of us to declare a question as being "stupid" and thus proceed to delete it from our RD pages? You have only to look at [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CFD]], [[WP:RFA]] ... to sense the diversity of opinion around here. So what next, a review board of appeals so that a deleted question can be re-posted or whatever remedy process that we'll need to put in place to deal with that obstinate troll who's just trying to piss us off (and they will appeal to the Jimbo, oh yes they will):
:''So, I contributed x$ at the last fundraiser, look it up, and I asked a question at the RD that [[User:xxx]] decided to delete and so here I am, with my mouse in hand, being dissed by [[User:xxx]] just because '''he''' thought that my question was stupid. What the xxxxing kind of an organization are you running here? I was trying to help my kid with his homework and because of my clumsy command of language I (and my kid) were deleted. Well excuse me, I thought that this project was here to help all of us, not just the exquisite questioners. If my question was deemed stupid by one of your "answerers" then maybe I should become one of your answerers just so that I could answer some of the "stupid" questions that come along. Jeesh!"<br>
So, ''' Should we start reverting stupid questions? ''' (as this section header suggests). Absolutely... '''NOT'''. Unless of course you intend to hang yourself out there as the arbiter of "stupid questions" which would put you in the same category as the judge of "silly walking", "funny talking" or ... well, I think you get it. :-) --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Upon reading this I thought I'd finally found a place on Wikipedia where people can make comments that isn't stale and completely devoid of humour and now people want to kill the humour...hmmmm... :( --[[User:WikiSlasher|WikiSlasher]] 13:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
== Joke answers ==
I enjoy witty responses as much as the next guy, but I think it's getting a little out of hand here. I think we should try to avoid posting joke answers until the question has been legitimately responded to. This wouldn't apply for stupid/joke questions, but things like [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Shelf_life|this]] are just uncalled for - the guy asked a fair and legitimate question, and I doubt he appreciates that kind of time-wasting response. "Willfull misunderstanding" is also a bit of a problem. There's an example of it in that question as well, but more common is when someone fails to mention his ___location, even if it's obvious from the context of the question, he runs a fair chance of getting "well I assume you're in Zimbabwe..." Humor is fine at the reference desk, but let's not forget its primary function.... -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 01:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:At least it's done with a smile - I find the quoted example much less offensive than the frequent 'first of all, learn to spell' comments. I do understand that bad orthography and grammar bothers some people, so my question is whether it would be appropriate for editors to correct the spelling (no other editing, mind you!) of an original poster's question or not. The advantages would be that a) the questioner wouldn't be perceived as uneducated, b) the editors wouldn't be distracted by the spelling and could focus on answering the question, and c) no one would feel the need to make harsh and subjectively insulting comments directed at the questioner. We seem to have a lot of posters who learned and are learning English as a foreign language, let's not discourage them, please. Sorry if this is only remotely connected to your comment Elmer, but the spelling police bothers me much more than the occasional teasing of an original poster.---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::I agree. The questioner should never be the at the receiving end of a joke and especially an "in" joke that y'all think makes you appear "cool". It's one thing to banter amongst ouselves (in a limited way) but never at the expense of a newcomer that may have been naive or crude in their manner of questioning. I think that bringing this up may give pause to the sometimes thoughtless response that we sometimes feel will showcase our cleverness. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:Indeed. Joke answers tend to be annoying. --[[User:Proficient|Proficient]] 06:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:It's not getting any better - e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Karma this question about karma]. What do we do? Post scolding messages on the talk pages of the "class clowns"? Seems like that would just give them the attention they crave. I'm truly at a loss. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::How serious was the questioner in asking such an open ended question? How do we know what he wants to know. Isnt a little fun allowed in trying to answer the question? Remember the people who give joke answers also give some serious ones. Do you want to lose the major conributors of answers to the RDs?
:--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::It may be time to start simply deleting nonsense "answers" referring to [[WP:BITE]] and/or [[WP:AGF]] in the edit summary. The house style should distinctly not be to ridicule, no matter how obvious or inappropriate the question may seem. There are no stupid questions. There are, however, stupid responses. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree: '''delete inappropriate responses'''. Remember that the RD is ''not'' a talk page, despite the fact that it looks like one because responders sign changes. Like an article, we should work to provide good answers to the questions, and that sometimes means removing material. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'm starting to think that maybe a lot of you guys are right; I'm not really happy with all of the "funny" discussions going on, and it's just getting worse and worse. I would fully support deleting off topic responses that give no attempt to answer the question or develop on a previously stated idea.
:For example:
::<font color="green">''What is a Psyxioloit Oiniioinoin?''</font>
:::<font color="green">''Did you read the article at '''Psyxioloit Oiniioinoin'''? It's onionorific! '''MrMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font>
:...is stupid but OK by me, because MrMan attempted to ''answer'' the question. I also don't care about this:
::<font color="green">''How many oranges are there?''</font>
:::<font color="green">''Can you expand? '''MrMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font>
::::<font color="green">''Can '''you''' expand MrMan? I don't see how that is relevant to '''oranges'''. He might be talking about the color orange. '''MrsMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font>
:...because while MrsMan is fooling around, the conversation is relevant ''within'' the thread started by MrMan. I honestly don't care about stupid comments, but lately there has been ''way'' too much of this:
::<font color="red">''Hi, where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero?''</font>
:::<font color="red">''Zero. '''MrMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font>
::::<font color="red">''LOL. '''MrsMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font>
:::::<font color="red">''Geez MrMan, that was '''cold'''. '''MsMann''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font>
:...which is not only ''not'' attempting to correctly interpret the original questioner (who probably wanted the figure in C or F), but is drawing away from the original question and is very frustrating for the questioner.
:I, and I'm sure many other users, have attempted to stop stupid conversations from continuing by simply ignoring them, but lately it seems there are many users that are intent to create such unrelated conversations, and in a way it's really polluting RD. I think it's time for us to be bold. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::Right. Well, I was bold and deleted LightCurrent's response [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Dwarf_Hamsters here], and he just went and added it back in. I'm not about to get into a revert war. I could use some support though. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::So, Larry Mac, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&action=edit§ion=9] is your idea of a proper response to a question on tongue piercing is it? Better get your windows boarded before throwing any more pebbles.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::It still in the history 8-)#--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::My response was factual as well as amusing (possibly). Its very dangerous to start on the slippery slope of [[censorship]]. You may find your innocent comments suddenly being deleted because someone takes a dislike to them or thinks they are 'nonsense'.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:How can you tell joke questions form serious ones? Look at this one for instance:
:''I keep sitting on my testicles, is this normal, and how can it be avioded without cupping myself in public?''
:Is it serious or not? Does it deserve an answer? Should it be deleted.? I would urge editors to be VERY VERY careful before embarking on any form of policy of censorship.(except in the case of personal attacks etc) --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::We're not talking about joke questions here; thats an entirely different problem. And please be careful when you use the word "censorship", which implies a lot of bad things, and isn't really fair when most people here are really just trying to stick to the facts and make RD a more efficient tool. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Thats right. Censorship is bad. Especially when one person set himself up as the censor of all others. THats why we need a consensus to delete other peoples posts! 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree with removing joke answers, and I only halfheartedly agree with deleting joke questions (my personal solution would be to leave them but add <s>strikethrough</s> to indicate that they should be disregarded), but I agree that things are going out of hand. Two recent examples: On the computer desk, the ''first'' response to a very legitimate, properly-worded question was a comment that turned out to be a joke (not trying to castigate the editor, I commend him/her for owning up to it), but it was worded in such a way that it looked to several other editors to be a legitimate answer, and an incorrect answer to boot; and on another desk, a respondent commented to an OP (who is the parent of a school-age daughter) that s/he hoped the child was 'above the age of consent', because s/he was fantasising about her and thought other editors were also. I mean, why are we here? Is it to amuse each other with our cleverness? Is it to subtly troll? Or is it to try our best to help questioners, or at the least to avoid confusing, misdirecting, or driving them away.
:I just got a taste of what it's like to newcomers when I spent some time recently on a board discussing [[James Frey]], and was irritated and put off by the numerous OT convos taking place between regular posters that interrupted the flow of the discourse. I urge all of us to:
:#Do our best to resist the urge to give joke answers to sincere questions (genuinely witty additions, or those added after the question has been answered are more OK IMO);
:#Keep asides and OT convos with other regulars to a minimum, at least until the question has been thoroughly answered;
:#Rigorously avoid biting newbies and being self-righteous (spelling flames, DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, etc);
:#Speak up when someone makes an inappropriate or unhelpful comment;
:#Resist feeding the trolls by turning insincere, unintelligible or bad faith questions into their own joke threads;
:#More kindness, generosity, good faith and helpfulness; less sarcasm, humour at other people's expense, and inside jokes;
:#Remember why we're here.
:I'm not trying to be a process Nazi or make the board less fun, but consider that our 'fun' is making the boards a lot ''less fun'' for others. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 03:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::I hope your urges are adequately recieved by the RD editor community. If everyone could claim to have said common sensibilities it would really do a lot to improve the quality of our vivid concourse. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 04:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, while we're speaking English... ;-))) [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Remember, [[WP:AGF]] is official policy, and it directly leads to [[WP:BITE]]. Nobody's talking about deleting or censoring questions. We've lost potentially useful contributors in the past due to an air of hostility (and, like or not, responses poking fun at "stupid questions" and extensively using in-jokes are perceived as hostile). People asking questions here are generally not looking to be amused. If you feel compelled to make jokes, please go someplace else (perhaps [[Uncyclopedia]]). -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
== How does the Reference Desk IMPROVE Wikipedia? ==
I see you are all very worried about how to archive the RD and its immense amount of questions, complaining how some questions are worth and others not, etc. But it seems you don't like talking too much about an aspect that ''deeply'' affects the RD and the questions posted: ''The improvement of Wikipedia from the questions answered here.'' And I'm not talking about the ''uncanny'' ability to direct askers to the corresponding Wiki articles. While that is helpful in a way, it's not the shiniest bulk of this place. It's sad to think that most of you would like to take these questions and file them in a big-ass Archive (which doesn't even have direct searching function which is INSANE), instead of '''answering, and then making suitable articles and subsections that answer the questions that you consider ''good'' in the way you just did.'''
I know that not all of the questions that can be considered "good ones" are worth having articles or even subsections in other articles, but you '''''know''''' there are certain subjects that would be worth having an article, instead of relying in the necessity of '''a)''' asking here, then '''b)''' being thoroughly answered (in the middle of equally-debated ha-ha responses), then '''c)''' being forgotten about... '''then being asked about again and again!''' I do not know how common this re-asking is here, but at least once I've been sincerely annoyed when the users reply:
''"Um, this was asked before! Duh! Why didn't you check the 7GB Archive for a question like this before asking, ''huh''?"''
And if the askers dare to reply ''"Oh, but why isn't there an article that answers this common knowledge question, then?"'' You all say "Well, [[Be bold]]!", or (most commonly) keep quiet afterwards since "your answering job is done", and off the question goes to the black-hole sized Archive!! (I have a couple of explicit examples if you need them... oh wait, it'll take me a few dozen hours to find them in the Archive!!!)
Listen, I understand that there are many questions that seem to have been written by five-year-old ADD sufferers, but that precisely is my point: Do you want the REAL, justified questions to end up buried in the Gigapile of RD questions, instead of '''enriching Wikipedia with text that answers those questions as well as possible, so that the knowledge is ''there'' for everyone to use it''', and there can mostly be questions that deserve nice discussion and debate from all users here? Wouldn't focusing on answering good questions by ''letting Wikipedia itself answer'' improve not only Wikipedia, but also the type of questions that are posted here (and the controversial size of the archive as well)? Isn't that what we are [[Assume good faith|supposed to expect from ourselves]]? Shouldn't there be a responsability of those who answer to TRANSMIT the good answers to Wikipedia articles and not just answer and forget about it?
I'm not entirely sure if I'm overreacting, but I'm simply a casual asker who likes browsing through the week's RD questions, so I'm speaking from that view. If we can agree on anything, is that the RD has several complications that truncate its efforts, and I believe this is one of the reasons. [[User:Kreachure|Kreachure]] 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:This raises a very good point. The point of the RD isn't for people to use Wikipedia to get answers for people - it is to answer questions which are not answered in Wikipedia already. Whenever a question is asked which is answered in Wikipedia, rather than answer - just delete the body and edit the heading to include a link to the article, like this:
:'''Original:'''
:===When was Hitler born?===
:When and where was Adolf Hitler born? from random@example.com
:'''Edited:'''
:===When was Hitler born? -> [[Adolf Hitler]]===
:Then when archiving, just delete the question. Also when archiving, add the new answers (answers to the questions which are proper questions and were not already answered within Wikipedia articles) into the relevant articles, so that next time someone asks, they are there. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::It's impossible for a bot to tell whether it should include the response or not, and a pain in the ass for human archivers to look through every question to decide whether they should include them in the archive. As far as I'm concerned, the archives are easily searchable using [[Google]], and I let everyone know that they can do that before asking a question. I don't really see the problem; I don't think the percentage of repeat questions is ''that'' big of a deal, and a more comprehensive FAQ sounds like a much easier solution to this anyway. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
'''Why is there a Reference desk - a perspective.''' When we opened a [[WP:RD|Reference desk]] it was to help folks find an answer to a perhaps obscure question or a misdirected title (watch out for those upper/lower cases) which was available within. Well, that concept lasted for about thirty seconds as questions began to come about all sorts of things, most of which without an article to point to. So, the current RD as we know it came into being.<br>
After a while the RD became such a popular feature with such a large following that it seemed wise to break it into several sections just to reduce the page load-time. There was much discussion at that time about changing the "culture" of the RD but it turned out to be the right thing to do.<br>
Over the months and years there have been many proposals to improve the quality and efficiency of the RD including proposals to mark certain questions as "good" or "answered" or "deserving of special recognition". Well, nice idea but out of context. We're not begging for ''star'' questions or ''star'' answers, just some helpful guidance from y'all to the folks. The folk wisdom that shines at the RD is the natural response to anyone's query. Yeah, for sure there is going to be the whimsical bantering but what the heck, we're all just volunteering our time and some questions are just begging for a bit of ... well you know, humorous banter. It sometimes goes over the top but there is always a level-headed user to keep things on track. "'''Did you see what User:xxxxx said?''' You better do something about that right now - the RD is going down in flames!"<br>
So, why is there a [[WP:RD|Reference desk]] indeed! The information that I have been privileged to observe here has no equal: no usenet crap, no link to an unwanted commercial, no smacks upside the head (usually), no putdowns (usually), a diverse response, a suggestion (sometimes) to rephrase an ambiguous question, the splendor of seeing a thread morph into a marvelous and informative give and take by an intelligent band of answering folks; that feeling feels good.
Turning the question around, how does the [[WP:RD|reference desk]] '''not''' improve [[Wikipedia]] or more generally, the Wikipedia experience? Well, it certainly gives voice to our natural inclination to share knowledge - imperfect at times but better than... well, hell, that's not what we're about. Collectively, we're not trying to "beat" anyone - just trying to do our best at sharing, and ''that'' is what makes Wikipedia, and its [[WP:RD|Reference desk]] special. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:Quick random thoughts before I board a plane:
:# The reference desk has the least number of vandalism edits per total edits.
:# It is probably the most friendly of all Wikipedia namespace pages.
:# A number of administrators have been promoted on the basis of their professional handling of questions at the reference desk.
:# It is one of the few places where ''anyone'' on the internet can harness this sort of elclectic gathering.
:# It creates a beneficial networking environment which otherwise would not exist.
:# It's fun!
:Bottom line? Reference desk is here to stay. :-) Mind you, extremely valid concerns have been raised, and I would hope that we can address them better, say, when I get back. Or another user can do that. In the meantime, please stay tuned. It's not often these thoughts are vocalised here, and in fact I think [[User:Kreachure|Kreachure]], you are the first to do so. It's really important we get feedback about the RD, so thanks for your post. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::I think the most useful suggestion here is that more of the good information produced here should find its way into articles (when and where appropriate, of course). It's a shame if Wikipedia contains some great lore that is truly appropriate to an encyclopedia, but only in the RD archive. I don't think we can tell answerers that they need to do this work. But it might be possible to encourage the task of mining the answers for overlooked important content. So many Wikipedians (most of us, some of the time) are happy to comb through looking for easy opportunities for modest improvements. [[User:Wareh|Wareh]] 02:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:::This topic is near to my heart, as no matter how much I enjoyed the reference desk, I reallized that as my wiki time reduced it was one of the things I did that helped improve articles the least. Part of the problem is a lot of RD answer content isn't carefully referenced, so doesn't help in meeting [[WP:V]]. Other people here do a good job of starting or expanding articles to answer questions, and that's good, but I found it wasn't as helpful for my own work on articles. But one thing that could help is encouraging answers to tell explicitly whether they already included the information in the answer in the relevant articles or created the needed redirects, or made the information easier to find, etc, or not. If that is simply stated every time (not much effort when answering a question) that would make it easier for others to do the adding or clarifying or further research. And it could help in reminding everyone that improving articles is our most important mission here at Wikipedia. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 03:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
== Archiving ==
''(copied from /S)''<br>
Shouldnt this page have been archived a number of times before now?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:<small>Easy there [[Tonto (Lone Ranger character)|''Kemo Sabe'']], we were all offered the opportunity to help out manually until a bot could be got. Didn't see lots of hands being raised back then did we? --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)</small>
::Well I actually started to help until subjected to unjustified criticism from certain non participants on the RDs. :I then with drew my offer. Blame them!!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, you've made your [[WP:POINT|point]] then. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::only 361 kilobytes, I say we try for 1000. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::<s>gee, what a scientific question</s> How do you archieve these RD pages anyway? --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_11#Removing_Old_Days_from_Ref_Desk_.28Whether_Transcluded_or_Not.29 Removing Old Days from Ref Desk (Whether Transcluded or Not)] from early September. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC) '''addendum:''' For personal reasons, I had to rescind my commitment to do archiving but I'm setting time aside each day to add the date headers to each of the RD sections and the HD. As things improve at with my home situation I am hoping to be able to do some archiving as well. Actually, I'm really hoping that a bot can be got! '''This section has been copied from /S. Please continue here. I'll delete the section from /S in a day or so as it shouldn't be at /S at all.''' --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::It has already been archived. and starting now (probably today) Martin's bot will be doing it for us. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::The bot has done archives up to the 21st, and will do the 22nd on standard archival tonight. <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">rtinp23</font>]]</strong> 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased to see the introduction of '''Martins bot''' to handle the archiving and I thank him very much for writing it. Thanks!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:It was a pleasure :) <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User_talk:Martinp23|rtinp23]]</strong> 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah! And cheers to the [[User:RefDeskBot|RefDeskBot]]. We got a bot! Thanks to all and especially [[User:Martinp23|Martin]] :-) --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Assuming the bot works as intended (Im sure it will) Then Martin needs some sort of award or [[barnstar]] or something. What do other ref desk editors think?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'll pitch in and give RDB a free user page makeover. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 02:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sure glad to see it up and running ! [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::<div style="float: left; border:solid orange 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #FFF7CB;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: orange; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''[[Image:Oranges and orange juice.jpg|40px]]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};|''Let's party! [[Screwdriver (cocktail)|Screwdrivers ]] all around. <small><small>(bar tab to Heidi & Joe)</small></small>''
|}</div>
It's creating archives, yes, but where is it putting them? It's not adding them to the archive page, <s>and it's not indexing</s>, so basically, all of that still has to be done by hand. It's also using a totally different extension to archive to, so all the old archives will red link. [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006]] vs [[Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/October 2006]], I'm afraid I don't understand the point of changing the extensions--[[User:172.144.248.157|172.144.248.157]] 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:The archives changed. They are now at [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives]]. The main page is protected so I need an admin to change the links on that page. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Then I assume the bot is ready to manually change all the old archives all the way back to 2004? Or we just bury those along with the old extension?--[[User:172.147.10.221|172.147.10.221]] 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Would you even ''look'' at the link I gave you? Nothing will change with the old pages, they stay exactly where they are, and they will be like that forever. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::If you look at the link I gave you, you'll notice something missing [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006]], yes [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives]] is fine, but [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/October 2006]] and [[Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/October 2006]] both still exist, and aren't the same--[[User:172.147.10.221|172.147.10.221]] 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but I don't see how that's really a problem. I am going to connect the links from the old archives to the new ones either tonight or tomorrow morning (8 edits on the monthly pages, and 8 edits on daily archives). If there's a half-before-the-bot and a half-after-the-bot is it really such a big deal? It's happened twice before already (in 2004, and in 2005). [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yes, if they are manually corrected, then it isn't a problem. I've made a small change to [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions]] to reflect this --[[User:172.128.21.249|172.128.21.249]] 05:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Who does Tawkerbot tell if it wants to block someone for blanking pages? I'm trying to blank the archive pages that aren't going to be used anymore, but I'm afraid some admin isn't going to realize what I'm doing and block me. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::<s>Don't worry, only anons get warned for blanking pages, it happened when i was trying to archive the other night, you should be fine, I don't think Tawkerbot(s) crawl in the Wikipedia namespace.</s> oh, I see TB2 has already decided to issuse you a warning. --[[User:172.128.21.249|172.128.21.249]] 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::You may also wish to consolidate the October pages --[[User:172.128.21.249|172.128.21.249]] 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::As I said, tonight or tomorrow. I have some other coding for the archive headers and transclusion as well that I'll be getting on soon. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 06:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::A quick note. The main RD page is protected, but the header is not. I can't figure out which link you need to update, so check out [[:Template:RD header]]. We should throw a party for Martin. After all the work is done, can we spontaneously make a collage on a page somewhere as a way to say thanks? :-) --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 13:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
== What to do about question that is repeated two days in a row? ==
[[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#I_want_to_study_law_and_qualify_as_an_attorney.2C_but_dont_want_to_practise|This]] question was posted yesterday and again [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#I_need_information_about_online_colleges_that_offer_Juris_doctor_degree_that_you_can_accelerate|today]]. Both times, the questioner included his/her email address. The first time, I deleted the email address and showed the questioner how to find the answer to his/her question. (And frankly, if the questioner can't follow the simple steps that I gave, he/she has no hope of obtaining his/her desired legal qualifications.) How do we handle this repeated request? Must someone go in and delete the email address every day? Can we just delete the question, since it repeats a question asked the previous day? What do others think? [[User:Marco polo|Marco polo]] 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:Suggestion: Leave the header, delete the question, insert link to previously posted question. If it should happen a third time, just delete. --[[User:LarryMac|LarryMac]] 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::I'm going to try to make some templates that make stuff like this easier, especially moving questions between desks (and linking), and referring to duplicate questions. I'll get on it after I finish a template that I need to make for the article space. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
== Archive faster ==
Just a thought...would it be beneficial if the popular desks such as science, humanities, and miscellaneous were archived in a way such that only 4 days of questions are live, instead of 7? --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, that's a possibility. Do others think that would be a good idea too? I basically gave up on that because it's obviously not a long-term solution (we can't just keep on reducing the archive time), and there may be a lot of complaints about old questions disappearing. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::Reducing the archive time is the best incremental solution we have right now which involves minimal change. Historically, Wikipedians are pretty understanding when it comes to archiving faster. In fact, I did that the week before the bot was implemented! --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::The problem is the ''next'' decrease in archive intervals. 3 days is pretty tight, 2 days is rediculous. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::::That next decrease will probably not happen, because my guess right now is that by that time, we will likely have a new reference desk. This "archiving faster" is just a band-aid solution to buy ourselves some extra time to prepare for whatever changes ahead. At least, that's how I feel. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::I tried the "new reference" desk thing, and it didn't take very well. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::How come? I read about it (didn't participate), and from what I saw I thought it would be implemented. [[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 04:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I will propose the design changes again soon, but it is clear that there is a majority of users who would not welcome the addition of new desks. A few "prolific" users want to focus the desks, but most users don't want to see large desks such as Humanities and Science split into pieces. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
It should take the agreement of '''at least two''' ''regular'' RD editors to delete any post, be it stupid/offensive question or stupid/ offensive/completely irreleavant answer. No funny answers please 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:I fundamentally disagree with such a proposal. What makes the text of RD responses more precious than the text of Wikipedia articles? Do we require two regular editors to remove some text from an article? The point to the RD is to provide answers, not to chew the fat. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::I dont like what you have just said in that post. So I am allowed to delete it. Is that what you are saying?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::No. ''This'' is a talk page; the RD "project" page is ''not''. Talk pages are for discussion; RD pages are for answers to questions, much like articles are for presentation of information. An article can and should be revised to improve the presentation; an RD answer can be revised to remove jokes, bickering, etc. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::::RD pages are not articles. But I can remove '''your''' comments and anyone elses comments from the RD if I dont like them? Is '''that''' what you are saying?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:What R. S. Shaw said. I remind you, LC, that many people have complained in these pages about some of the drivel put up as answers; and I identify you as being in the vanguard of the complained-about camp. It ill behoves you to engage in further special pleading for the retention of troll spore. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]]
Well I could have predicted that answer from you. And do you complian about the other posters of what you consider inappliacable material? No! Why is that? Also, do a statistical analysis of my serious to less than serious answers. I think youll find my ratio tends to be greater than 50% factual answers. Compare that to others before spouting off at me as the source of all evil on the RDs. As I said before, its people heckling from the sidelines who should keep quiet.
I think yours is a stupid post. So I am allowed to delete it under your rules. Yes?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:I, for one, think a 2 editor rule is a ''very good idea''. Something like this would be great:
::<font color="red">''Hi, where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero?''</font>
:::<font color="red">''Zero. '''MrMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</font> <small>'''''(DEL)''' - '''MrsMan'''''</small>
:The second (or third, fourth, whatever) editor to think that the comment is a nuisance to RD could then remove it at will, and we would at least be attempting some form of consensus. Questions not removed after 2 days or so could be un-tagged. Thoughts? [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::Agreed 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::A suggestion above was to use a strikethrough, and I like that as well, as it serves as a visual reminder without actually removing any content.
::::<font color="green">''Hi, where can I get exact measurements for absolute zero?''</font>
:::::<font color="green"><strike>''Zero. '''MrMan''' 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)''</strike> - <small>'''MrsMan'''</small>''</font>
:::::<font color="green">''Check '''absolute zero'''. '''MrsMan'''''</font>
:::[[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 04:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This is already permitted under [[Wikipedia:Civility]], which is policy. A response that is fundamentally nothing but a rude insult to a good faith question can simply be deleted by anyone. The message here is "cut it out". -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 04:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:Civility does ''not'' apply to RD, for it is not a talk page or comment bank. This is not about Wikipedian policy, because there is none for RD, it's about common sense and being Wikipedian. [[User:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="white" style="background:blue"> freshofftheufo</font>]][[User_talk:Freshgavin|<font size="-2" color="blue">ΓΛĿЌ </font>]] 05:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Read the first sentence of [[Wikipedia:Civility]]; it certainly does apply to RD edits, like all other edits. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::I don't like this. I ''certainly'' oppose the original idea; giving "regular RD editors" more power here than anyone else is ridiculous, not to mention they are the source of a large percentage of the "unhelpful" answers. But I don't like Freshgavin's revised proposal much either: obvious attacks, clearly uncivil behavior, or outright spam/vandalism can just be removed on sight. A better approach for comments that are just deemed unhelpful would be to bring it up on the commenter's talk page if you judge it to be a problem, and ask him to remove it himself. The idea of voting to delete the comments of others does not seem in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia... -[[User:Elmer Clark|Elmer Clark]] 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::OK lets remove the word 'regular' from the proposal. THen even infrequent visitors can have their say. But remember, suggestions have been made to 'clean up the act' by a number of visitors to these pages. Also to counterbalance Elmers negative statement, I would say that regular RD editors (almost by definition) are the source of the large majority of the "helpful" answers--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
== Joking on RD ==
I have recently recvieved this warning:
<div class="notice" style="background:#ffc; border:1px solid #AAA; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto;"> [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|30px|left]] OK, it is time for your joking to end. You are potentially offending people, both here in the Wikipedia community and the wider readership. What you are doing could be seen as [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and you could get [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia for it. '''You might not get another warning before having a block imposed''', so be careful and be serious from now on. <!-- Template:Seriously (level 4 warning) --> </div>
Is this the start of censorship of the RD pages?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 04:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:I posted the warning. And, no, it is not the start of censorship of the RD pages. Wikipedia is not censored. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If blocks are being threatened for the odd joke, then what else can it be called/--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 04:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
| 