Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 254: Line 254:
::::::By doing the work of moving I meant not just Melkorian copy pasting, but placing a "copied to here" link at the old location, and a "copied from here" link at the new location. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::By doing the work of moving I meant not just Melkorian copy pasting, but placing a "copied to here" link at the old location, and a "copied from here" link at the new location. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You don't really have to do any of that. The only thing you have to do is do what Deor said and then come back here and changed the editrequest to answered and leave a signed comment saying you copied it to the requested place (no links needed) so that people know they don't have to deal with the editrequest. Technically the signed comment isn't needed, but it reduces confusion as to who actually dealt with the editrequest. If it wasn't stated what desk the requested edit was for (as has been said, it can be a bit confusing because this page is for multiple desks and not all editors realise that), then you should also mentioned which desk it was, preferably linking to the desk (which even from a mobile device shouldn't take more than 10 seconds, remember you can always use shortcuts like [[WP:RD/H]]). That said, you still have the option of not doing anything, which as has been said, is better than replying here. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You don't really have to do any of that. The only thing you have to do is do what Deor said and then come back here and changed the editrequest to answered and leave a signed comment saying you copied it to the requested place (no links needed) so that people know they don't have to deal with the editrequest. Technically the signed comment isn't needed, but it reduces confusion as to who actually dealt with the editrequest. If it wasn't stated what desk the requested edit was for (as has been said, it can be a bit confusing because this page is for multiple desks and not all editors realise that), then you should also mentioned which desk it was, preferably linking to the desk (which even from a mobile device shouldn't take more than 10 seconds, remember you can always use shortcuts like [[WP:RD/H]]). That said, you still have the option of not doing anything, which as has been said, is better than replying here. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Concur with the preceding and others. No "copied to here" is needed for an edit request here, any more than it is needed for an edit request in an article. It's less clear if the requester doesn't use the edit request template. Is that a malformed edit request, or a misplaced post? If they didn't state a desired target page, it's a misplaced post and needs some way of indicating where you copied it to; the "copied to here" template is the most standard way of doing that, although you could just type a reply with a link instead.<br />I agree that this page is not for discussion of misplaced RD questions, and it's not overly anal to enforce that. [[Special:Contributions/68.97.47.26|68.97.47.26]] ([[User talk:68.97.47.26|talk]]) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Concur with the preceding and others. No "copied to here" is needed for an edit request here, any more than it is needed for an edit request in an article. It's less clear if the requester doesn't use the edit request template. Is that a malformed edit request, or a misplaced post? If they didn't state a desired target page, it's a misplaced post and needs some way of indicating where you copied it to; the "copied to here" template is the most standard way of doing that, although you could just type a reply with a link instead.<br />I agree that this page is not for discussion of RD questions, and it's not overly anal to enforce that. [[Special:Contributions/68.97.47.26|68.97.47.26]] ([[User talk:68.97.47.26|talk]]) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015 / Laggard as a free rider ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015 / Laggard as a free rider ==

Revision as of 08:26, 10 November 2015

Skip to the bottom
Shortcut

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk
This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.


Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

OP calls out "subjective opinion" responses

I call your attention to the response by OP User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov and mine that follows, regarding the nature of responses to his query. I find the stated opinion prior to internal links provided by User:RomanSpa using the word "stupidity" is inherently insulting the OP and degrading to the Ref desk and its readers. If any of you can improve the explanation I attempted to provide about appropriate responding on the RDs, please do so there and here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was flippant, but wasn't directed at the OP. And he cited "Luddite", which is a pretty common term for someone opposed to technology. The OP was also given other links. What info does the OP want that he's not getting? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's asking for respondents not to be flippant and to confine themselves to answering the question. I agree with him, and I would add that additions like [1] are also unnecessary. --Viennese Waltz 14:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a reasonable question. I have as much right to ask a question as you or anyone else does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, your question was not reasonable. It was not a genuine request for information, it was intended to draw attention to some perceived conflict between plain people and their use of modern technology. --Viennese Waltz 14:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, wise guy... I looked in the "plain living" article for information on plumbing. There wasn't any. So I raised what I considered to be a fair question. If you have an answer to my question, state it or provide a link. Otherwise, shut your arrogant trap. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol --Viennese Waltz 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What type of plumbing is a "lol"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, you have a right to ask questions, but in some circumstances it may be more polite to ask in a new section. As it stands, your question has very little relation to the OP question - you are asking a specific thing about a specific group of people, while OP is looking for general terminology and schools of thought. So it can be a bit distracting to the OP as well as a disservice to your own question to do these sort of tangential "tack-on" questions. To answer your question, some plain people use indoor plumbing, some do not. It is not a homogeneous group. Old Order Amish often have outhouses, while Beachy usually do have indoor plumbing, drive automobiles, and many even use the internet. The Mennonites themselves have a whole spectrum of how "plain" they choose to live, not to mention the various other sects. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I create a new section, may I copy your above answer into it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the future you may copy anything I write on WP, as long as you also include my signature. I should also add that some of what I wrote is WP:OR based on personal experience, e.g. the article on Old Order Amish does not say anything about specific about outhouses or plumbing. The Beachy article does mention that many of them use (filtered) internet. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. And now done. Thank you. And thanks also for answering my question instead of being a nattering nabob of negativism. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't speak American. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Spiro didn't speak American either. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He used to lapse into Latin sometimes. Nolo contendere, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any contribution from you on that thread. --Viennese Waltz 14:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look now (I was editing in two windows and encountered an E/C that ate up time.). Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see it now. I agree with you, but you should have raised it initially on RomanSpa's talk page. --Viennese Waltz 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was just being funny. But if the OP is not a native speaker, the joke might have been over his head. Hence the need for small print. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posts intended to "be funny" and which do not answer the question are unnecessary. --Viennese Waltz 14:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who appointed you the god of what's "necessary"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While humor is "unnecessary" to answer a specific Q, I believe it to be important in making the Ref Desk interesting, which in turn ensures that enough people will read and respond to make it work. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm someone who believes that a little tinge of humour belongs in every sphere of human activity and interaction, but I'm with VW on this one. The problem is that we have a few people here who have no concept of how to use humour judiciously (and, frankly, those parties are by and large just not nearly as funny as they seem to think they are, imho). We have people who seem to be looking for a joke in every single thread they respond to, no matter how distant and attenuated from the OP's inquiry they have to make the joke. We have other people who make snarky, sarcastic, and often astringent responses and then try to distance themselves from them by claiming it was all done in good-faith/good-humour, when it obviously wasn't -- or if it was, it reflects a basic lack of comprehension of how biting and inappropriate they were being.
If contributors could keep the jokes down to those rare gems that they just can't resist as a side-comment to an otherwise informative post, that would be one thing. But if the options are A) constant (and often not very clever) one-liners in the form of posts that contribute nothing else, passive-aggresive commentary, and small-print back-and-forth puns and B) just keeping things "strictly business" (as we are expected to do everywhere else on WP outside user space--and why should this space really be an different?), then I think the choice is clear. Snow let's rap 10:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not every other place on Wikipedia. Talk pages, like the Ref Desk, often have humor on them. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Often"? I'm not sure if I agree with that descriptor. You see the odd off-topic comment, but generally, in my considerable experience in that area, talk pages are pretty dry. Certainly I've never come across an example that hosts jokes and other WP:NOTAFORUM-violating content as frequently as do the RefDesks in recent years. If you have an example that you'd like to proffer of one that does, I'd be happy to concede the point. Though frankly that would just be a kind of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument in any event. Snow let's rap 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A synonym of "unnecessary" here would be "gratuitous." WP purports to be an encyclopedia and provide knowledge, which is intrinsically of interest, certainly to the OP - it's unlikely readers come here for "infotainment." Tangential quipping risks disrupting the response process that often is needed to clarify a query. With Users Viennese Waltz and Snow Rise, above, I feel certain repeat jokesters too often have an obtrusive noise:signal ratio, and I'd like them to contribute more constructively with respect for the project, the venue, and the other participants. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

I just want to know why there isn't any supposed Medicinal uses for Geraniums; on the Geranium page?

From; Sherine Campagna 71.198.252.230 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look for some valid sources and post that info on the Geranium page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue that what are called geraniums as garden plants (in the US at least) are actually pelargoniums. Be forewarned! μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

old query

Is it right to move this discussion ahead to continue it --Aryan from हि है (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question has already been archived at WP:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 October 24#hindi fimls set in 1857 ?. I've added a suggestion there, and you are encouraged to record your final conclusions there for posterity.
And no, you should not move an archived question back to an active desk. It is possible to reask a question, though that is seldom useful unless you are able to bring forth more information to work with. If you do reask the question in the future, you should link the archived question and explain the results of your research to date. -- ToE 15:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the archives

I am closing this, and putting a note directly on User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov's talk page regarding his editing. We should not have three separate conversations going on about the archives themselves, so further comments about them can go under one of the two new headings, since adding them here will probably end up leaving them lost among the clutter. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mahfuzur rahman shourov edited the Humanities desk to ping myself and several others, here. Taken on it's own I don't think a one-time act like this is a big deal, although the question itself is a bit odd, to say the least. Yet I have to wonder if this is not a new user we are dealing with, but perhaps the "Russian" problem editor ("Is been being?") we had for a while back who had the same habit of posting outlandish and hard to scrutinize requests in what seemed to me more like a faked version of broken English than instances of honest mistakes by a non-native speaker. I cannot remember that user's name, if anyone else can recall it.

Mahfuzur rahman shourov, have you edited here under another name previously? Can you tell us what your native language is? Knowing it might help us communicate better. Please do not edit the archives again. If you have a new question or a follow up, post it as a new question on the relevant desk, and just give a link to the archive. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Alex Sazonov to me. He normally posted to the Science Desk, and his English looked differently broken. I agree that editing an archive to ping users is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered adding answers to archived questions, and pinging users (at least those who asked the questions). Such editing appears to be in harmony with the information at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/October 2015: "While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages."
—Wavelength (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What was posted was a follow-up question, not a new answer. @Ssscienccce, Aspro, and Baseball Bugs were also pung. I agree that the style of brokenness was different between is been being Sazonov(?) and OP Curious Shourov, but there are far more similarities than differences. Is there a link to Sazonov (sp?)'s user page? μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alex_Sazonov, I think the subject matter shows significant overlap, even if the is been being em oh has changed a bit. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alex Sazonov doesn't have a user page, and hasn't edited in nearly a year. He does have a talk page, User talk:Alex Sazonov. When I viewed it, it asked if I wanted to translate it. I clicked Translate, and was told that it could not be translated. If the guidelines permit the editing of archived pages, I think that the guidelines should be revised. I think that the editing of archives in general should be discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the archives should be permanently semi-protected. There's no point in anyone editing them, especially not an IP or redlink. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the comment about redlinks. A redlink, in a user name, is a non-existent user page, but may be an auto-confirmed user. Semi-protection will prevent IPs from editing the archives, but not redlinks from editing them. An argument can be made for full protection of archives, allowing administrators to edit them for a valid administrative reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "drive-bys", as some established users don't have user pages. And I concur that full protection would be even better. When "transclusion" was being done, the most recent archives were necessarily not protected. That is no longer an issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any rule, guideline, or suggestion that we cannot or should not edit the archives? You seem to be implying that MRS has broken some rule or custom, but you don't say what. I edited the archives myself on numerous occasions when the question got archived before I found a good reference. Call me sentimental, but I like to think that the additions may be useful to future searchers. Sometimes I may have pinged previous participants, sometimes not. I will continue to edit archived questions at my discretion, and support the right of any user to do so, until such time that a clear sanction against it is proffered. If you don't like MRS, feel free to ignore that user. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the archives is very often a bad idea, but if you know what you're doing it can be a fine idea, and there is certainly no guideline (that I know of) that prohibits it. (Nor has there ever been a suggestion that it's more or less appropriate for different classes of editors. Not that Wikipedia ought to be a classed society anyway.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just fine with trolls editing the archives? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steve said nothing of the sort. Please don't twist the words of our respondents; it looks very much as though you're trying to pick a fight. If you know of any rule that says that anyone cannot edit archives, I will be happy to read it. Otherwise please play nice. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he did. Realistically, who pays attention to the archives anyway? What's the value in keeping them unprotected? I'll go a step further: The search mechanism for the archives is useless. So why even have archives? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have clashed on this in the past and I certainly don't intend to argue about it now. I do understand that opinions on Wikipedia's classlessness (or classfulness) differ. You're welcome to your opinions about the proper classification and treatment of IP's, drive-bys, and other editors you don't like, but they're not shared by all. And SemanticMantis is right, you shouldn't put words in the mouths of others. I'm as fine with trolls vandalizing the RD archives as I am with them vandalizing the desks themselves, or this page, or any other page on Wikipedia. (Go ahead and twist that any way you like. I won't let you troll me in this thread again.) —Steve Summit (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to your no-classes view, as stated earlier and restated above, bad-faith vandals are every bit as welcome in your world as good-faith established users are. Now, if you want to do something useful in your copious free time, maybe you could re-engineer the archive search so that it's actually useful. At present, it ain't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the title to be as neutral as possible. It has been discussed before that adding a substantive referenced answer to a recently archived question in good faith is fine. I have done it perhaps twice, when I have come acrost a reference after actually searching my own or an institutional library to get an answer. When I have done this I have put a notice on the OP's talk page. But basically beginning new private discussions at otherwise unwatched pages is disruptive, and the least that needs to be said is that even assuming good faith the specific act should not be repeated. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think full protection is a reasonable step, especially given the known habits of other users in the past. It's always quite easy to post a follow-up with a link to the active page or to the OP's talk page. If the answer is important enough, it certainly would not bother me to ask an admin to add a referenced answer to an encyclopdic inquiry. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection is a bad idea. The disruption is very minimal, easy to fix, and a convenient honeypot for identifying known trolls. Seems like a win-win: The trolls self-identify by giving us their tells using the archives, and we block them. Without allowing full access to the archives, it wouldn't allow us to identify many trolls as easily. --Jayron32 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed it is a honeypot, I agree entirely. But do you have to have one of those special third gonads that admins get in order to have archives appear on one's watch page? This came to my attention only because Shouronov pang me. μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The extra gonad doesn't confer that specific power. I don't know of a special way to "watchlist subpages of a given page", but if there were one it would only need the standard user's giggity-bits. DMacks (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think full protection is a good idea. Very, very few good faith editors would be affected. I think I might have done one edit to the RD archives in my Wikipedia career, and that was to add an answer to an archived question. Sometimes you want to add something to an archived question, but we already have the edit request as a method to change protected pages. If the numbers of requests is small it wouldn't be much of a burden on the admins. Sjö (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Reference Desk archives should not be protected, and appropriate editing of the archives (such as involved editors adding additional references or even the OP answering their own questions at some later date) should be encouraged for both registered and IP users (and as Wavelength pointed out above, this is specifically permitted by the instructions in the box at the top of each individual and monthly archive page). However Medeis brings up the important point that there needs to be a way to monitor the archives to ensure that this valuable resource is not vandalized.
The box at the top of WP:Reference desk/Archives contains "Recent changes to the X archives" links, such as Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities/Links to all archives. This relies on links to each archive page being placed in WP:Reference desk/Humanities/Links to all archives, a practice which stopped in 2009. (The reason the Humanities link shows MRS' edit is that I just added that archive link to the links page to test it.) Does anyone see a problem with each of these pages holding 4,000 links now and growing that much each decade? Would that cause an excessive server hit when Special:RecentChangesLinked is run? It would be simple to populate the links pages (redlinks are fine so it could be populated a year in advance), and I happily volunteer to periodically patrol the archives.
The Reference Desk archives are not transcripts of a debating society which must be protected to keep someone from sneaking in WP:The Last Word, but they are a trove of answered questions which need to be safeguarded from vandalism while at the same time allowing involved editors to add information discovered after the time of archiving. -- ToE 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way for the archiving bot to automatically add the latest archives to a given user's watch list? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consolidated Section on the Archives

I (Medeis) have archived the section above, since it was primarily meant to address one editor's behavior. The following other questions about the archives remain:

Speaking of archives, why is there no link on the current RD pages to, say, the newest archive page? —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for any particular sentence fragment, the archives return results in random order. Can this be changed, for example to order by most recent to oldest? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From above, should the archives either be edit protected, or somehow be automatically added to user's watch lists, in order to prevent them being vandalized without contributors being aware of the vandalism? μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToE and various others have mentioned good reasons not to edit protect the archives, but also the need to have an easier way for them to be kept under watchful eyes. My preference would be that any newly archived page that was on my watchlist becuase I had edited it stay on my watchlist after it is archived. I am not sure that there would be any way to implement this. If not, a link saying "add archived versions of this page to my watchlist" on each of the desks would be great. I also think both of Tamfang's and Bugs' questions are helpful. Being able to smart search or at least easily access the archives by date would help immensely. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this way [2] of accessing archives by date not sufficient? Two clicks gets you to any desk/date since 2006, and that has worked fine for my purposes.
What do you mean by "smart search"? I've never had problems using the search archives option to find previous threads that I remember, and I don't understand Bugs' opinion that the search function is useless. For example, here's an easy search that shows all the times Bugs has asked questions like "who says it does?" [3]
Now, that's a known-item search (redlink, see e.g. [4]), and it's very different that say, looking for all questions about chemistry, because not every question about chemistry has the word "chemistry" in it, but that kind of semantic markup is probably not going to happen here any time soon. Anyway, before anyone can think about improving the archive search, we'd have to know what the problem is. As far as I can tell, it faithfully finds every page that has all the words I type, and respects quotes, etc. The only thing that I find a little tedious is the clickthroughs it takes to get to the actual content that has been "hit" - it would be nice if the first click in the results page took you to the page where it occurs, instead, sometimes the first click takes you to a year/month level archive, and other times it takes you to a day's archive. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the results returned in random date order? That's the core problem I'm talking about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "smart search" I meant an "advanced" search option where you could give a key word, a username, and a date range in separate fields. The best you can do now is type in the date and signature as well as key words all in the same field, but you get an enormous amount of chaff, with results blurred by the fact that if a name or a date is mentioned on a page the page will come back as a hit even though it was posted in a different year and the person named was being referred to, and hadn't actually posted anything there himself. For example, if you search "bowei huang 2015" you will get posts by him from 2012 and 2009 as well as mentions of him in 2015 although he didn't author them. God forbid you want to find a specific post by User:Russell.mo who has used an undocumented number of signatures. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
: Thank you for missing me . I was wondering why I did not receive anything (messages/alerts/posts). Btw, SM is your biggest fan, who had not jumped in the lake yet for you. That being said, you'll always be my Ms. Wiki-Queen Bee. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, the current search tool may not be literally useless, but it's nearly useless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until [some date], the Desks transcluded the last few days' archives. I once asked why not have Desk content consist only of transcluded archive pages, so that when I edit a question it's properly watched. The answer was, iirc, that that option was considered and rejected. —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with transclusion is that it's not possible (or wasn't possible when transclusion was in effect) to edit an individual section of a transcluded page, so that the entire source of the page would appear in the editing window. I don't know if the software has been updated to fix this. Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I don't remember such a disability. The only way I could tell that a section was transcluded was to click (or hover) its edit link. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update at WP:ANI

PROBLEM SOLVED
[5]--Jayron32 13:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mahfuzur rahman shourov has posted an incomprehensible complaint at WP:ANI. (At least, one other editor and I find it incomprehensible.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can read Danish, so I can read the source, but I suspect that may actually make the complaint even more incomprehensible to me… ;-) Anyway, the user has now gone over to posting from an IP, and being horrendously rude; I got that much. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Robert McClenon: Your comment what you made on the ANI sounded funny to me I can't really comment but I have set the reference up: [6] -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly comprehensible to me. It's just a lot of third person writing with a few missing pronouns, I find it hard to believe that you can't understand the basic sentiment. If anyone else is unclear, let me "translate": MRS has complained ANI that s/he was accused of being a sock of another user (here, above) and also accused of doing something wrong by editing the archives. Contrary to Robert's assertion, there was no consensus that the editing of the archive was "disruptive". We have no rule against editing the archives, and I can see why MRS felt the victim of a witch hunt. I do not think that any admin action is necessary; I think that MRS should instead learn the lesson not to ping medeis, and to be forewarned that any eccentric behavior here will often be construed as trolling by a few of our users. I personally don't care if MRS has ESL issues, or if perhaps they like to edit "in character". MRS's comments at the ref desk have been no less disruptive than many other regular users, and often more helpful and interesting than those of some of our frequent contributors. I recall one User:Quintessential_British_Gentleman who used to contribute at the ref desks "in character", throwing in lots of "old chaps" and other stereotypical phrases. I don't recall anyone of accusing him of being a troll for writing in an idiosyncratic manner, but then again, maybe there's a reason why he hasn't been around recently. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and well put. Mahfuzur Rahman Shourov doesn't look like a troll to me (although I'm not familiar with the MO of the troll Medeis has accused him of being, so I wouldn't know). In my opinion, he's harmless, and if people can't understand or answer his questions they should just ignore them, as there are demonstrably others who can. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the prior troll. This isn't him. I looked back through the prior guys contribs and known tells, and this one isn't the same guy. Or if it is, good on him, because he's carefully crafted a new character which has nothing in common with the last guy. --Jayron32 14:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis, Russell.mo, Scs, and Robert McClenon:ping medeis did in archive reason medeis one of replier in question, question done by me. if user not want ping, user say direct, AGF, not false accuse of sock. pinger believe good faith, pinger always think other people convenienceMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve. The consistent part of the problem with Alex Sazonov, his later IP posts, and this user is a constant bombardment of the ref desks with demands for answers to his questions written in what appears to be broken English written by a Russian speaker. Yet the OP will not answer direct questions posed to him or respond in Russian, which many of us could understand better than his English. Sazonov used odd locutions such as "is been being", for which he ended up having his sincerity doubted, while Shourov does not use this affectation. That is the only obvious difference between them. Otherwise the two are extremely similar: constant bombardment of the ref desks with scientific pseudoquestions whose plain meaning one cannot understand, a refusal to communicate in his native language (Danish!?!?), the refusal to respond to questions put to him directly, and a fondness for disruption in the archives, at ANI and on the ref desks.
I'd also suggest one take a look at MRS's contributions and edit summaries. He's perfectly capable of speaking English when he wants an edit to mainspace to stand Avijit Roy ‎(books advocate irreligious state system with near-zero bureaucratic authority, but not total anarchy) but reverts to absolute BS Russlish pseudobable when he's on talk pages trying not to communicate: User talk:Supdiop ‎ (→‎If OP not curious, not come to net, not ask in desk: new section). This selective pretense at a disability is consummate trolling. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, Medeis is on to something. --Jayron32 01:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the user in question studied the collected works of Al Kelly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, there are several otherwise uninvolved users at ANI calling for a boomerang block of Shourov and immediate Admin action, see here. I have not been active in the thread, but support the proposed block in some form. Either indeff him or let him edit mainspace, where his English improves miraculously. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Info Required

Hello!

What you all up to?

Thought I’d let you all know, I was on holiday, got back a couple of days ago.

Thank you for missing me. I missed you all too. Do you know why?

When I was on holiday, well, I thank you all for turning the physical world a dumber place to live in for me, by helping me all the time... Special thanks goes to all the wikipediots Wikipedians who are building WP articles (which helped my knowledge and English), also to those who are also, always helping me and others on the Reference Desk voluntarily (which helped my brain to think appropriately; a lot), also to those who always protected me (), helped me unconditionally, boundlessly, and so on...

Basically, I missed you guys too more than the Wikiladies not in a gay way Medis and SM mainly

Truely, I thought about you all, particularly for a reason, and wish to know now:

What is WP doing for you guys? It’s been open since 2000! And many are building WP, helping and assisting beyond My imagination, by using their 'free will'...

No deeds go unpunished! Definitely no good deeds go unserved! Some receive things while living, some after-death, some at both times; for good and bad deeds... As far as I'm aware, I found only one male human Satan - I e-mailed him and he was trying to act smart with me... Anyway f*ck him.

I wanted to do something for you guys but there’s too many of you. I used to save the ID’s but I had an issue with my google chrome browser application which deleted the saved bookmarks – (now I’m like you losers all, taking Wikipedia as a community, read and or help whoever possible in the community…) – now I don’t save anything, I only remember or recall some of the regulars who help/helped me and others whenever I see their names.

Main point is WP should be the one who should do something for you guys not me…

So what has it done so far? I especially wish to know about it because I want to know how WP is balancing its scales...

☺:

Space Ghost (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand whether there is a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What has WP done for the ones who have had created/edited/modified/ammended/deleted the most articles, helped the most in the Reference Desk/anti-vandalism/Wikiprojects, people who contrbuted the most basically. Barnstars excluded -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstars and the occasional thanks is all we can hope for :) P.S. medeis, myself, and many others may well be "wikiladies", so don't assume male gender as default. Some of us like to declare our genders, while others, especially women, may choose to conceal it so as to avoid sexist harassment and misogyny that is so frequently used against women online. Along those lines, mentioning "not in a gay way" can come off as a little homophobic, I mention this only to help you with your understanding of English. If you want to tell people you missed talking them, that is fine by itself, nobody will assume that you mean you are declaring homosexual interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Btw, I wasn't calling you guys ladies - I was using it as a joke/humour. Sorry if it came across that way
Hmmm, sentence is upsetting, and I won't request for justice for you guys here, cause all of you Wikipedians good deeds are making another elevate in life, knowledge wise. All I can say is, keep up the good work(s) in this lifecycle. Its appreciated by some -- Space Ghost (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

Question: Buying books by width.

Detail: I need to re-read the entire Harry Potter books, but have long ago given away my copy. Shelf space in my apartment is limited, and as these are fairly wide books, I would be keen to buy the narrowest possible edition(s) - ie: ideally tall copies with small text / thin paper. However, I can't see any way of searching by width on any book-selling websites. How could I go about finding the narrowest copy? Thanks. Octavious Rind (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon almost always gives the weight and dimensions of works that are still in or have recently been in print, look under the product details section, for example, about 1/4 of the way down this page the boxed paperback set is listed as 5 x 8 x 8.5 inches and 8 lbs. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the query and Medeis's response to the Humanities desk as requested. Deor (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

When an editor posts, on this talk page, a request that a query be added to a semiprotected desk, would editors please either (1) add the query to the desk or (2) decline to do so. Responding to the query here is not appropriate, since a query needs to attract the attention of all potential respondents, not just folk who happen to have this page watchlisted. I've seen several instances of such behavior lately, as a look at the threads above will indicate. Deor (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Seconded; thanks. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the harm? If someone decides it's appropriate to post the question on the ref desk, they can take the responses with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why have a separate talk page at all, then? One case - little harm, I agree. Many cases - a recipe for chaos. Thin edges of wedges and all that. If the Q remains here, it will never show up in any part of the Ref Desk Archives that the reasonable man would look in. This page is for discussing the Ref Desks, not for asking questions about other matters. Please don't defend breaches of that protocol. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's deemed appropriate to move it to a ref desk page, any additional comments can be brought along. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whaddaya mean "if it's deemed appropriate"? The question is: Who ever deemed it appropriate to post subject-matter questions here in the first place? That's the core issue. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, if the question isn't "deemed appropriate", then it might as well be removed here too, and certainly needn't be answered, as there is no point in celebrating a trollfest of offensive minority-bashing questions and the like on this page either. The desks (unfortunately) get semi-protected, time and again, not because we need a filter of appropriateness for all questions asked by non-registered users, but to prevent trolling committed by very few hyperactive non-registered people. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you deem a given question inappropriate, you could delete any responses along with the original question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the deeming. Listen, ALL posts to this page that do not relate to discussion of the ref desks are out of scope of this page and are automatically inappropriate. Nobody has to go around "deeming" them to be so. The poster made them so. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doer: All the messages I sent in this page, if you check, you'll see that, it's something I thought 'all WikiPedians should know', or can help in one way or the other by being/as a 'Wikiteer' Also, if I could do anything for them... All because this page receives the most attention and is handled by experienced members. Mr. Octavious is asking about a 'Harry Potter book' (lol) in this page. Ammm, I'm messaging just to let you know about the difference in thought(s). If you still mind about me then let me know, I won't anymore. Regards -- Space Ghost (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the matter is quite simple. An edit request is just what it says on the tin: a request that someone perform an edit that the poster is unable to perform himself or herself. Either comply with the request or pass it by and let someone else do it. This talk page is not the place for responding to users' questions. Deor (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly, while I was willing enough to give a very obvious answer to a rather simple question by a single-purpose account who would not be able to post a follow-up on the protected page anyway, I was low enough on my AGF prescription (I can't refill it until next week) to do all the work of moving it and doing all the links and so forth. The low potential return in reader interest and the unlikeliness of a response from the OP seemed to argue there was a better way to spend my time, like editing Phyllisi Diller or explaining the origins of a line in John of Gaunt's "This blessèd plot" soliloquy. I am surprised this has gone on for so long. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to continue perpetuating it in that manner. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit requests may be a little confusing, because this talk page is the talk page for multiple reference desks. However, the general purpose of an edit request is that it is a request for an edit to a semi-protected article page. In the case of this talk page, edit requests come here when one of the reference desks themselves is semi-protected due to trolling or sock-puppetry. If an editor determines here that the request is a good-faith question, not by a troll or a sock-puppet, they should either post it to the proper reference desk or post it and reply to it at the proper reference desk. I agree that discussion of the edit requests here is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Medeis means by "moving it and doing all the links and so forth". If someone requests that a query be posted on a semiprotected page, just click "edit" next to the header, copy the query, and paste it to the appropriate desk (adding a suitable header). Quite simple and no "doing links" (whatever that may be) required. Deor (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you guys wish, no problem at all with me. I won't message here anymore .
Thanks Bugsy Arguing about this matter is a waste of time. I guess, it can be concluded as, many have messaged in this page in the past (nothing like mine of course), yet another person probably messaged after viewing my message... Some understand, respect, value, appreciate what they have (friends like some of you) e.g., Wikipedia, some don't. I'm not stupid. Regards. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By doing the work of moving I meant not just Melkorian copy pasting, but placing a "copied to here" link at the old location, and a "copied from here" link at the new location. μηδείς (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really have to do any of that. The only thing you have to do is do what Deor said and then come back here and changed the editrequest to answered and leave a signed comment saying you copied it to the requested place (no links needed) so that people know they don't have to deal with the editrequest. Technically the signed comment isn't needed, but it reduces confusion as to who actually dealt with the editrequest. If it wasn't stated what desk the requested edit was for (as has been said, it can be a bit confusing because this page is for multiple desks and not all editors realise that), then you should also mentioned which desk it was, preferably linking to the desk (which even from a mobile device shouldn't take more than 10 seconds, remember you can always use shortcuts like WP:RD/H). That said, you still have the option of not doing anything, which as has been said, is better than replying here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the preceding and others. No "copied to here" is needed for an edit request here, any more than it is needed for an edit request in an article. It's less clear if the requester doesn't use the edit request template. Is that a malformed edit request, or a misplaced post? If they didn't state a desired target page, it's a misplaced post and needs some way of indicating where you copied it to; the "copied to here" template is the most standard way of doing that, although you could just type a reply with a link instead.
I agree that this page is not for discussion of RD questions, and it's not overly anal to enforce that. 68.97.47.26 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015 / Laggard as a free rider

Do different attributions to laggards exist in an environment of a Technology adoption lifecycle or a Free rider problem? This would be useful to know for the translation of a paper (doi:10.1086/668207) and to edit de:Trittbrettfahrerproblem.

(Citation of Michael Tomasello et al. 2012: „So what do humans do about free riders? The answer is of course social selection by means of reputation. Humans have evolved extremely sensitive “cheater detection” mechanisms of a type never observed in chimpanzees or other great apes (no studies have investigated apes' partner choice with respect to free riders) - which lead them not only to shun free riders but sometimes even to punish them (Cosmides, 1989). Because everyone knows this to be the case, individuals are very concerned that others not think them to be laggards, and so they have developed a concern for self-reputation, something also never observed in other great apes.“)

What would be a synonyme for a „laggard with a free rider problem“ in real English? Thanks, --Edward Steintain (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Edward Steintain (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - misplaced - as it says in big letters on the edit page:-
Please do not ask knowledge questions on this page. This talk page is where the reference desk itself is discussed. To choose an appropriate reference desk to visit, click here
- Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Posted to Humanities desk. Arjayay, this was an edit request to post a question on a protected page, not an instance of "ask[ing] knowledge questions on this page". If you don't understand what edit requsests are, don't respond to them. Deor (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

Please post this question on the Language Desk. Thank you.

Meaning of a word used in King Lear

When Shakespeare wrote "Her voice was ever soft, gentle and low", what did he mean by "low"? Could it had had the two meanings it does now (low in volume, and also low in pitch) or would he have meant one or the other? Thank you. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anyone who has an answer: please post it at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Meaning_of_a_word_used_in_King_Lear, thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Sluzzelin.184.147.131.85 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please post the following answer under WP:RD/H#File:DiodotusCoinFront.jpg. Thank you.

Google Books knows about several editions of this guide, but at least for me in Canada, it only provides full-text access to one. This is the second edition published 1881, and is found here. On this edition the full title is Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum Department of Coins and Medals. A Guide to the Principal Gold and Silver Coins of the Ancients, from circ. B.C. 700 to A.D. 1.
Unfortunately, judging by page 74, it appears that the illustration of the coin is on Plate 39, and that plate is missing from Google Books's copy, which goes directly from Plate 38 on what it calls page 193 to Plate 41 on what it calls page 195.
Anyway, the title page of the book identifies Barclay V. Head as the museum's Assistant Keeper of Coins. He does have a Wikipedia page, at Barclay V. Head, which contains links to further information about him. These sources agree that he died in 1914, and my non-expert understanding is that this means his work is no longer copyrighted anywhere. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment

This continuing semi-protection of some of the RDs is getting annoying. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oofh! If only there was another way to control the members and non-members from being disruptive... -- Space Ghost (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the semi-protection of the Reference Desks is annoying and should they should therefore be unprotected, or that the disruption of the Reference Desks that causes them to be semi-protected is annoying? 70.49.170.168, you can create an account and be auto-confirmed in four days. (You make more than 10 edits in 4 days.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the situation is annoying, and in the past has been cause for complaints here. As for registering, I know, but it's not going to happen. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How badly do you want to edit? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, agreed. Robert, Wikipedia in general, and the reference desks in particular are open to non-registered users. That policy hasn't changed as far I could tell. Regular editors here have repeatedly asked to restrict semi-protections to a minimum amount of time, as shutting out querents (and volunteers) for days and weeks defies the desks' purpose. As has also been pointed out on this talk page and demonstrated at the desks, repeatedly, there are usually enough people hanging around with the desks on their watchlist, who are capable of and willing to revert obviously disruptive trolling (while the less obvious and less disruptive trolling could also just remain there, ignored, and glaringly stupid). But I'm tired of arguing this point over and over again. So I'll just add my agreement, that it's annoying. Now I'll go deal with edit requests further below. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sluzzelin that the amount of semi-protection of the Reference Desks is excessive. Trolling is seldom a good reason for semi-protecting the Reference Desks. Trolling can be deleted or ignored, and some of the Reference Desk editors are administrators who can block the trolls. Outright vandalism, which is less common than trolling, may warrant semi-protection. In particular, given the structure of the Reference Desks, with one talk page for multiple project pages, the semi-protected edit requests are differently disruptive than the trolling. At the same time, I have no sympathy for the complaint of 70.49.170.168, who is suffering from a self-inflicted injury. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to let obvious trolling stand rather than reverting it multiple times until an admin just happens to notice it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please add this reply to StuRat to my question on the Language Resk, under the heading Meaning of a word used in King Lear

I wouldn't assume that at all. In Shakespeare's time, the character would always have been played by a boy or teen. His voice might well have broken; the audience might well be hearing a speaker low in pitch. That's why I'm asking if "low in pitch" was a possible reading for the word in 1606. Appreciate the reference from Lindert.184.147.131.85 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Deor (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Deor.184.147.131.85 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have a link or a diff, so I could actually find this. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the edit request listed the title, and there are currently 15 question headers on RDL requiring a skim through about 70 words or so, it's extremely easy to find Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Meaning of a word used in King Lear. That said, if editors are having trouble finding such simple things and fortunately it doesn't seem to be the people making the requests, perhaps another timely reminder that editors should check out the actual desks and read the questions and answers there, rather than worrying too much about edit requests if they're not sure how to deal with them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your link helped me to open the page up in a new browser's 'tab', took me straight to the point. Thank you, I would've forgotten about viewing the WP:RD/L if it wasn't open. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 09/11/2015

Could some kind registered editor please add the following to the Query: "Ne Me Quitte Pas" (rounded vowels in French songs) on the Language RD?

It may be relevant that neither of the two cited artists were entirely French. Piaf's mother was Italian, which may have influenced Piaf's accent, while Brel was Belgian. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Isn't the capital of Pakistan now Islamabad CT 94.175.78.214 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sam Sailor Talk! 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another 9 November 2015 semi-protected edit request

Please post the following answer under WP:RD/H#File:DiodotusCoinFront.jpg, in response to the query "Does the book concerned identify the photographers seperately?":

Ah, good point. I see no photo credits
  • On the copyright page.
  • In the introduction to the second edition, where it is stated that the plates are being added for this addition but there will actually be several issues, each containing the full text of the book but only a few of the plates, the idea being that museum visitors will want to buy the book but wouldn't like the cost of all the plates. Fortunately, Google's scanned copy has apparently had all the plates assembled, except that, as I said, it's missing some.
  • On the plate pages themselves, the ones I looked at. There is a line of small lettering at the bottom of each one but it just says AUTOTYPE.
Nor does the author explicitly take credit for the photos himself. I don't know if present-day users concerned with copyright are allowed to assume they were his or not. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pass a psychometric exam if you fail the numerical reasoning part? Do you need to achieve a minimum score for each component of the exam?

Let's say the exam is composed of verbal reasoning, numerical ability, and abstract reasoning (each part has 50 items). Let's also say you scored low on numerical ability but achieved a fairly high score on the other two. Would you pass the exam?88jaymm (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) 88jaymm (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&oldid=689934319"