Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Bit late but Happy New Year!

Sorry for the late message but Happy New Year to all RDers! Lets hope in 2009 there are no more trolls and other problematic users Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (NZDT, UTC+13)

Hmm... here in the UK it's a bit too early, Nil Einne, but I wish you a Happy New Year down there in the distant Antipodes! Xn4 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wooo! 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the first two and a half hours of it! --Bowlhover (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just ten more minutes... bibliomaniac15 07:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Laser based short sight correction-what is the downside?

I agree that this was a request for medical advice, but many good, non-medical advice answers were also removed along with the Q, so I restored them. None of the responses were mine, BTW. We shouldn't just blindly remove all the responses to a medical Q, as many are good and don't contain any medical advice. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. answers to medical questions should not be removed so long as they don't give medical advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No strong opinion, but it is a bit confusing: Now we have a "question was removed" message instead of a question, followed by answers (recommendations to see a professional plus some wikilinks) and me trying to guess what the removed question was. Makes for a puzzle, I guess. To raise the challenge, we could eliminate all questions after 24 hours and only leave the answers. Maybe the threads wouldn't even grow that differently from now! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer that removals of Q's be done with one of those collapsible boxes, so it can be opened up by those trying to understand the responses. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

archive

the pages are getting very long, is someone going to do an archive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot is back with a vengeance. Thanks SteveSummit or whoever re-activated Sir bot. Much appreciated! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

much appreciated Scsbot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

rm alleged med advice

For the record, the title showing above was modified by someone from the original composed by me, which was "rm med advice". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

pittuitay tumors. The guidelines...excuse me...*YAWN*...say nothing about consensus before removing. We talk here. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You can delete without consensus, but then I will afford you the same courtesy and revert you without consensus, too, as I have: [1]. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed this, sorry. Not giving you the silent treatment. To respond, what we're doing here at Wikipedia has been proved impossible time and again on every internet forum there ever was—remaining civil while working together constructively. I'm proud and not a little bit puzzled to be a part of it. I feel nothing one way or the other toward any party to this pituitary business, I was simply following the guidelines like a good little law-abiding gnome. No hard feelings. Just doing the right thing according to my understanding of the rules, which say to remove the question and any answers when you see them. The rules do not say to unilaterally just put them back up on the board. Coutesy or lack of it don't enter into it, and I'm sorry if what I've done made you feel bad. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Those guidelines are in violation of general Wikipedia policies, which either state that consensus is needed for any change (deletion or reverts of deletions) for policy pages and such, or that anyone can delete or revert a deletion, for normal content pages. There is nowhere that deletions are allowed to be made unilaterally but where reverts of deletions require consensus, for obvious reasons. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

a diff would be nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a dif. I feel the removal was in good faith and appropriate, since we can discuss it and repost in part if there is consensus. The question was partly a statistical one, about how unlikely it was for brothers-in-law to get a tumor of the same part of the body. The OP did not say "My friend has these symptoms. Does he have disease X?" or "Doc says I have disease X. I am thinking of trying remedy Y. What is your advice?" I would have left the question which asked for statistical probability, and would have left the removed response by Steve Baker provided the statistics requested and was a credit to Ref Desk, and comparable to the information any good Real Life Reference Librarian might have looked up for any patron. The borderline area was the OP asking if the unlikeliness of two brothers in-law getting the type of tumor meant that they might have had the same environmental exposure to one of several possible causative agents, (and possibly whether either one of the two tumor patients or a third person is "in danger." Unclear text). That last angle goes into remote diagnosis of the etiology of pituitary tumors, and risk analysis for a particular individual, and at least that part of the question and any answers involving risk assessment or prediction should probably have been removed, had there been any, which there were not. In summary, I would favor restoring the first part of the Q and the A. Edison (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice to know that StuRat still cares about my contributions. I removed this question earlier: [2]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

StuRat has not been cited so far in this discussion. RefDesk cannot offer diagnoses. Ref Desk should offer reliable sources in response to questions not seeking diagnoses or treatment recommendations. Real Life Reference Desk librarians point the way to books answering such questions. Edison (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to reference myself. I saw no request for medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment in that question, or in the answers, so see no basis for the removal. Also note that Ten didn't even bother to post a notice here after his removal. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Stu, dude, what the H? Are we reading the same guidelines? Anyway, "am I crazy to think that the one husband still married may be in danger?" Explain how that is not a request for medcal advice, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would all depend on what the possible cause of the disease was. If they both lived near a toxic waste dump, it wouldn't be medical advice to say "Move away from that toxic waste dump, it's potentially dangerous". StuRat (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This didn't seem like a complicated case. The thread was started with a brief sketch of the treatment histories of two men with pituitary tumors. There were two questions: a subsidiary one about the chemical DIFP, and the main one about whether or not one of the men's health was still in danger.

Obviously the latter question is far over the line — we don't offer prognoses. The Reference Desk isn't a crystal ball that forecasts the future health of our readers. The former question is, on its face, completely answered with a link to our article. If someone wants to post a link to DIFP and close the matter, they're welcome to. Still, the intent of the question is obvious — the poster wants to know if the pituitary tumors can be blamed on this chemical, and may be sniffing for a lawsuit (I have trouble thinking of an alternate, plausible explanation for the "I am being careful not to point any fingers or talk about this with anyone" stuff in the original post).

As an aside, can we all try to remember that the reason why we have these guidelines is to prevent unseemly revert wars on the Desk? If a question has been removed from the Desk as an inappropriate request for advice, before replacing it please bring the matter to this talk page for discussion. If a consensus is established that the removal was in error, the question goes back on the Desk at the bottom of the page where it will be most conspicuous. The worst case scenario is that a poster receives an answer tomorrow, rather than today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with that, TOAT, is that some editors will claim that there is no consensus for restoration as long as a single admin opposes it. Also, As StuRat says below, removing questions and good-faith responses can drive people away from the RefDesks and from Wikipedia. As to removing without explanation here (with diffs) that is just downright rude. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that's a (potential) pitfall with all Wikipedia's consensus-driven processes. (The dissenting person doesn't have to be an admin, either.) If this becomes a substantial problem then you should probably work your way up the dispute resolution process.

If you need help with this, let me know — I don't like it when any editor tries to hold an article or process hostage. If you see a case where a single editor (admin or not) tries to overrule a consensus established through a reasonable period of discussion on this talk page, drop me a message. I will issue cautions – and blocks, if necessary – to any editor who attempts to stop up the works in that way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The worst case scenario would be that the poster finds their question has been deleted, when there's nothing wrong with it, and gets pissed and leaves Wikipedia, along with some of the responders. Even if it is reposted, there's no guarantee they can find it again, or would even think to look for it again, after it's been deleted. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the removal, but this would not have been as controversial if diffs had consistently been posted here with a rationale. --Scray (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The statistical part of the question was not "medical advice", neither was the request for information about a specific chemical. Medical advice is "have I got a disease" or "what treatment regime should I follow". To remove the whole thing, along with good-faith informative answers, is I think contrary to the guideline, damaging to the refdesk, and disrespectful to the other editors involved. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 'statistical' part of the question wasn't actually a question — it was just a reference to a previous question that was asked and answered on 29 December (as it didn't seek medical advice): Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2008 December 29#chances developing same affliction. I agree — a single good-faith, informative response was removed. However, it only re-answered the question that had already received a detailed response on 29 December, and wasn't really being asked this time around.

I think it's also important to note that no good faith answers would have been removed and SteveBaker's effort not been wasted if StuRat hadn't restored my original removal of the question. He didn't do me – or the other volunteers here – the courtesy of notifying us that he'd done it. Given the number of times that StuRat has done this type of thing before, he should have known that the question would have been re-removed eventually, and the time of anyone who answered in the meantime wasted. That is behaviour that is contrary to the guideline, damaging to the Ref Desk, and disrespectful to the other editors involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever accepted that you have been mistaken in removing a question? DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So Ten, it's you position that you have no responsibility to list your removals here, much less develop a consensus for those removals, but anyone who reverts them must do so ? StuRat (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that you want to reinvent the wheel every time, and re-discuss whether or not medical advice is welcome here whenever these situations come up? Friday (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not discussing whether medical advice can be removed, as you well know, I'm discussing whether people who delete content from the Ref Desk have a responsibility to post diffs of their removals here. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TOAT appears to believe that he can remove posts without bothering to tell anyone or to explain his actions. He appears to believe that his interpretation of guidelines is the only correct one. He appears to believe that his interpretation of questions in the only correct one. He repeatedly ignores other editors concerns about his behaviour. He objects when others behave in a way similar to that in which he behaves. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

.... and he appears to be beat his wife! If you are going to ask such a loaded question, at least have the decency to let the man respond before doing so for him.

Look, we ask people to use exercise good judgment around here and was assume good faith that they are doing so. In the case of a very well respected and experienced administrator, such as TOAT, it is not unreasonable to expect that he has the wherewithal to interpret our guidelines and policies correctly and act on them accordingly (especially since he was instrumental in forming this particular one). Does that mean that he doesn't make mistakes occasionally? Of course not. But in these sorts of discussions, there are rarely black and white, rights and wrongs. Instead there are opinions in shades of gray. We are not a democracy, and we don't need to vote of every removal of a medical question (or a question that, to someone with experience of our policies and guidelines, appears to be one). If there is a genuine concern that someone has misinterpreted our guidelines, then discuss it with them. Its not rocket science. Its also certainly fair to ask that someone provide a link here after they remove a question, but if in doing so you get the needlessly drama-provoking response StuRat offered in this thread, then I wouldn't note it here in future either. Rockpocket 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Friday's post. I do not have to wait for TOAT to respond to a legitimate question about his edits before responding to a question from Friday. I was not aware that the fact that TOAT helped develop the guideline (NOT a policy) gave him enhanced rights in interpretation. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you folks choose not to tell anyone or list diffs when you delete something, then I won't feel the need to do so when I revert it. The same rules apply to all. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "same rules" do not apply to all in the manner you suggest. When there is material that is reasonably considered to have the potential to be defamatory, libelous, dangerous or harmful then it is our prerogative to remove first, and debate later. For example, this principle is the basis of WP:BLP. Unqualified medical advice certainly has the potential to be dangerous or harmful, therefore if that is a reasonable consideration it should be removed first, and only added back if there is a reasonable consensus that the removal is unwarranted. On that basis, note that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Rockpocket 05:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I reject this "guilty until proven innocent (of being medical advice)" policy, as a violation of WP:Consensus. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Our best contributor proposed an addition to the guidelines to help deal with removals of replies (see above), guess which admin decided that it was premature to hold a straw poll on it? I'll give you a clue, it is our most prolific remover of good-faith replies. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your tone isn't helping, Duncan. This section of the guidelines already says that diffs should noted here and the remover already said he'll do so in future. The mudslinging really isn't necessary. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Milkbreath said he would, but the original remover, Ten, didn't say this AFAIK, and Rockpocket seems to also feel no need to do so. I suspect the same for Friday. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put a diff when I removed it for the second time. That was wrong. I'll be sure to do so every time from now on. I have no excuse, sir. Pure slipshoddity on my part. Out of practice. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

@StuRat: Certain removals can and should be carried out without consensus to protect the OP. The violation of WP:Consensus is imo an excellent demostration of the usefulness of WP:IAR. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think that the presence of the signed {{rd-deleted}} template on the Ref Desk itself serves as both a clear indication of why most questions are removed, and provides a convenient link back to the editor who made the removal. In this particular case, I replaced the question with the template; added an additional on-Desk explanation of why, specifically, we couldn't provide an answer; referred the poster to qualified professionals; and signed the message: [3]. (That's the same diff as I provided above.) The implication that I was trying to conceal my actions or in some way 'not...tell anyone' what I was up to strikes me as quite unfair.

Instead of 'undo'ing my removal without notifying anyone, StuRat could quite easily have brought the matter to this talk page – or even asked me to do so on my talk page – and saved all of us all this trouble. I note that his edit summary ("Undid revision 261495653 by TenOfAllTrades: Reverted nonconsensus deletion, as no diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice was asked for, only asked for possible causes of diseases." [4]) suggests that he was also quite familiar with the guidelines, and was also violating them. He should by now be aware that the guidelines compel us to discuss the issue of whether or not a request seeks medical advice on this talk page, not through edit summaries and revert wars on the Desk itself. That he undid my edit implies that he had no serious difficulty locating the diff.

I suspect that anything else that I say in this thread will end up just going around in circles at higher and higher volume. Since more heat than light is already being generated here, I don't think that I want to continue. If there's anyone who wants to argue that I'm participating in the Ref Desk solely (or even primarily) as a power-tripping referee or in some other manner of bad faith, I strongly urge you to first review my contributions. I have made thousands of contributions to the Desks, responding to hundreds of questions (often the 'difficult' science questions that take some hard work to answer). Treat with me as an equal – a rational adult who cares just as much about this project, this Desk, and the people here as you do – or not at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I just happened to notice the removal. I don't read every Q, and if I hadn't chanced upon it, I'd have never known a questionable removal had been done. If Ten's removal had been noted here, as is proper, this wouldn't have been a problem.

2) I eventually found the diff, but it took a long time sorting through the huge history on the Ref Desk (on my old, slow computer). I suspect that Ten enjoys making me waste my time searching for diffs he should have provided up front.

3) The "Undo" button, as usual, could not be used due to "intermediate edits" (is there any way around this ?). So, I then had to painstakingly reconstruct the post instead. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's inconvenient for you to edit disruptively? Sorry, but I don't find your whining compelling at all. This nonsense is getting old, StuRat. Grow up. Friday (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusing editors of "whining" when they list objections is not appropriate behavior for an editor, much less an Admin. Neither is calling any edit with which you disagree "disruptive". StuRat (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of TOAT's apparent inability to accept that he makes mistakes, and that his interpretation of the guidelines is not final. I am also sick and tired of Friday's jumping on the heads of anyone who criticizes TOAT here. Enough already - TOAT, start treating others like equals and stop trying to stifle debate (as you did with Steve's proposal above) and Friday, stop acting as TOAT's strong-arm. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm nobody's anything. I'm just am an editor who is tired of having these same discussions over and over. Nobody did anything wrong or unusual here. Removing inappropriate content is done all the time, all over the wiki. Nobody needs permission in triplicate before doing this. We've got a couple stubborn editors here who either don't know, or don't accept, how things are generally done. StuRat wants us all to play by whatever he says the rules are. Then, he whines and ruleslawyers whenever someone does something he doesn't approve of. It's all gotten very tiresome. Normally I wouldn't bitch about it so much, but it's been going on far too long. Friday (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of stubborn editors yes, I can think of a couple. TOAT wants us all to play by whatever he says the rules are. All gone on far too long? Yes indeed, and a little more care and respect for others might have prevented it in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're "tired of having these same discussions", then just avoid them. There's no need to start insulting people due to your fatigue. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the RD (compared to most WP editing) is that there is an element of timeliness involved. Because edits scroll off the top of the page and are never looked at again within just a few days - we can't afford to have prolonged debates about it here. That's QUITE different from normal Wikipedia editing - and hence we need our own guidelines. If a question is removed for even one day - then the quantity and quality of the replies goes down really sharply after it is replaced. On the other hand, our rules about medical and legal advice DO require prompt action because we might maybe be in ethical or legal trouble if we don't do that. So I think our customary practices should continue to be:

• If you see something that you are sure is not OK - just BE BOLD and remove it...if you aren't sure - come here and ask.
  • BUT it's absolutely ESSENTIAL that you delete something that you leave a note explaining why - which REALLY ought to be one of our standard disclaimers rather than something you just made up. {{dyoh}} for "Do your own homework" for example....not "HaHa! We're not going to answer that because it's homework.".
  • I don't think you need to come here to explain - all you're going to say is "It was a homework question" and the template already does that.
  • I certainly don't see the need to post diffs or anything - that's why we have the history mechanism - nothing ever gets lost forever.
• If anyone thinks it's a bad decision - come here and explain why - hopefully by explaining why the guidelines do not indicate deletion.
• Now the clock is ticking...we have two editors who disagree and we have to come to a decision very rapidly...waiting for full consensus is truly impossible. We have to use our best judgement because we don't want to start an edit war.
• So - I'd argue that if the first few responses to the complaint about deletion agree with the complainant - then we should restore the question while we finish the debate. If the first few responses say it was correctly deleted - then we should probably leave it as is.
• From that point onwards - if we REALLY don't have near-unanimous agreement then the debate will simply rage on until the decision is moot because the OP is never going to read the answers anyway (or has already read them and it's too late to delete them).
• Hence - the ongoing debate cannot be about whether this specific question should be deleted or not - all we can usefully discuss is whether (procedurally) this is some kind of a new special case that needs to result in a change in the guidelines so this kind of mistake doesn't happen again.
• In the end we don't have - nor ever will have a perfect process - and we can't do things "The Wikipedia Way" because the RD is time-sensitive and that requires a quite different process.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, finding a diff in the history isn't always as easy as you think:

1) Newbies aren't likely to know how. To them, their question is just gone forever.

2) The history pages on the big Ref Desks are huge, so finding anything in them is a challenge. I have to list 500 entries at a time, if my poor computer can handle that without locking up, then do a search for the question title. However, if the question title was changed, that may not work. Also, if the editor who did the removal got an edit conflict, then it escalates to a page level edit, and there's no section title listed. In such a case there is no other way besides viewing every single change until you hit the right one.

This is why it's critical to list diffs for removals. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Steve - I like a lot of what you're saying, and I agree with you that putting a question back in its original location a day or two later will essentially guarantee that it remains unseen and unanswered. The bulk of activity on the Desks happens right at the bleeding edge bottom of the page, and most questions get replies very rapidly there. (Heck, that's the reason why our policy is to remove a question that seems to seek medical advice, rather than having a discussion first — about two-thirds of questions on the Science Desk get their first response in less than an hour: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#We're still fast.)

I'm a bit concerned that a codified 'rapid decision' process could be prone to gaming. Two or three editors acting in concert could nullify the entire medical advice guideline by coordinating their objections to each removal of an advice request (generating a temporary, illusory majority against the removal of any given question). The benefit of your proposal (fast replacement of legit questions) could be nullified by one or two editors who made a point of chiming in with a 'me too' support every time a post was removed. Neither of those outcomes would be healthy.

I seem to recall an earlier discussion where this concern was raised – if someone can find it above or in the archives, that would be wonderful – and I think there was a reasonable solution reached to the ticking clock problem. Instead of trying to rush to a temporary decision, we would allow sufficient time for discussion and develop a proper consensus on the talk page. If the consensus was that the question had been removed in error, it would be restored to the Desk, at the bottom of the page. (A link from the original location would also be provided and the original poster would be notified, whenever possible.) Moving the question to the bottom means that it would receive the usual full dose of loving attention from Ref Deskers.

I recognize that it's not a perfect solution. In some fraction of cases, the original poster may well have moved on, never to return. Unfortunately, I don't see any easy (or difficult) way around that problem. Would those posters – having seen their questions removed after twenty minutes – be much more likely to check back in two or three hours than they would in a day or two? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that what I propose could be 'gamed' - but why? Who does shit like that? The RD is (mostly) a bunch of pretty friendly people. If it becomes obvious that people are cheating - then we wag our fingers at them and tell them that they are naughty, NAUGHTY people. If it happens a lot - we change the rules...but I don't think that's going to happen. People here are fairly reasonable. If I had a gun to my head I'd say that anyone who does a 'quick reversal' of a delete which is subsequently not upheld by consensus should lose their right to make quick reversal decisions for...meh...six months. No more tag-teaming. But we shouldn't need that rule - let's live with 'the honor system'. And we always have "break all rules"...if there is blatant abuse in clear-cut cases that contradict guidelines - go ahead remove the question and start an edit war over it. People will pretty soon rally around you if you're right...and they'll flay you alive if you aren't.

Finding the diff is easy - you look at the signature of the person who removed the post - that gives you the time of the edit (accurate to a minute or two) - plenty good enough to find it in the history. This does rather require that the person doing the removal signs their removal...but I don't have a problem requiring that.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, shouldn't the rules be symmetrical ? That is, if you punish people in some way for restoring things that the majority later says should be deleted, shouldn't the same punishment be meted out to those who delete things which the consensus decides should stay ? StuRat (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#sexual_reproduction_would_never_work.

I really think this thread is a troll thread. Thoughts? bibliomaniac15 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly reads that way. But, assuming good faith, enough answers have been provided to explain why the OP's analogy is poor. Should he continue to offer his opinions then it might be time to draw a line. Rockpocket 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is, it's very subtle. It seems like a misguided belief to me, and nothing more. I tend to use the word troll very carefully -- usually only for people who create threads just to offend people or to cause angry arguments. Try to assume good faith.--Djnghfg (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I like to assume good faith, but feeding a believer from the bridge as well as God could be asking too much: "are you saying you disagree with God that bees can fly? What does that have to do with my question? Start your own thread!" ?? Maybe there are so many answers because of a lack of good questions? Hmmm, Bibliomaniac's got something there... Julia Rossi (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Very trollish. Something that one would probably never walk up to a person at a library reference desk and ask or ramble about without being looked at very strange. If the OP doesn't agree with God or want to deny reproduction works, fine. But it's not something that brings to mind good faith to me. I still don't even see a valid question. Just my two cents, and happy late new year to all. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I interpreted it, he was really asking how two individuals can have their DNA combined in a semi-random way to produce a new, different, and fully functioning human. Saying he disagreed with God was simply a creative way of phrasing the question. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit odd - "Hi, I disagree with God - but science is bullshit" seems oddly like the post we discuss in the next section down which starts in a similar manner: "Hi, I don't believe in God - but evolution is bullshit". IMHO, a troll is someone who does this REPEATEDLY. But those two posts came from wildly different IP's so there doesn't seem to be a pattern here...yet. When OP's come back and argue about the answers we give - then my "troll-o-meter" starts to head into the red zone - but this one wasn't too terrible. The ensuing debate (OK - it was mostly me disagreeing with nearly everyone!) was interesting and challenging - and sometimes the joy of the RD doesn't end when the OP's initial question is answered...that's just how it is. This was an INTERESTING thread - notable in that it continued almost to the cutoff when it disappeared from the page. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is more similar to Bowlhover. 79 didn't appear to be saying he/she didn't believe in God. It sounded more like he was saying God was trying to fool people into believing sexual reproduction works when in reality it doesn't and so humans must reproduce some other way (I guess with God's direct involvement). He/she didn't even appear to be directly challenging evolution, it was only sexual reproduction that didn't work. (Of course those two are interlinked in so many ways you can't consider one without considering the other.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah the t-revealing pattern in snippy replies to refdeskers. Btw, is this a new strategy to discourage t'g – to answer the bejesus out of the question? Looks like a fun solution to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally thought it was a valid question, just as much as asking if dropping an egg is inertia at work (no, it's acceleration/deceleration). The question looked strange because it came from an invalid premise - an incorrect understanding of how software works and how human reproduction works, neither is a "mish-mash". And "start your own thread" is OK too by me, if the OP is trying to keep things focussed. Snippy yes, but we've seen way worse.

And for my own benefit, why do we have "cutoff when it disappeared" situations? I've always thought that RefDesk questions are only fully answered when they go quiet. It shouldn't matter if they're five days old, if they are still active, they shouldn't vanish! Franamax (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I agree that the scrolling-then-archiving thing is a harsh mistress. I started a discussion a while back (which kinda fizzled) to make each thread be a separate page - which (had it panned out) would have given us the option to keep questions around until (say) there were no additions to them for the past 48 hours. Certainly you CAN keep talking on a thread that's fallen off the top of the page - but you're likely to be talking to yourself. This saddens me - but without major infrastructure changes, it IS a fact of life. We DO have the option to post a followup question or even to repost the same question in the event that the discussion truly hasn't reached a decent conclusion - both of those are within the RD guidelines - and contributors can ask questions too. The only issue is the stricture against soapboxing - and asking a question solely so you can continue ranting about software-versus-hardware-versus-DNA without you personally seeking some additional truth - would be soapboxing. SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On the separate page thing, I had it lined up, but the botop in question ignored my request for a trial. That person is now an arbitrator; if they were too busy to respond then, I doubt it's going to be a priority now to solve problems and answer questions on the method and the bot. We could always revive that issue though, and maybe ask for the code to be transferred to someone more committed.

There's another alternative too: the Admin noticeboards are archived by MiszaBot, which only archives threads when they are inactive for a specified time period. I'm not sure if it could handle archiving them by date though, and Ummit's bot does a great job right now (except for that one issue).

It would be nice for the interesting threads to stay until they're worn out. Soapbox-y ones could be handled with a {{resolved}} template and a hatnote. (A whole 'nother thing to argue about on this page :) Franamax (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Troll question removed

I removed a troll question from the Science desk, consisting of the old "babby" meme --LarryMac | Talk 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for the headsup on junk. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good removal to me. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Creationist troll question removed

I love nothing more than to debate creationists, but this was pure soapboxing masquerading as a question. Nipped in the bud. Here is the diff, should anyone want to examine it. Matt Deres (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reinstating the question myself, since Steve has decided to respond. Matt Deres (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it. Also, I didn't think there was provision in the guidelines for removing such questions, just the potentially lawsuit-generating and harm-causing medical and legal ones. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's gone, and I think it's better not to tempt people to respond to those sous-pont dwellers, but it's a giant step down the slippery slope of removals to yank anything that we feel doesn't belong there. Who's to judge? I'd be pulling lots of crap every day if I were the judge. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could think of a way to turn those who repeatedly ask worthless questions into users who ask good questions. Want a list of pathetic questions that are more soapboxing than questions and designed to strike up a debate instead of get factual information? Easy, look here. -- kainaw™ 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Why is it illegal to fight to the death?", "Why can't pro football be played seven days a week?" and "How many times will they let you hit foul balls?"? :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the simplest way is to simply avoid answering questions that you think are worthless. Just say nothing. If nobody answers them - the person will get bored with writing them and go away. If people DO answer them - then perhaps they aren't so worthless after all. The system is self-correcting. Possibly the worst response is to mock the questioner or attempt humor. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing these kinds of post...and I thank Matt for replacing the question without a major argument. We ask that people not start soapboxing - but taken at face value, here were a set of very answerable questions. I prefer to WP:AGF. There is interesting science in the answers - the time is not wasted. What I REALLY don't want to see is some major newspaper headline: "WIKIPEDIA SUPPRESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION" - or yet "WIKIPEDIA SUPPRESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN" - because that's just the kind of thing that'll give ammunition to some bible-belt school-board to ban students from using Wikipedia...and that's the last thing we want. So, suck it up and answer with a straight face. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that while questions like this often appear as trolling from an outside perspective, most of the time the questioner is looking for a real answer and is simply a bit misguided or has worded their post in an unfortunate way. In addition, I enjoyed reading SteveBaker's epic response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any great need to AGF in this "question", TBH. They didn't ask whether fossilized bootprints had ever been found or whether C14 dating was truly accurate or any of the other points Steve so nicely explained, they used the desk as a soapbox to proselytize their position that evolution is bunk and to stir up a debate about ID vs. rationalism. Just to be clear (not that anyone is stating the contrary), I removed the question not because of the topic, but because of the intent. Matt Deres (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But Matt, what you have to understand is that many people, especially kids, only see one perspective in life, such as that of whichever immoral, fat televanglist his family watches on TV and sends their life savings to. So, to him all those things are true, because he's never heard the real truth. If we assume good faith and enlighten them, then maybe they will have a broader perspective. If, however, they come back with the same nonsense again and again, then I agree that they are a troll. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we have SteveBaker around, willing to implement his "don't remove it, answer it convincingly" proposal from way way above, there's not much to worry about. If the OP had gone on to ignore Steve's excellent refutation, that would qualify as soapboxing. If some strangers suddenly turned up to support the OP, that could be suspicious.

As noted above though, it's important to AGF where possible. People come here to sort out the "facts" they've been fed in their daily lives. I have an ex-friend who I'd always at least semi-respected until the day they handed me a book titled "Why Evolution is Wrong" or something, and asked me "do you think we come from slime?". I read most of it - it was quite entertaining, a compendium of discrepancies in evolutionary and biological science (almost like what's discussed every week in scholarly journals, just more selective). Now, my response was "yes, we come from slime, heck, we are slime, we eat slime and incorporate in our bodies" and we parted ways not long after - but this guy was honestly parroting what other people had told him. If there's a chance he can ask a question here and read Steve's answer and experience a different viewpoint, all the better I say. If he goes on to ramble or attack or bait, see-ya bye. But the OPQ was valid, if oddly phrased. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I admire your ability to AGF, but this is not the post of a kid who doesn't "know" what evolution is or who is looking for help on getting information to make a decision for themselves. People in a position of ignorance (e.g. kids) ask about how things work and why things happened. People in a position of stupidity (e.g. creationists) ask questions about why everyone is lying when the truth is so obvious. You can inform people who don't know things (i.e. teach the ignorant), but you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

If the poster had said something like, "I heard this guy on the radio say that (insert creationist lie here). What does that mean?" or "My biology teacher was forced to tell us a bunch of conflicting stuff and said she wasn't allowed to mention which one was right. What's going on here?" I would have put together a huge answer with directions to all kinds of really good articles here on WP and I would have responded to every follow-up question they had (assuming Steve hadn't beat me to it!). But that's not what this was. Stuff like "Is there really a single scrap of evidence that supports evolution over intelligent design?" is not the question of someone who wants an answer, it's the question of someone who wants to start a debate.

I'm struggling to see why you considered this a valid question, yet agreed on the removal of the "babby" thing above. I'm sure it was just a leg pull too, but answering it does nothing more than provide some nice links. Keeping this question provides a soapbox for creationists. Matt Deres (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the "babby" meme has been repeated over and over - THAT is what makes it a troll. We can assume good faith when someone asks an off-the-wall question. But when that assumption is proven to be incorrect, we are NOT expected to force ourselves to believe it's good faith against all evidence. So "babby" posts are now clearly trolling - I'm not assuming good faith anymore - I'm convinced of bad faith - we can delete the posts - accuse the OP of vandalism - seek administrative action in terms of blocks and bans. That's fine by me. But this creationist question (as far as I could tell) was the first question of this nature posted by this person. Sure, the odds are good that they are a loony creationist who had hoped to get a huge argument going between creationist-sympathisers and atheist-scientists. But that didn't happen so that may well be all we hear from them. OTOH, if we start to see multiple, similar questions from this person - then sure, stop WP:AGFing and start with WP:DFTT. If we stop answering those questions and the user gives up and goes away - then all well and good. If we have to escalate further then we can give up on WP:DFTT and delete questions, post vandalism templates on their talk: pages - and if they persist after we ask them to stop - we set the admins loose on them and the inevitable rounds of blocking, then the spiral into sock-puppetry, etc will inevitably follow. But WP:AGF is a WP:5P requirement of people who work here - so this question MUST stay, no matter what you personally feel about it's author. That's what WP:AGF is all about. It's tough in the face of 'obvious' soapboxing - but them's the rules! SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the things is the question was arguably answerable in RD style even if poorly phrased and there are few people on the RDS going to dispute or argue over the answers. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

google

Does anyone mind if I edit the intro to direct the user to use an internet search engine rather than specifying google on basis of NPOV and no need to have a link since searching is one of the first things a computer user learns - could update with a little pointer to putting in more of the question maybe e.g. 'what is the fastest car' maybe. LeeVJ (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do, Google is by far the superior and most well known search engine available. "Google it!" is a term now in common usage. The Link is required, users in general are more likely to do the search if we provide a link than if they have to find this themselves. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it would be better to link to an article on internet searching. In the unlikely event someone visiting really doesn't know how to access a search engine on their own, it's better we teach them then just direct them to Google Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick scout for a suitable essay / article but no luck so far. LeeVJ (talk)

Invoking NPOV here is not entirely appropriate. Google have gone further in indexing Wikipedia effectively (and working with us to make things work smoothely) than any of the other search engines (who have basically ignored us). Google is streets ahead of the competition in indexing Wikipedia (just take a look at Google Maps with Wikipedia icons enabled - it's SO cool! Can you think of ANY other way to ask "I'm going on vacation HERE - what Wikipedia articles should I read to get the best information on local culture and landmarks?"). So I don't think neutrality enters into it. If we wish to tell people how to search more effectively than Wikipedias' internal search can manage - then telling people to go specifically to Google is not at all inappropriate. If the other search people get upset about this - the answer is easy - improve your searching of Wikipedia and we can include your name when you are the best solution. However, that in no way alters the need to implement an RD-specific search box per the proposal below. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems somewhat irrelevant. We are helping people to search generally not to search wikipedia. Also it seems it may not be entirely correct [5] [http://virtualearth.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2BBC66E99FDCDB98!15346.entry. (Disclaimer: I use Google all the time so I haven't really compared Google to anyone else in searching wikipedia). At the very least, could we mention 'other search engines' (or something similar) with a direct to an appropriate article? Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point about not JUST searching Wikipedia. I concede - we should mention search engines in general. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive search box

I think it would be useful (for both questioners and responders) to add an archive search box at the top of the ref desk pages. Something like:

This will work for the post Oct 2006 archives. Any objections, or suggestions with regrads to placement etc ? Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea. Currently the archives say "The best way to search the archives is probably to use a search engine, such as Google by using this search string for the post-October 2006 archives, and this search string for the pre-October 2006 archives". I don't think that's very accessible to non-experts. Replacing this text with a search box would be a good idea, everybody knows how to use a search box. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed makes sense particularly now that our search engine is a lot better. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! In the words of Jean-Luke..."Make it so!". SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tut, tut, that should be Jean-Luc. I think you've been in the US too long... :-) Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, yeah, and I agree with adding the search box. Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for test purposes I added a searchbox on the science reference desk (see this page version). Unfortunately, its location below the page header also places it "under the fold" where, I suspect, it will often be overlooked by new editors. So I think we should add the searchbox to the page header itself, where it will be most visible/useful . Please look over my specific proposal on the howtoask talk page and let me know if any tweaking is required. Once we have consensus on the wording etc, I can add the {{edit protected}} template to request the specific change to be implemented by an admin. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a request for the edit to add the archive search box on the howtoask talk page. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This does seem like a useful addition, as long as it can search the archives immediately, not with the delay which Google has. If I want to see the answers to a Q I recently asked, which was just archived, and I'm not sure of the day, Desk, or title, (but do know a key phrase in the Q to search for) it's currently painful to look for it manually, and Google doesn't work until they update their indexes. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The new search box looks very good. Could this be added to the archive page also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives to search both pre and post 2006? I'm not convinced all users will know how to use the search strings currently linked there. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Success! I used the search box to point an OP toward a similar early Q here: [6]. However, it would have been better if the search box had taken me right to the earlier Q section, instead of just the page containing the earlier Q. (I know, I'm lazy). Can this feature be added ? StuRat (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research and WP:OR

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics:

This is not really a mathematics question but I thought that I would post this here because it is relevant. Most of the time, the questions here are either trivial or of the same difficulty as a textbook exercise. Sometimes the questions are simply posted out of interest and the answer depends on opinion. But is there a possibility that someone asks a problem here that is publishable and includes some of his/her findings with the question? I remember seeing such problems here before and it is possible that such a thing can be done by an inexperienced mathematician (someone who is learning mathematics and is not really familiar with reading journals; for example, a university student). I think it would be appropriate to include, in the guidelines at the top of the page, that people should consider this when asking a question. Any opinions (and how one can add to the guidelines at the top if people agree)?

Thanks!

--Point-set topologist (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify exactly what it is that you think "people should consider ... when asking a question" ? What exactly are you suggesting should be added to the guidelines ? Can you give us an example ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could write something (roughly) like this:

"Please only ask questions that are either homework problems, come out of textbooks, or problems that are standard. Any problems that require a deep understanding to solve or are possibly something publishable will be removed"

I think that the people at the ref desk can decide which problems fall in that range and remove them accordingly. --Point-set topologist (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I have a better understanding of what you are proposing, my next question is - why do you think this is necessary ? We don't get too many deep questions on the Mathematics RD, but one does come along, it can be really interesting. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to ban the very questions that make lurking on the maths desk worthwhile? Algebraist 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The prevailing view is that core content policies such as WP:OR don't apply to talk pages (last discussed here, I think), so why should they apply to the reference desk? This is hardly a part of the encyclopedic content. -- Jao (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not familiar with the current state of math research, but wouldn't it be incredibly unlikely that one of our humble helpers (no offense!) would post something of publishable quality? Surely the stuff getting published in journals would be well beyond any layman's question anyway, right? In any case, someone bright enough to work out "new" solid math proofs would also be bright enough to publish their stuff first. Matt Deres (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't remove questions like that. It might be worth pointing out to both askers and answerers that they may wish to publish original research in a proper journal before publishing it here in order to make sure they are properly attributed, but it's their choice. --Tango (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that suppose someone asks whether theorem X is true (theorem X is currently unknown) and it so happens that theorem X is a very deep result in mathematics that could have high merit if discovered. There is a chance (and I am pretty sure that it has happened before), that someone will take advantage of the OP and publish the result. I know that most of the questions here are pretty much trivial (and unfortunately bring up a three page discussion!) and it is always nice to have something interesting bought up. But I just want to make sure that someone does not miss out a chance at getting a PhD because of asking something here (there is a chance!).

P.S Maybe writing something roughly like:

"Please do not post a question here that contains your findings (i.e original research)."

--Point-set topologist (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if the post would serve as time dated copyright as say the idea, if not as material itself, under the free document licence? A long shot but just wondering if a person could claim they thought of it first since it's on public record in some way? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would hold up in court (it wouldn't strictly be a matter of copyright, you can't copyright ideas), but if I were to have my original idea stolen, I definitely would prefer having posted it on a timestamped, history-preserving wiki rather than just having told a colleague in private... -- Jao (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If all the OP has done is conjectured it, then there isn't really a problem - being to first person to conjecture something isn't that big a deal (it's nice to be credited, sure, but I don't know of any case of a major dispute over who conjectured something first - although I admit I haven't looked for one), it's proofs that mathematicians are after. --Tango (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would actually do any good. Firstly, I don't think we should be discouraging researchers (amateurs, graduate students, or whathaveyou) from asking us for help explaining their results, or validating their ideas. Anyone who would naively post a potentially publishable theory or experimental result is likely also discussing it freely and is not aware or not concerned about the possibility of its being stolen. I don't think providing unecessary caution to the rare poster with a publishable question warrants possibly confusing and/or discouraging the vast majority of other posters (assuming anyone actually reads the instructions). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the question? Anything is "publishable" so this must be a question about revealing information that is valuable in some way. If someone posts information to Wikipedia the FREE encyclopedia then they certainly aren't keeping it confidential. If they had no right to reveal the information (because of a law or a secrecy obligation) then they and not Wikipedia must take the consequences. If they spoil their own chance of exploiting (e.g. patenting or selling) the information then the only one to blame is themself.

So why ask how to restrict knowledge when Wikipedia's promise is nothing less than the liberation of human knowledge? (The Economist, 20 April 2006) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(after ec): I fully agree with Someguy1221 and Jao. A person doing research work is well aware of the danger of having ideas stolen. I'm currently working on a project (biology) where I'm considering asking for advice on the maths desk. If I do so, I will chose a wording that doesn't reveal exactly which field I'm working in. And if I were to receive advice that proves to be valuable to research work that is published, I would certainly include an acknowledgment to the user(s) who gave the advice on the reference desk. If a naïve person comes along and presents publishable theories or data while asking a question, I find it rather unlikely that he or she is working in a research environment. In such a case, the decent thing to do for a RD contributor would be to post a note on his/her talk page, telling him/her that the data indeed is interesting, and encourage the poster to get in touch with someone who could assist in writing a paper, or to invite the poster to a collaboration. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Both OP and respondant agree to release their contributions under GFDL - so if either of them writes something publishable then either of them - or some third party is allowed to publish it. Attribution is guaranteed by our history mechanism - we can always prove who wrote what and when - so if someone does publish your idea - you can always prove that you had it first. Our mission here is more openness - more access to information and ideas. Preventing the most interesting questions from being asked is just silly. No - let's ENCOURAGE this kind of thing - not DISCOURAGE. SteveBaker (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian blue's suggestion for communicating with specific contibutors where it's relevant in whatever way that alerts them to its importance or likely importance sounds healthy combined with the history mechanism. Agree contributions are free but non-attribution for significantly original-in-a-specialised field is something else. @ NB, I hope you didn't just give away your actual field of investigation in that post. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are all right. The number of people who would actually post something of publishable quality (unknowingly) here is very low and by putting that notice, people who "think" that they have found something new (although trivial) would not post it here and would never learn that their findings are trivial (there was once a magazine which offered $1,000,000 for the proof of Goldbach's conjecture; some people submitted their "proofs" but got no response. They thought that they were so intelligent that they accused the reviewers of stealing their "proofs".). Anyway, discussion closed. PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PST, I suppose you have an idea of what is original research in mathematics today. I can tell you that the best it may happen in the situation you are describing is that somebody posts an intelligent question, possibly with some intelligent remarks or results of himself or herself, in a topic somehow not covered by standard programs of maths courses. But it will be almost surely a problem that has been already asked and already solved, not only once, but several times indipendently (maybe not by the same person, although I can attest personally that multeplicity is also possible). For sure, some of the solvers published, and will publish, independently, their "original result" about the problem in reviews that are not relevant enough to have to bother about originality of what they publish. A more smart solver may solve the problem just out of curiosity, even because this can be simpler and funnier than searching for a reference in the enormous mathematical literature. In alternative, it may be a truly open question, never treated before, just because the answer is simply uninteresting. Asking a question that is both relevant and open, requires a deep knowledge on the subject and of the state of the art, and doing it by chance and unconsciously as you prospect seems to me just possible, but astronomically unlikely. Say I see more likely that somebody finds a plant of unknown specimen in his house's garden. --PMajer (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on guideline talk page

Someone has raised a question at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Financial_Advice. That page has been quite idle in the more recent past, and I don't know how many people watch it, so just a heads up. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin. Commented there. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since (at a guess) few people watch that page, and we're hardly inundated with comments here that need to be moved there, is it time to remove the notice on this page directing guideline-related discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Guidelines? Algebraist 12:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. This seems like a good place for discussion on refdesk guidelines. If it's not too radical we should also consider placing a soft redirect to here from there. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I started this thread. The downside would be losing a manageable place for reviewing discussions on changing the guidelines. This page moves quite fast and there are plenty of archives. It is not easy to find the right threads amidst discussions on layout, specific removals, doing someone's homework, pushing people off the soapbox, feeding Orcs, biting Hobbits, and everything else we talk about here.

I guess we could transclude discussions directly relevant to WP:RD/Guidelines on its talk page, or copy them there after a certain period or once they've been archived. We could also post links to the threads archived here on the talk page there.

I don't know which is the best or most wikipedian solution, but I do think we should make it easy for people to find discussions on changing our guidelines. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

SciRef page size

Just a note that atm the Science desk is 345KB of wiki-text and 815KB of rendered HTML. This effectively makes the SciRef desk inaccessible to anyone with a dial-up connection (~2-1/2 minutes to load at 56kbps).

I would guess it's due to a couple of mega-threads over the last few days and will take a few days to be archived down. We're cut off from a large part of our audience and it's even making my memory-laden system a little shaky on display and scrolling. Don't know the solution, but I thought I'd point it out. Any ideas? Franamax (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sometimes felt we should put a 'recent archives' link at the top of each desk and make a special page (something like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/Recent or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Recent where we transclude the last 7 days of discussions and start removing transcluded pages from the main desk sooner for this reason. As a temporary solution, we could just cut off one or two of the transcluded pages I think, as far as I'm aware the bot shouldn't have a problem if we manually remove transcluded pages Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, manually removing a transclusion link is safe, and won't confuse the bot at all. And that's a fine interim solution which anyone can take when, as on the 11th when Franamax posted, a desk is bloating because the bot is behind. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives For 2009

Where are the archives for 2009?96.53.149.117 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They're there just not linked to. I've added the links now... (N.B. Some people may feel it would have been better to keep the 2009 with the 2008 but IMHO it's easier to keep the years seperate. Also the 2008 list by itself is getting a bit long, on 1024 full screen it's okay but it's probably not on 800x or a non fullscreen window where the later months scroll to the next line which IMHO is not ideal. Of course I could have left them with 2008 for now and moved later but my way requires less work and makes it less likely someone will have different ideas about when to split 2009 :-P ) Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I was gonna do that myself, but ran into a snag. (My copy of ViewSourceWith stopped working, and the details of why I haven't been able to get it fixed are far too tawdry to go into here.) The arrangement you chose is just what I had in mind, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time...

From this on the ent desk[7]: "In my last question, what do you mean? Can you please just tell me the answer straight?" Bowei Huang may be showing more obvious signs of sous-pont dwelling (thanks to Milkbreath for that word). Am very tempted to give a straight answer but am resisting the urge. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's still in stupidity territory but it bears watching. Algebraist 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks Al, is there a difference? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the previously-given answer was neither helpful nor likely intelligible for someone less familiar with English (which would seem to follow from the structure of the question itself). If, in addition to or in replacement of the humor, the response had pointed out that the question was very difficult to answer then perhaps we wouldn't have a question asking for an explanation of the previous answer. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty much being a prick when I responded that time, however Mr. Huang had been asking questions at the Ref Desk like that for some time, and was getting no where. I was using humor (humour for our UK readers) to point out the difficulty in answering his questions, but it was a rather assholish-type of humor I must admit. I would guess that this is a) a rather young user who b) doesn't speak English very well. The resulting combination means that he's asking questions which are pretty much unanswerable. I am not sure how to deal with this, since he (if we AGF) does seem to earnestly want to know these answers. I am pretty much lost in how to deal with it beyond ignoring him for now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I felt relieved when I read that answer. Nil Einne has pointed out that Bowei Huang lives in Australia and I get the impression from posts that he is being disingenuous and faking it somehow. I also feel the question is clever as is the insistence that fakes a repeat. BH succeeds in getting what he wants and my guess is, that it's not a correct answer to his curve balls. Hopefully he is being watched. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They have curve balls in cricket? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of curveball, it seems to be a bit like spin bowling, but not very. Algebraist 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Very cute. We try to be ambi-cultural when speaking in another country. A "bouncer" doesn't work in text, for me anyway, the curveball is it.  ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If a bouncer doesn't work, try the wrong 'un. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Watch these tiny wrists! :) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Computing:Word Processors

Discussion from Computing:Word Processors -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't jump on him and say this is his homework. I assumed he was wondering. I honestly have wondered these things myself. Rgoodermote  02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Or could be trying to win a bet (had a similar one a while ago about Media players. I lost.) Rgoodermote  02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like homework to me. It seems odd that someone that someone would want to know the names of exactly 5 word processors and exactly 7 things they do. A WHOIS on the IP returns the Bahamas - it's Sunday night there, prime time to do homework you've forgotten over the weekend. Xenon54 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And, every single sixty three (63) times I've wondered if I could think of eight (8) specific items, I've ensured that I included the digits on all four (4) websites that I posted on, just in case the one hundred (100) or so people who read it might be confused. Or, perhaps, the student isn't smart enough to paraphrase the question. -- kainaw™ 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock 'em, they had the sense to mistype it. Algebraist 03:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Five wordprocessors that come to mind are AbiWord, LyX, KWord, OpenOffice Writer, and that funny one from Microsoft. Wordpad I think its called.

Seven things that can be done with a word processor might include... Browsing files and folders, viewing images, viewing web pages, fiddling with buttons and toolbars, making the window larger and smaller, doing your income tax, and writing a letter to the IRS to beg for an extension. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't your taxes be done in a spreadsheet? .. ;) Ched (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No way! Everyone knows that spreadsheets are used for writing greeting cards and writing letters. But for really snazzy animated greeting cards you need a CAD package. Word processors are no good for those things. They put squiggly red lines under all the words. That's mainly good for tax returns. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (one of my ex-bosses really did use Lotus 123 for writing letters, including form letters).

What we should be doing is directing the OP to the Word processor article. Remember, there's a difference between saying "we won't do your homework" and deliberately misleading someone who may not aware you guys are joking. Please take note of the "How to answer a question" guide at the top of this page. Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The sad part is that all these "jokes" (and more! Act now and we'll throw in a virus-friendly scripting language, a brain-dead webpage editor, and an obnoxious animated paperclip!) are things that bloated word processors actually do (here's looking at you, Word). -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a spellchecker that corrects 'spellchecker' to 'spell-checker' even though it calls itself 'spellchecker'. Plus another one that offers 'Em-ail' as a substitute for 'email' (Neo-Office).--KageTora (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TeX. --wj32 ^t/c 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'm upset. When you think someone is asking a homework question you use the {{dyoh}} template and you sign it (as I have now done) - then you and everyone else should refrain from answering the question in any way other than (perhaps) to provide some USEFUL links to articles in which the answers may reasonably be found. You DO NOT give false answers - you DO NOT mock the OP. I'm ashamed. SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do hate it when people make fun of an OP who's new or doesn't understand the way things work around here. As for the question, look at Category:Word processors for your first question and the Word processor article for your second one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't joking...I was being dead serious..so I find my comments being strikin out rather rude...thank you for that. Rgoodermote  01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thing..my comment was in reply to the guy blanking out my answer to the person who asked...I actually gave him everything he was asking for. Rgoodermote  01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a Reference Desk is generally a place where people go when they don't know what to look for. There's a huge difference between LIST 7 WORD PROCESSORS, PLS SEND ME TEH CODEZ and "I need to find 7 word processors." If (and I think it's fair to say that's a small if) that's homework, newsflash, this is now grade school (grammar? school for the international audience?) level material (which may or may not lead to a proper and polite question formulation and this would be a fine leap back to RD/L a month ago on want vs. need usage), and precisely the sort of thing an RD would be for. "Oh, you'll want to go look in the informatics aisle, that's the 800's..." Or, in this case, the above linked "Oh, we have categories, so try category: word processor." As opposed to, say, Yahoo answers or a message board (in which case, I'll lngjmp for speed and make this post "First!" 98.169.163.20 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I like your approach except for the striking out thing. I don't think it's appropriate to strike out other people's posts. I also think entire blocks of struck out text look incredibly ugly. Maybe a collapsable box thingy would work better next time (and maybe I'm wrong about it being inappropriate to strike out other editors' posts. It's just something I would never do). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@SB, could you have said the same thing without stomping all over other people? It seems to disprove your own point about rudeness. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this turned into something big...I'm going to step out from this entire thing..I'm not into debates that only lead to conflict. See ya all. Rgoodermote  15:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@ SteveB btw, I agree that it's not welcoming to mock the OP or give false answers, though they seem to have a place where they were usually saved for persistent trolls, or so I noticed. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivial questions and removal of posts

Resolved

--PST 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice, rather frequently, some trivial questions at the ref. desk such as 1000/16 and such. Should we include a guideline at the top of the page like:

1: 'If your question involves a numerical calculation, please first consider seeing the article on arithmetic or trying google calculator'.

I think this would save a lot of time and would prevent boring the volunteers here. Sometimes, people also ask people here to explain a concept. So:

2: 'If you want to understand a particular concept, consider having a look at the corresponding article before you ask a question here'.

Guideline 1 has a higher priority that guideline 2. So if we notice someone who obviously does not follow guideline 1 (i.e asks what is 100/10 or something) we remove the question with an edit summary of "please re-read the guidelines".

The other thing I am worried about is the triviality of questions at the ref. desk. I propose creating another reference desk 'School mathematics'. This way, anyone who asks a question here, from school, can go to a more specialized reference desk (it seems that most questions here are homework). How does this sound? PST

If you're worried about people not reading the articles, it already says to search the archive, search Wikipedia, and search Google before posting, so I'm not sure what you need add to that. Maybe changing it to "search and then read the results" would be more explicit. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malte in that I find it highly unlikely that anyone inclined to post about 1000/16 would be held back by any of our guidelines, however they were worded. But I don't think PST is suggesting this to avoid these questions popping up, so much as to be specific about the acceptability of their removal. -- Jao (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PST, you recently suggested banning of non-trivial questions from the maths desk, and are now moving against trivial questions. May I ask what sort of questions you consider correct material for the desk? Algebraist 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The questions I recently wanted to "ban" were trivial questions. The questions that I consider correct for the reference desk are:

• Non-numerical questions (maybe make a "calculations reference desk"): integrals count as these.

• Non-trivial questions: questions such as "what is the complex plane?" or "is a straight line a right angle triangle?" are far to trivial for my liking. I think that the latter question is in a sense acceptable for the reference desk but I would lean towards not supporting such questions.

But that is just my opinion. PST

Having just read complex plane, I don't regard the question "what is the complex plane?" as being at all trivial. I got a B at A-level in Maths, and I'm sure we used the things, but reading that article confused me utterly. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about what is or is not in the top of page guidelines. However, I definitely oppose the idea that we should use the guidelines to justify removing legitimate questions like "What is 100/16", which we could answer but don't want to (note that I said legitimate questions - soapboxing and trolling are obviously different issues). Removing legitimate but straightforward questions would be just bitey - if you are not interested in answering a question, then just ignore it. I also oppose the proposal to split the Mathematics RD - the existing RD is not too busy, and splitting it will only give rise to debates on whether or not topic X is "School mathematics". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The main activity of real world reference desks is answering trivial questions. They exist precisely because it is very difficult to answer one's own trivial questions when surrounded by information. Reference desk and information seeking behavior might be helpful reads (though the latter is stubby; Kuhlthau has some very good books and articles). The reference desk is a service to the information seekers; it is not a source of entertainment for the staff. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I know! Let's change the process for submitting a RD question so that rather than simply posting, it searches an appropriate set of sources (WP, Google, etc) and displays the result. Then the user is prompted to peruse these, and submit only if their question has not been answered. We could dispense with all of those instructions at the top of the RD! --Scray (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desks exist for the benefit of the questioners, not the benefit of the people giving the answers. A large part of why we don't answer homework/medical/legal questions is because it's in the questioners' best interests that we don't. The point of homework is to practice solving problems - if the RefDesk solves it for the questioner, they suffer by not having the same learning experience. As we do not know all the specific in legal/medical situations, there's the real possibility of making things worse for the questioner if we try to answer them. As far as "trivial" questions, there's absolutely no harm to the questioner. (The other reason we delete questions is because of trolling. While an overly simple/silly question may be trolling, keep in mind two points (1) WP:Assume Good Faith - if you're not absolutely sure something is trolling, treat it as if it isn't (2) WP:Don't feed the trolls - trolls post to get attention, so a true troll post should be ignored/deleted. You shouldn't argue with the poster or answers, or pontificate about the trivialness of a troll's posts - that's what the troll is looking for.) Then there's the question of what constitutes "trivial" - sure "Please give a basic description of the complex plane" is a trivial question to a topologist who probably has a university degree in advance mathematics, but it's a topical and advanced question for a High School student who's just finished geometry and algebra. You probably have forgotten, but complex numbers are a difficult subject for the average teenager to wrap their head around. Likewise, the calculation of compounding interest is a mind numbingly boring topic to someone who is used to dealing with N-dimensional manifolds, but the majority of people didn't take calculus, and don't even begin to have a clue about the difference between a sequence and a series. For them setting up the calculations or knowing if there is some sort of short-cut one can use is high-level math. Most people don't have advanced math knowledge, so if you were expecting a post-grad level of discourse on the Mathematics reference desk, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen. People have differing levels of knowledge, and we shouldn't delete people's questions just because they don't meet some threshold of background knowledge or "interestingness" to knowledgeable answerers. For example, to pick a non-math subject, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about classical music should be familiar with Eine kleine Nachtmusik, but we don't delete questions from people who aren't aware of it [8]. - Bottom line: if you think that answering a question is beneath you, then ignore it. If the quantity of "trivial" questions on a RefDesk gets to you, take a WP:Wikibreak - there's no rule saying you *have* to answer any of the questions at the RefDesk. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. An additional two cents: The question "What is 1000/16?" is indeed trivial as an arithmetic problem, but it leads to all sorts of things if you extend your thinking. It illustrates, for example, the discrepancy between the base 16 and base 10 number systems when we talk about 1k not really being 1,000 bytes. This could be mentioned in the answer in case that's what the OP was driving at. We should think our asses off in an attempt to provide the best answer in the world, and the challenge is greatest when the question is trivial. This is the Superbowl every day, and our opponent is the aptly named Yahoo! Answers. Also, there is no age limit to get in here. We could be answering a precocious, curious kid without being able to tell from his writing in the question. Even "trolls" must be thought of as redeemable, because some of them are. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to the last two responses, which I agree with, the RD exists also for the benefit of casual readers, who may be at least entertained, and possibly intrigued into studying the area in question. I've frequently been sufficiently interested in what has been asked to follow the links given in the answers, and would claim that any increase in the distribution of mathematical knowledge like this is a good thing. So no more talk of triviality or deletion, please - it just comes across as pompous elitism.→81.153.219.101 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not actually intend to show off (and by the way, I have not played music for a while: I know how the song goes but I simply forgot the full name). I wanted to note that "what is the complex plane" is not only an impossible question to answer (there are heaps of things I could say) but also rather unspecific. I could just answer: the complex plane is a field. I will respond a little later in depth but I just want to confirm that by "trivial" I just meant that it is trivial to the general population of mathematicians: I did not intend to show off or say that it was trivial to myself. PST

Right: to mathematicians. The RefDesks, even the Mathematics RefDesk, is intended for use by all sorts of people, not just specialists. That was my point when referring to your music question: There's nothing wrong with it. It's a perfectly valid and acceptable question for us to be answering. That sort of question is just the sort of thing that the RefDesk is here to answer. Even though a professional musician may view the question as trivial and think it bizarre for someone to forget about "Eine kleine Nachtmusik", you're not a musical specialist, nor should anyone expect you to be. Likewise, we shouldn't expect people who come to the RefDesk to be mathematicians or confine themselves to non-mathematically-trivial questions, either. -- And if you're trying to figure out what sort of answer to give someone who asks question where you can say heaps of things, do your best to judge the level the questioner is at and try for the type of response that would be most understandable to them. Don't worry that you won't be able to give a perfect response, just do the best you can - others will be able to fill in details, and hopefully if the questioner is still confused, he'll post a followup/clarification. If you aren't even sure how to begin answering, that's okay too. Just leave the question alone; someone else will be along shortly to take a stab at it. We're wonderfully collaborative here at the RefDesk (and at Wikipedia too, for that matter.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with 128.104.112.113. And even questions that seem quite silly can lead to interesting issues. I must admit to begin one of those giving a silly response for the cloud of steam destroying physics question on the Science desk, but I did at least answer that ArXiv was the right place for a paper about it. That question led to an interesting one about why blowing hard cooled things whereas one can blow into ones hands to warm them. No deletions without a very good reason indeed, not just because you think the question is trivial. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To PST (talk) - Please stop noting your opinions on the RDs as to which questions are or are not acceptable [9] [10]. This page is for that type of commentary, not the RD pages themselves. You can easily link from this page to any section/question that you would like to discuss. Also, when you were asked for a link to this discussion please provide the link and not some keyboard shortcut which may or may not work in all OSs and/or browsers. Also, please properly sign your posts as it provides temporal information and the links needed to communicate directly with you. Oh, and please read about edit summaries. Thanks, hydnjo talk 19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I second Hydnjo's and IP 128's comment above.

PST, please think over the feedback you have received here and do stop adding your opinion on which questions are trivial on the ref desk (you can comment on the talk page if you wish). Irrespective of your intentions, your tone comes across as extremely supercilious, and is liable to drive away genuinely curious or confused questioners. That, in my opinion, is more harmful than the posting of so-called "trivial" questions. Also, in case you are not aware, you can sign your comments by appending ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your comments on refdesk and talk pages. Abecedare (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that the signature adder, , (just above the edit window) can be used just in case your keyboard doesn't support tildes as PST claimed last December. hydnjo talk 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rules for posting answers (placement and indentation)

This doesn't happen a lot, but sometimes people just forget the one obvious rule relating to posting comments: post your comments at the bottom of the section unless it's a reply to another comment. Some people like to post comments above an older one. I know it probably looks like a silly rule, but it really does matter to have the comments in order of time posted. Maybe we should put this rule somewhere? --wj32 ^t/c 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure anyone is doing this deliberately? I've seen it happen a few times from MediaWiki's auto-resolution of edit conflicts, but that's all. Algebraist 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

@Algebraist: you just gotta be careful with those out-of-order comments. Sometimes it's confusing. --Scray (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I only recall seeing one or two (maybe youz fixed the rest). hydnjo talk 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes did it in order to answer a post in the middle (sorry). By the way: is there a rule in the use of the indentation by colons ":..:"? If I understand it should be one colon more than the post one refers to: is it so? (For example in this case I should be supposed to refer to Algebraist's post...) --PMajer (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's normal etiquette, and is recommended by the essay Wikipedia:Indentation (which also recommends out-of-order comments, for what that's worth). Algebraist 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation. I'm not sure that we need to repeat those guidelines or further codify them here; on the rare occasions when a comment ends up in the wrong place, we can just fix it. (If the problem recurs with a particular editor to the point it gets annoying, a gentle note is all that's necessary — though I expect that a regular visitor will tend to pick up the norms through exposure.) If we have the occasional new poster who top-posts or otherwise breaches our usual protocols then no real harm is done, and it seems unlikely that most posters will read the entire set of rules before posting for the first time anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The more serious problem I've encountered is people automatically indenting one more than the previous answer, when their reponse is to to the OP, not the previous responder:

What's everyone's fav US President ?

Washington.

Kennedy.

JFK ? Are you nuts ? He almost caused WW3 due to the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Lincoln.

FDR.

This needlessly pushes the conversation into a tiny strip on the right side of the screen. The above should look like this, even if the response to the "Kennedy" answer was posted last:

What's everyone's fav US President ?

Washington.

Kennedy.

JFK ? Are you nuts ? He almost caused WW3 due to the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Lincoln.

FDR.

That's how I try to do it. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I am responding to a comment (subthread) inside of a main thread, I will place my response directly below the comment I am replying to. By placing it at the bottom, it makes no sense. Consider the following example:

Original Question: Who was the fifth Beatle? - First question

There are millions of beetles. Who knows which one came fifth. - Second post

He is referring to the band, Beatles, not the insect, beetles. - Fourth post

It depends on who you ask. It could be Pete Best, Stuart Sutcliffe, or even Brian Epstein. - Third post

Imagine having the fourth post below the third post. It would be more confusing than helpful. -- kainaw™ 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

George Martin. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

still reads sense to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thread removal

I have removed a soapboxing non-question from Misc. Comments welcome. Algebraist 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. We'd not be able to load the page after a couple of days of that one. hydnjo talk 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've been dealing with the user for a while, I'm increasingly of the opinion that he's around just to yank our chains. So yeah, no objection from me. — Lomn 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lomn, you asked if that law was still in effect. As stated, Bad catch. Louisiana passed that law to deal with carjackings. Source is on the link you user:Algebraist provided. Can you reinstate that question? Powerzilla (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this thread be restored? Powerzilla (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Link is http://www.law.wustl.edu/journal/55/109.pdf and another source is http://www.article.latimes.com/1997/aug/14/news/mn-22319

That is two sources regarding this matter. Powerzilla (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, DFTT or something? hydnjo talk 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no troll at all. Louisiana is, so far, unique in passing that kind of legislation. I've got word that Florida has passed similar legislation recently that allows people to kill burglars, and as a result, a Japanese national was mistaken for one and killed. Google these matters for more information. Cheers :) Powerzilla (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :)

Well regardless of whether you're a troll, it doesn't sound like you understand the RD. It's not a place for you to make a point or to advertise something Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal, if there's a question in there it's rhetorical. --Scray (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Medremoval ("Short tongue and snipping")

Diff here. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to include the question title in the section name. I've added it for this one. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, it sounded more of a curiosity question than anything else. I thought my initial answer was adequate. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you did well, too. Thing is, the guy wanted advice that was clearly meant to help him decide whether to have surgery or not. That's a request for medical advice, and we remove the question and all answers as a first step. Here is the section of the guidelines I'm referring to. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC) --Milkbreath (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't ask "should I do this", he asked "are there any health benefits for adults", which is a general question not a request for advice. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

im a girl, yo! --Emyn ned (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Fifty-fifty chance, and we blew it. No offense, I hope. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Medical geneticist and DuncanHill: the question, and at very least the answer, should be restored immediately. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Medical geneticist gave a response which comfortably adhered to our guidelines. While one interpretation of the question is that the OP is implicitly seeking medical advice for himself – and Milkbreath was certainly not being unreasonable in bringing the matter here – I think it would be safe to restore the question to the bottom of the appropriate Desk page.

However, I also think that in borderline cases like this one it would be appropriate and responsible for us to remove any responses (in their entirety) which offer the poster medical advice (solicited or not). While I don't expect such action to be necessary, I am prepared to seek administrative sanctions against any editors who act to deliberately circumvent the medical advice guidelines.

As a matter of personal preference and advice, I would strongly urge responders to take care to provide only responses which are backed up by reliable sources. This type of question shouldn't be met with personal opinions and anecdotes. Our articles on the topic at hand contain links to a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific studies; we should be helping the OP connect to that type of reliable information (and helping with interpretation of those sources for a lay audience) rather than 'shooting from the lip'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What's with threatening "administrative sanctions" when we are having a perfectly civil discussion here ? I've restored the answers, but not the question (I put it in one of those collapsed boxes so those trying to understand the answer can read it, though): [11] StuRat (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary and inappropriate to introduce the threat of administrative sanctions into this debate. I ask TOAT to withdraw it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Milkbreath, you've had a number of your deletions questioned here, and even Ten agreed that it went too far this time, so don't you think you're being a bit trigger-happy and should, in the future, discuss this type of thing before acting unilaterally ? StuRat (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. How's that shit working for you face-to-face in meatspace? To respond as plainly and neutrally as possible, I do not accept anyone's tutelage. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mockery and abuse is no way to respond to polite criticism. Algebraist 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but "How's that shit working for you..." sounds rather uncivil. (Please read the "This page in a nutshell" section on that link.) StuRat (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Trigger-happy" is not polite criticism—it's name-calling and an invitation to a flame war. You think that was mockery and abuse? I'm hurt that you think I'm so feeble and unimaginative. And to characterize my action as "unilateral" when the guidelines say to remove without consensus is gaming the rules and twisting words to do harm, especially on the project page as StuRat has done. @Stu, your attempt to snatch the upper hand at the least perceived weakening of your enemy's position is unworthy of an intellect like yours and would be answered where I come from, well, sternly. That's what I meant. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "a bit trigger-happy" is neither. My statement was polite, but your reply was not. Also note the 2nd nutshell point: "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", while your "I do not accept anyone's tutelage" comment seemed to say that you don't care what anyone else thinks. And calling an action performed by one party, without consensus or discussion with others, unilateral, is hardly "gaming the rules", it's the very definition of the term. The rules say that such a deletion can occur, at times, but that doesn't mean it's always the preferred option. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had experience with this sort of "conversation", and it's not my cup of tea. You're going to have to proceed without my input, I'm afraid. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested the following a long time ago (two years?) and it was, for the most part, completely ignored. This is a question that I think my proposal works well for...

When wondering "Is this a request for medical advice?", the question is not what we need to focus on. The focus should be on the answer. Can the question be answered completely without providing medical diagnosis or advice? There are two important parts to think about. The answer must not contain medical diagnosis or advice and the answer must completely answer the question. So, could this question be completely answered without providing medical advice or diagnosis? I believe so. Therefore, the question was not a request for medical advice. -- kainaw™ 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I was thinking much the same thing as kainaw, but lost the (EC) contest. The question is, well, questionable, but it can certainly be answered with providing medical advice. I support StuRat's reinstatement. Matt Deres (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC) _{That second sentence should read "...without providing medical advice..." D'oh! Matt Deres (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)}

I agree, but would also allow Q's that can be partially answered without medical advice. If someone asks "I have a pain in my side, could it be my appendix ? What is an appendix anyway ?", then we should link them to our article on the appendix, and refer them to a doc to determine if that's the prob. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to follow this approach in my response to this question, and that example also contains some other responses that went uncomfortably close (IMHO) to medical advice considering the context of the OP. Sometimes a careful response can lead others to loosen in follow-up. --Scray (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC again) @StuRat, while I agree that the question should be reinstated, it does not necessarily follow that it shouldn't have been removed. That also seems to be TOAT's position. If it's questionable, it should be removed and debated. If I've understood your earlier objections to similar removals, it seems that your main(?) concern is that removing the question insults the questioner and possibly drives them away so that even if the question is reinstated, they're unlikely to ever see it. Is that a fair summary? If so, how would you feel about a semi-templated message stating that their question was removed, that it is being discussed (provide a link to the talk page thread, so they can comment if they want), and that it will be reinstated shortly if it is found to be acceptable? I agree that our current method sounds rather final, when in fact the issue is still often up for discussion. Thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, yes, but I also think unilateral deletions should be left for clear-cut cases. When it's debatable, well, then their should be debate first. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the removal was reasonable while it was discussed, but the answer seems fine and can be restored. It is important that none of the answers on the ref-desk be perceived as giving medical advice, and in borderline cases it is probably better to remove and discuss than break the law and/or contribute to someone's ill health or death. I agree very much with Matt Deres, that a less final template might help it be more clear that MilkBreath acted appropriately without scaring away the borderline poster. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps removing the Q, yes, but the removal of the answers seemed completely inappropriate, as there was no hint of medical advice in them. Thus my solution, to remove the Q in the form of a collapsed box, but leave the answers. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I too see no harm in the removal and discussion and the eventual restoration Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The system worked. Milkbreath had a concern, and acted on that concern as he should. It was discussed and the consensus was it was safe to restore. Milkbreath acknowledged that, so no harm done. Yet we are still seeing accusations, arguments and other bad feeling spill over? Really guys, these predictable responses to every single medical question discussion, seem more to be about ego than the merits of any particular question. Thats said, I think Matt Deres suggestion about modifying the template is a good one. Rockpocket 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by PST

I've just undone an edit by PST on the maths desk. I've had enough of his constant harassment of people asking questions in good faith. I enjoy answering people's questions, whatever they may be, and I don't want people scared off by such pointless comments. PST, please stop or I will be taking further action. --Tango (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Would be a good idea to message him directly to draw his attention here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Already have done, but thanks anyway. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And please post some links and diffs here, so we can check it out. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the one I undid was this. It's an ongoing problem discussed a couple of sections up on this page. (Note, that diff is not particularly severe in itself, it's just the proverbial straw.)--Tango (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This section, to be precise. Algebraist 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I dropped the matter that Algebraist referred to by using a resolved tag. I did not intend to harass that IP; I just requested him/her to state his/her question in a mathematically correct manner (I reworded the OP's question: is that in some way insulting? I just wanted to make it clearer to the people at the ref. desk). I am not sure what further action you want to take against me: if you want me to stop editing, I guess I can leave since I edit this encyclopedia not in the interests of myself; but for others. Honestly speaking, I don't understand what is wrong in discussing a matter I feel about at this talk page (referring to the discussion that Algebraist just mentioned): after all I should be allowed to post my opinions here. If you look at that section, I certainly did not harass anyone; I have been harassed by far more people already (not people related to the reference desk, by the way). But as I said, if you want me to go away, I can; it is not in the interests of myself to waste time here for trivial matters.

PST 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The restatement of the problem seemed OK, but the accompanied text "If you are going to ask a question here, please take the time to state it in a mathematically correct manner" does come across as rude. A simple "Is this what you meant to ask ?", followed by the restated problem, would have been better. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I looked at the diff of the undo, and PST, you were bitey. I can tell you're trying, but you're not there yet. Just an impartial observer's input. We are agents of Wikipedia when we type in here, and we have to keep a certain polite distance, you know? To my mind, the bitey bit was "take the time" which accuses the OP of something like laziness. Treat the OP like a beloved niece, maybe. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, PST, totally unrelated to this conv, your signature has PST in black, instead of the usual blue link color, at least on my Firefox browser. That's confusing, as it doesn't appear to be a link. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's underlined, which is a pretty good clue. Plenty of people customise their signatures, at least he's using an actual sig now, try not to be too demanding! --Tango (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of information, it is not underlined in all browsers. --LarryMac | Talk 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry for being rude to the OP (which I am now starting to see) and from now on I will just answer questions rather than referring to removing posts. Sorry again. --PST 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Glad to have to aboard, then. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. Now we can get back to the fun bit of the job. :) --Tango (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The overriding issue here is that not all people who need to ask questions of a mathematical nature are mathematicians. In fact - you'd expect the opposite to be the case! So to ask a non-mathematician to state the problem in mathematical lingo is kinda silly. A HUGE part of the art of answering questions on the RD is figuring out exactly what the heck the OP was asking. It's also important to phrase your answer at about the level of the questioner. If they ask the question in a non-mathematical way - they probably won't understand a deep mathematical answer. So you have to find ways to say what matters in a level of language that the OP is going to find useful. It's sometimes annoying - but it is how the RD functions. SteveBaker (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Case in point a question on the maths desk about the elements in maths corresponding to basic units in physics like mass and length. I think it is an honest question. Sheesh... where did that one come from is my feeling, I can't see them phrasing that in mathematical language! Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bowei Huang update

For anyone who's watching, BH is at it again on the misc desk, here[12]. See the user's user page about a year ago[13]. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Question removed as trolling, and IP blocked for 31 hours.-gadfium 08:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how was 31 hours chosen? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 21:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the standard block lengths, and is often used for a first block on an IP address which may prove to be dynamic - some innnocent user may get the same IP address shortly afterwards. The time was chosen to avoid recurring behaviour from people who may edit at the same time every day. If you are interested in further exploring the reasons for the duration as a standard, rather than just in this particular case, you might like to ask at the help desk where I'm sure they can point you to previous discussions on the topic.-gadfium 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice? SciDesk "penicillin test"

Currently the newest Science Desk question is about a penicillin skin test, and it has drawn a response that could be summarized as "Do not think about attempting this -- you could have a fatal reaction." In other words, the answer might be taken as calling for seeking medical advice -- but it doesn't use those words, and it also gives some details that go beyond that.

I feel that the question and answer should be suppressed by policy, but I worry that if this happens, the questioner might think "Well, that was no use -- I guess I'll just try it." Whereupon the worst case is that he/she does have a fatal reaction that could have been avoided. So what do we do now?

(Having posted this here, I'm taking no further action myself.) --Anonymous, 07:29 UTC, January 21, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.104.133 (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say that you did a good job in posting here in many ways:

1) Posting your concern here in the first place was the right thing to do.

2) You provided good links, so we know what you're talking about.

3) The title of this section is neutral in tone, it doesn't claim that it is or isn't medical advice, just asks the question. You also included the approximate title of the Q in question, which is important.

4) You didn't perform any unilateral deletions in a case that isn't clear.

So, again, well done ! StuRat (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer given did say "ask your doctor to perform a skin test at an appropriate facility", so, under the interpretation where it is a Q for medical advice, he gave the correct response. He also answered some of the non-medical advice interpretations I've listed below. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, can this question be fully answered without a professional opinion? I don't believe so due to the "I" in the question. So the appropriate course would be to replace the entire thread with the template. The template would point the OP to a medical professional which is the best we can do.

It would have been more interesting to see what happens if the OP asked the same question hypothetically. "Can one perform penicillin skin tests with penicillin G?", for example. I believe current consensus would permit that. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I think that "i" was supposed to mean "one", but it said "i". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When doing a removal, please provide a link from their to the talk page discussion here. I've now added the link. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you want to delete it because of a typo ? StuRat (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Q stated "can i penicillin skin test with penicillin G?". This isn't proper English and could mean many things:

"Can I get information on the penicillin skin test with penicillin G ?" - A perfectly valid question.

"Can I have a penicillin skin test (performed by a doctor) with penicillin G ?" - A perfectly valid question, although it may depend on their location.

"Can I perform a penicillin skin test on myself (or others) with penicillin G ?" - This could mean, "can", as in, "is it possible ?", or "is it legal ?". Stating that it's physically possible for someone to give themself a skin test certainly doesn't mean we recommend it. Stating whether it is legal to do so in a given jurisdiction also doesn't constitute legal advice. It certainly doesn't mean "should I", as in "do you recommend this". We should thus ask for a clarification before removing it. I will ask for the clarification. StuRat (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it again. The reason for removing it in the first place remains unchanged, as did the question. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say to restore a question without consensus, I believe. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And nowhere does it say that anything should be unilaterally removed just because one person could possibly misinterpret it as Medical Advice (due to a typo, as you said earlier, or just a failure to understand what was asked, as I described above). StuRat (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Stating whether it is legal to do so almost definitely would consititute legal advice. There could be lots of confounding factors that you may not be aware of. That is precisely what we mean when we say legal advice Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think a simple "In most jurisdictions, it would be illegal for someone to perform such a test, as this would constitute practicing medicine without a license" would be OK. It's not giving them legal advice regarding a specific case, but rather describing the law in general. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood you then. I agree giving a general idea about whether it's likely to be legal is okay. However the question is already fairly specific and if you throw in a jurisdiction and ask if it's legal to do, it because a clear cut case of a request for legal advice IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it a third time per Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice#Dealing_with_questions_asking_for_medical_advice, part 2. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The applicable section is [14], since there is doubt, and no consensus has yet been reached. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be most appreciated if both of you would stopped edit warring over this. Let a consensus form and someone else make the change - whatever is decided. Rockpocket 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what an edit war is. I am removing a request for medical advice when I see it. I have no control over its appearing. I am trying to keep the refdesks clear in accordance with the guidelines. Please clarify your request; I don't know what you mean. I don't see myself as part of a "both of you", and I would be happy to let a consensus form in accordance with the guidelines which say that the question in, um, question stays gone while consensus is sought. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:EDITWAR should help. You have, as you note, "removed it a third time" which puts you rather close to being blocked for WP:3RR. I understand your caution when it comes to medical advice, and If you feel the question should stay gone while consensus is reached, but another editor repeatedly adds it back, then seek help. But its almost never advisable to revert multiple times yourself in response. Rockpocket 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but this isn't article space. I'm not reverting a contribution because of a difference of opinion, I'm protecting Wikipedia out where its soft parts are exposed to the harsh universe, and I'm not doing it in response. I'm pretty sure I don't feel anything—the guidelines say the question should remain gone, and for good reason. So, help. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is currently "gone" and I'm asking that neither you, nor StuRat, revert again. You have already exercised your interpretation of the guidelines three times, StuRat has exercised his twice. Nothing is going to be gained by repeating that pattern for more iterations. Let the discussion come to an end, and someone else can interpret the consensus and act on it. Rockpocket 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it was borderline. Since the first response was very measured and careful, I didn't see any major harm in leaving it up. That said, once it was removed, neither do I see much point in adding it back and risking less appropriate answers. In short, I don't really care, but find revert-warring over it to be entirely unconstructive. Sometimes its better to go with the flow, rather than fight one's corner on principle. Rockpocket 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though that wasn't the sort of help you seemed to be hinting was available as an alternative to continually removing the request for medical advice. Try to understand that I'm not fighting a corner, or anybody, for that matter, and I will not be painted with that brush. It wouldn't matter who put it up or when, it has to be gone for the good of Wikipedia and the refdesks. That's the principle at stake here, the good of Wikipedia, or why have guidelines at all? We don't have time to let things ride for a while here the way we do in an article, so I can't agree that going with the flow is ever right when the flow is approaching a waterfall. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Further help is available. Should anyone else repeatedly replace a request for medical advice then draw an admin's attention, and let them deal with it. I don't doubt you are acting in what you consider to be WP's best interest, but so is StuRat. The problem is you have differing interpretations of that. Why are you so convinced you are correct and he is not (and vice versa?) Isn't it possible that you made an error of judgement (or vice versa?) I think its fair to say that there was enough mitigating circumstances with this example that either of your interpretations could be justified, so rather than edit war over it, get a WP:3O. Rockpocket 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That's a corner of Wikiworld I hadn't known about. Thanks for that. If what we're seeing here is a matter of my being convinced that my interpretation is correct, then there is a major problem with the guidelines. I have few and narrow skills; I'm one of the fastest non-competitive walkers in the world, dogs love me, and I am one of the English-speaking world's best readers. I know what the guidelines say, and that's what I do. I can't speak for anybody else. And I can't stop myself from mentioning how much it sucks to be in the shit again for doing no more than obeying the fucking rules. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree a bit here, since I think that the RefDesks are a somewhat separate world within the overall wiki. We're one of the few places where people come to ask whether they should use a cutting torch to open a gasoline tank (RefMath and RefLang excluded, RefEnt as a possible location). As such, particularly RefSci and RefMisc, I'm comfortable with marching to a different beat, one that doesn't always conform to the wiki model of forming consensus. Legal and medical questions (and synthesizing addictive drugs, or say, refining a uranium purification process) are more likely to crop up here, and are more likely to be met with enthusiastic responses by anons and well-meaning regulars. We can make different rules here, it's our set of desks. To that extent, I think that this page is 3O, and I'm not sure whether a 3O reference will yield a response appropriate to the culture here.

Milkbreath, regardless of whether I think you did the right thing in this case, if you are thinking of the rules as "fucking rules", remember the most important rule: WP:IAR - ignore the fucking rules and do what you think is right. Stay cool while you do it and keep discussing. And remember that you are not the only saviour of the wiki. Symmetrically, StuRat, what's the deal where you think one single question is worth an edit war? Franamax (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a problem here, in questionable cases like this, where we never really reach a consensus that it's a request for medical advice. The Guidelines say that we should post here, discuss it, and only if such a consensus is reached, should we remove it. So, in cases where no consensus is reached, the Q should remain. However, instead we get people removing unilaterally, then posting here. Since there's never a consensus reached either way, the question remains deleted forever, and we end up with a deletion, in a questionable case, with no consensus to do so, in violation of the Guidelines. Or, even if a consensus is eventually reached to restore it, it's too late by then and the poster is gone. So, either way the person doing the unilateral deletion "wins", in violation of the Guidelines. Me restoring the Q myself, until such time as a consensus is reached, is the only way I know of to prevent this, since nobody else seems willing to restore it until a consensus is reached. Do you see another way ? StuRat (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Milkbreath, no need for swearing. I will try to see things from your perspective if you will try to see them from mine. You seem to think that any question which can possibly be interpreted as a request for medical advice, or even one that isn't but may result in answers which are medical advice anyway, must be removed immediately for the good of Wikipedia. Am I correct ? I, on the other hand, believe that, when in doubt, that is, when it isn't clear whether a question is a request for medical advice, we should be more cautious, post the concern here, wait for a consensus to develop, then act accordingly. I also believe that the Guidelines support me in this here: [15]. So, from my perspective, you are the one violating the Guidelines. Note that I'm not opposed to all Ref Desk removals, not even all unilateral removals, although I believe that option should be used only in the most clear-cut cases, which doesn't include this one. If you read the comments of others here, some say it may be medical advice, others aren't sure, so this isn't a clear-cut case. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry (again) StuRat, I'm with Milk on this one. Ignoring the nuance of phrasing and interpretation of the question, where the cannier posters are making attempts to circumvent the "advice" restriction, the response to the question makes clear the danger, but then goes on to quantify the danger. This leaves open the OP's interpretation, expressed as "Can I?", to decide that the risks are acceptable. That's not acceptable for us. Err on the side of caution sez I. Franamax (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with erring on the side of caution, but I see being cautious as "not antagonizing the posters without having fully established a need to do so". As noted above, this section of the Guidelines seems to support my view: [16]. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add another voice: I thought the worst aspect of this, by far, was the multiple reverts (and not the original question, though I think removal was reasonable). Specifically, I agree that removing the question after another editor has restored it is a revert - regardless of one's interpretation of policy - so that's when one should take a breath and work to determine consensus. Not a pretty episode, particularly when I respect the parties involved as mature editors. --Scray (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't mentioned in the guidelines, but it's true that this is often the most annoying and least productive form of carrying out a disagreement, in article space as well as on talk pages and also here. WP:LAME includes examples outside article space, I hope it will never include an example from here. As for obeying the guidelines, please remember that they are just that, guidelines. They aren't rules that must all be enforced at sight, though they can be, and I certainly don't blame Milkbreath for the first removal. I even agree with it, but the question wasn't so alarmingly dangerous that it needed to removed against another editor's expressed opinion and actions, without discussing first. Perplexion that the individual handling of questions doesn't always reflect what is written in the guidelines is understandable, but the majority here didn't even participate in formulating them, and I think they are sometimes overrated as enforceable rules. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not an edit war. I don't do that. I was applying the guidelines each time afresh. You say the guidelines are just that, guidelines, but that leaves us with anything goes; and I think that after something bad happens, something the guidelines were designed to prevent, something like a lawsuit or a death or massive negative publicity, this incident will look different in retrospect, and it will seem more like the guidelines must be observed. I'm not being Draconian, I'm not a Hitler (does a self-reference trigger Godwin's law?), I am using my common sense to protect Wikipedia, and I actually am starting to feel alone in this. If you (I mean the general "you") beat down people like me, who are you left with running things? But if the consensus is that anybody who wants to can post whatever they like on the reference desks, then so be it, and I'll relax. I have the sense not to answer trolls and advise idiots, so I'm in no danger. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, "each time afresh" ... that could apply to removing egregious cases of obvious vandalism or personal attacks, but not to the removal of a re-inserted question which falls into a category of remarkably fluid and wishy-washy dissensus. I don't like the word "edit-war" either, but factually it was one person re-inserting and one person removing, several times in a row. That is undeniably annoying.

There is no consensus that anybody who wants to can post whatever they like on the reference desk. That's just my view. I rely more on the majority of editors who have your sense not to answer trolls and not to give idiotic advice, than on nannying the desks. This doesn't mean removals are bad or never necessary. Please just talk about things, and don't treat the guidelines as some sacred codex. It could lead to interpretational schisms and ... erm ... (edit) wars. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be over, but I was the anon who answered the question (actually I'm User:Sifaka). I debated removing it per request for med advice. Regardless of the OP's intent, I decided to post an answer to dissuade the questioner under no uncertain terms should he attempt to skin test himself just in case he was intending to do it. I tried to answer just the question, while avoiding details on how to go about doing a skin test. I think maybe the real issue here is should some questions be answered, even if it goes against refdesk policy, because we want to prevent someone from doing something seriously harmful? I decided in this case that answering this question possibly against refdesk policy was worth it just in case this person actually was considering doing it. If someone asked on the refdesk about a painless way to commit suicide for instance, I would direct the questioner to suicide-prevention material just in case the questioner was actually considering it. I hope there will be discussion about policy and answering questions with the intent to keep someone from hurting themselves. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommending against doing something is advice, too. --Scray (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is advice, but I claim that directing someone to away from obviously hazardous activities is not medical advice but common sense. Consider the following made up example, a questioner asks about rock climbing and can he/she cut corners by skipping certain knots which are important fail-safes but not necessary for actual assent. A prudent answer would state that skimping on safety knots is a very bad idea, even if you don't strictly need them in order to climb, one should consult with a professional climber and always use proper safety protocol lest they court death. The same sort of situation occurred in this question, only it was in the context of biochemistry, not rock climbing. Should the two questions where someone who could be considering doing something obviously life threatening is advised otherwise be treated any differently based on subject matter?

I am divided on this issue, which is why I am hoping that a bunch of people could come together and discuss this. On one hand Wikipedia isn't anyone's nanny and there is potential legal risk involved. IANAL but it seems unlikely that if the questioner actually did a skin test and suffered medical repercussions they shouldn't be able to sue due to their question being removed. On the other hand it is morally responsible to warn people from unsafe courses of action with the hope that they will follow that advice and avoid injury to themselves. IANAL again but I doubt Wikipedia will find itself in legal risk for telling someone to seek a professional and not do something which is life threatening when a safe alternative readily exists (in this case seeking advice from a professional or going to the doctor for a skin test). I am keeping in mind this is a special black and white case. Wikipedia runs on good faith and free dissemination of the sum of human knowledge. In keeping with that spirit, I hope that it does not become so paranoid of potential legal repercussions that it censors itself and sacrifices its ability to act in a morally responsible manner. On the other hand I recognize that need for WP to protect itself from legal action so that it can continue to exist.

This is why I find this issue so troublesome and I wish we could get a community consensus and address it in the guidelines. Just for the record, I recognize the reasoning behind the decision to remove the question per guidelines. I don't however, feel that answering the question as I did was an incorrect course of action. I am glad that people have taken an interest in the matter. User:Sifaka as anon 152.16.15.23 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A regular here by the name of TenOfAllTrades has written an essay about this very question. It would be reinventing the wheel to start a discussion about this from scratch, without reference to that essay. There are a million factors involved. If I were to engage in such a discussion it would be to express my personal reason for not giving advice, not to recommend policy or debate possible ramifications. (I don't give medical advice because I'm not qualified to. Neither are you, by the way, and if you feel a slight sting at being told that, you needed to be told that.) --Milkbreath (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about Ten's essay. Thanks for pointing me to it. I am well aware I am not qualified to give out medical advice. I am more interested in the general issue of when, if ever, is it appropriate to answer a question that may be removed per refdesk guidlines telling the questioner they should absolutely not do whatever potentially very harmful thing the question is asking about when there is a possibility they are considering doing it. I am not specifically talking about medically related posts. User:Sifaka 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This started with a question about medical advice, and that's what the policy in question is about. You acknowledged (in the first few words of your previous post on this thread) that recommending against doing something "is advice". So, the policy says don't do that when we're talking about medical questions. In addition to the policy (which we should follow, for the reasons nicely discussed in User:TenOfAllTrades' essay), one problem I see with your logic is where it leads: the questioner will see one of two outcomes after asking for medical advice. If the proposed medical action is not dangerous (in the mind of an editor) then the question will simply be removed. If it is deemed dangerous (and remember, we're talking about a medical question, and thus medical advice) then the response will be an admonishment against that action. So, one could get an indication of how dangerous something is from the outcome of this decision - and we'll have another layer of judgment to discuss. While some (old-timers) may complain, "let's not re-hash this", I think relatively new users (myself included) gain useful insight by actively discussing it. It is appropriate to be reminded of past discussions so that we don't lose track of valuable insights. --Scray (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia couldn't be sued for failing to warn about something dangerous, even if some idiot OP assumes anything we don't warn about is safe (because we've warned about other dangerous things). Well, at least they couldn't win such a lawsuit; but, of course, anyone can sue anyone for anything, at any time. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Since the consensus here seems to be with regards to medical and legal questions to err on the side of removing offending questions, I'll favor removal rather than an answer to warn in the future. If the wording is ambiguous, I will request clarification or ask for more detail to I can better assess intent before removing the question or giving an answer. For non medical or legal topics, I will proceed with caution.

With regards to old users saying "let's not rehash this", I think it's exactly the opposite. In my case it is catching up with the times. I have been refdesking anonymously for 3+ years now (I lurked before I created User:Sifaka) and it has been interesting to watch the shift in the refdesking attitude change over time. When I started, medical related questions were often if not always answered and responses like the one I gave wouldn't have been unusual for the time. The shift towards removal has been a more recent phenominon, and I've had to adjust to be more strict to adhere to policy. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Computing: Defragmentation

Meta discussion from Computing:Defragmentation -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Diff here [17]Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - YOU DO NOT EVER EDIT OTHER PEOPLES POSTS - not for a joke - not for any reason, not at any time. It's an RD rule. SteveBaker (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we routinely edit other people's posts to remove e-mail addresses and fix obvious format errors (like 50 blank lines after their post). The rule is to never edit another's posts to change the meaning. And, since fixing spelling and grammar errors can do that, we don't do those corrections either. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe Steve's right but we're really good about applying IAR. --Scray (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that this problem occurs often enough that you need to YELL in big print to the entire reference desk instead of politely reminding users on their talk pages? Please try to resolve your concerns in a manner that doesn't reflect negatively on the Reference Desk. Thank you. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Context anyone? I've checked and I don't see the clues. Seeing SteveBaker once more make a completely accurate point doesn't really help me or anyone else to assess this situation. Franamax (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to side with Steve on this (not a big surprise given his track record). The OP on Computing asked a question, and as a "joke" a second editor inserted into the original post something suggesting that the s/he had removed the OP's SSN from the question. This was an (IMHO) very inappropriate edit of another's entry, and I thought Steve's response was appropriate and proportional. I thought the removal to this page was unnecessary. --Scray (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only partly side with Steve here. The diff is here [18]. Editing someone's post in that way is definitely inappropriate and should be reverted point blank and the person who modified it warned (and banned if they keep doing the same thing). However this case also highlights why I remain opposed to any attempts to completely ban editing someone else's post. If the OP had really posted a SSN I would either remove the post or remove the number depending on the circumstance (I would emphasise we have no way of knowing who's number is posted). Indeed I would probably go as far as to ask for it to be deleted or oversighted. And I consider this is supported by policy and practice not just on the reference desk but wikipedia wide and doubt there is any support to change it. In fact as someone pointed out, we regularly remove email addresses both here and other places (e.g. check out WP:HD) without controversy (the RD header itself says we will remove phone numbers, email address and RL addresses!). Clearly then this is a site-wide issue and if Steve really believes there is support for site wide policy, he should take it to WP:VPP where I expect it is liable to be shot down rather fast to be frank. P.S. I have warned people about editing posts before so I do take editing posts inapproriately seriously in case it isn't obvious. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, now I finally understand what happened here. I agree that it's a bad joke and certainly isn't a valid reason to edit other people's posts, but also agree that there are times when it's necessary to edit the posts of others, such as when the format makes them completely unreadable. StuRat (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that the original "joke" was contrary to our guidelines; my concern is the response. There are proper channels to politely correct a user, none of which include yelling on the Reference Desk. Even if there is a good justification for correcting one user's behavior on the Reference Desk, *this* correction was confrontational and inaccurate (the guidelines specifically except certain edits of comments and we routinely perform other edits as well). If the intention was to set policy then there are proper channels for that as well, again none of which include yelling on the Reference Desk. In short, "Don't yell on the Reference Desk." -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, meta-discussion belong here, not there. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's a joke, it's not even funny. I agree that screaming isn't appropriate either. I would also add that if I wasn't already familiar with Steve Baker, I'd think he was a raving lunitic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but some of my best friends are raving lunatics. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get it!! Joke not funny, don't do it again. I get it. But next time I'm being screamed at on somewhere other than my talk page, could someone please notify me? flaminglawyer 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'd say whoever posts here first has that responsibility. StuRat (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While that's where the primary responsibility lies, I feel bad about not checking Flaminglawyer's Talk page to ensure that a notice had been posted - the absence of a response should have prompted this. I'll try to be more considerate in this regard. --Scray (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a bit less obvious to do so because this wasn't an official talk page discussion. It was taking part on the RD/C (where I would have seen it eventually, so didn't need a notice) but got moved here (which I never check, and only came to because of a note on the section that said "moved to talk page"). So it's not entirely anyone's fault. flaminglawyer 05:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I moved it here because I didn't think it belonged on the RD proper (not a big fan of extreme public chastisement), but I neglected to inform you. I had hoped we might agree that the response was *not* the way to address problems on the RD, but I neglected to make that clear up front, which resulted in a series of complaints about your "joke" instead. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith questions

Just to let everyone know, I uncovered someone asking questions in apparent bad faith, partly using sock puppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vr for details. The questions were Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 December 1#Most educated person and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 January 12#Copolovian Mischief. I don't think there's much to do now, unless people want to delete the Copolovian Mischief question which I won't object as it appears there is no real useful discussion there. But if any future question mysteriously leads to Ashok/a Prasad I suggest people investigate. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed lyrics

I removed song lyrics, which were bulky, not particularly relevant, and inserted by the editor without comment, from the Science RD. I have not encountered this particular situation before, so I thought I'd float it here. --Scray (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to change the way you did that since at the moment it looks a bit like 82 removed the lyrics (thats what I thought had happened). Otherwise you did the right thing because the lyrics are almost definitely copyrighted and including the entire lyrics would likely be a copyvio Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I removed the IP's sig and put in my own. I'm still a WP newbie, even after a year! --Scray (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded Q talk pages

I've noticed a problem: When I edit a Q on the Ref Desk, if it's a transcluded Q, then I'm really editing an archive page. That's fine, but if I then try to go to the talk page from there, it's the talk page for that archive, which is always blank. I know how to navigate back here, of course, but some newbies might be confused. So, is there a way we can automatically redirect all Ref Desk archive talk pages here ? I imagine a bot would do this, when each archive page is created. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing but it never really occured to me that it could be problematic but you have a good point. I don't see any problem with doing this, you may want to ask Steve Summit (maintainer of the RD bot) directly although he does check out the talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK: Steve, does this sound like a reasonable addition to the archive bot ? StuRat (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It'd be easy enough to have the bot do that. It seems like kind of a waste, although I suppose with as many pages as Wikipedia has, that's pretty much a moot point.

Let's get some other opinions: what do other people think? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere in a policy/guideline page that redirects take up so little space, there's no reason not to put them in. StuRat (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's relatively easy to do, go for it. I don't see any problems with it at all, redirects are ridiculously tiny. Belisarius (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, redirects are cheap. If the bot – and, more important, its minder – don't mind setting it up, then I can't see any way it would be harmful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above, redirects cost nuthin' at all. The b-tree still has to be traversed to find a non-hit just the same as a hit, and overall growth of b-tree traverse is exponentially less than growth in b-tree entries. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, B-trees :) Sweet flashbacks to my misspent youth reading computer science textbooks. Also, the B-tree doesn't have to be traversed at all if someone doesn't actually try to go to the page, which I imagine isn't all that common. The only concern really would be harddisk-space, and that's just silly. Our little discussion here has taken up basically as much harddrive space as all of those tiny redirects ever will (well, not really, but it's in the same order of magnitude) Belisarius (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point is that we aren't generally supposed to worry about performance anyway. Sure if we were planning to create 1 million redirects in a few days we probably should ask the developers first but I don't think this is the same order of magnitude so unless the devs say don't do that, we don't have to worry. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Steve, I think we have a good consensus here to add this change. Can you please implement this for us ? No hurry, whenever you have the time. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Turned out to be pretty easy. About five lines of code, and (drum roll please) it worked the first time! <takes bow>

If I was really energetic I'd go back and create the redirects for all the extant pages, but... maybe another day. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the bot improvement ! StuRat (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

sock puppet drama

There are several questions that appear to be sock puppet plays by one user (example diff). Should we remove these from the reference desk, or just allow them to be archived? -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's sock puppets. Your diff appears to show one user adding comments (to himself) under an anon I/P. However, I've seen a Wikipedia bug before where edits are mis-attributed to other users. This may be that same bug rearing it's ugly head again. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me when I say this isn't a jump. I posted one diff as an example; anyone who's curious can easily find others. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think this will happen again as the user in question has been made aware that sock puppetry/IP-role play can be detected from the page history. Medical and legal questions are removed, but I don't see any harm in keeping these threads in the archives (with {{unsigned|Real username or IP}} tags perhaps, to avoid confusion in the future?) –Capricorn42 (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My main thoughts were that the threads were vandalism (of a sort), unlikely to prove useful to others, and that they might encourage future misbehavior. But I suppose there is little harm in letting them float away into archive oblivion. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a point, I'm archiving the Adrenal gland thread at least- offtopic trolling, still receiving undue attention. Distracting. –Capricorn42 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, did he give himself a Barnstar? Matt Deres (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As well as asking himself whether he is a student of computer science; he replied (to himself, of course) that he is a student of something else. He also congratulated himself a few times. --PST 08:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to strike my own comment above after looking at this. :/ –Capricorn42 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Block him and get over it is my advice. It seems that, rather than improving this encyclopedia, he wants to get himself a good name (and he is wasting his time). Block his account (for 48 hours) and all sockpuppet accounts indefinitely. Hopefully he will learn his lesson after his "time out". --PST 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the place to ask, but with sock-puppeteering to this level, is there a Captain Queeg thing going on with some people? Seems bizarre, -- Julia Rossi (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He has gone and given a barnstar to Algebraist (this user is certainly not his sockpuppet) just to "hush him down from the drama" (algebraist participated in the same discussion mentioned by User:Capricorn42). In his barnstar, he called algebraist "sir" (the point is, that this is clearly not what he meant). --PST 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? If the sock puppetry is disruptive then report him to the admins. Merely updating the RD community with his latest antics seems like a violation of WP:DENY. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My POV, but it's not the same as interacting with the socker, and hopefully this is the place to discuss stuff. Updating may not heed WP:Deny, but (from my reading) doesn't violate anything since it's an essay, not a rule. I could be wrong. While it does give the person indirect attention, it also informs people like me and I wouldn't pick it up otherwise. My eyes are open now, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started to decide whether or not to remove the sock threads, but probably went bit off the track with the 'latest updates'. WP:SSP if anything like that shows up again. –Capricorn42 (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, that's not what I meant. I don't object to this thread insofar as it informs the RD users of this issue (or discusses whether to remove the threads). I just think that giving updates whenever the user awards another barnstar will only encourage him to continue his behaviour. Also, leaving notes directly on his talk is a bit better since it gives the admins some fuel if this ever goes down to a block. And as a loose "rule", WP:DENY can be useful. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken Zain – a block is needed. Would an admin accept the record here? Btw, he created an article I've put up for speedy delete but ticked the wrong box. You'll see the reasons on the talk page of Bhaktababa and left a notice on his talk page. *help* Julia Rossi (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I just gave more evidence of bad behaviour so that people know what is going on with this. But it is quite clear that he has no intentions in improving this encyclopedia; even after we have requested him several times on his talk page. Maybe we should block account creation from his IP adress (indefinitely; he can request an admin if he wants to create another account, and in that case, people will be aware of it), and block him for 1 week (give him some "cool down time"). --PST 10:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. *whew* Julia Rossi (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcomed Anirban16chatterjee to Wikipedia. We were all new users once and I think that it might be still possible to change his attitude towards Wikipedia. Let us just give him one more chance. Although we have persistently warned him to stop it (and he denies that he ever did anything), forgetting about the incident may give him the oppurtunity to start constructive work. But as I said, anymore bad behaviour will result in a 1 week - indef. block. I think that we should indef. block account creation but if bad behaviour persists, block the user for 1 week. --PST 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Were I an admin, I'd hit this fool with a banhammer so he didn't wake up till next week. Which is just one of the reasons why I'm not an admin. Nevertheless, we don't do "votes", WP is not a democracy; nor is this the place for that level of discussion. WP:AN/I would probably be more appropriate. --LarryMac | Talk 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the voting per WP:DEMOCRACY. But let us just stay cool. I strongly agree that a block is the only option at this stage, but what harm can he do if we block account creation from his IP adress? This may allow him to edit constructively, at least. --PST 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: He seems to have agreed to edit constructively. But anymore nonsense will result in an indef. block for certain (no need to discuss). --PST 17:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering how many of us as new users were sock puppet factories? I'm giving this one a big miss since he started a non-notable article and seems set to last. I'm with Larry Mac on this one.  :/ Julia Rossi (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah: I think users like this should be politely (but firmly) removed without hesitation. I'm on a wikibreak so could someone inform an admin? We shuld stop this silliness right away with an indef. block. --PST 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've approached an admin, User:Acalamari unless it's under way already. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something which should have been done much earlier instead of being lenient. My bad <> –Capricorn42 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I don't think that any further action is warranted at this time. If we'd wanted to block him we should have done so earlier, instead of requesting (rather frequently, I thought) that he behave. To apply punishment after the fact for a matter settled through other channels seems vindictive and unlikely to benefit Wikipedia. I suggest we allow this matter to rest, unless he persists in clearly disruptive behavior, at which point sanctions are clearly warranted. (Adding marginally notable articles doesn't count as "clearly disruptive"; the normal deletion process can take care of them.) – 74  21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to have another perspective, but "other channels" are not effective either. He's now making his saint a sock of other saints and getting support for his article and at the deletion page, so it doesn't look like the process is taking care of it. I've asked a couple of admins now, that's all I can do. I guess I feel it's unjust when other people get checked easily and other articles are deleted without all this fuss. And the amount of attention must be very satisfying to say the least. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude but we should stop gabbling on here. Block him or unblock him: let the admin decide. --PST 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedantry run wild

A poster asked a science question about whether one could estimate the mass of dice by rolling them or something along these lines. Because he/she did not quite get the grammar right to some responders standards there ended up being a long, distracting, and pedantic discussion of whether or not one is allowed to call it "a dice" or whether one must instead call it "a die". I hid this unrelated and distracting dissection of grammar as it had absolutely nothing to do with helping the poster and was based entirely on a simple and common error by a non-native English speaker. Just letting everyone know. I think the tendency of Ref Deskers to get sidetracked into pedantry is one of the most idiotic things that occurs on here. This is not a cleverness contest, and it is not clever to correct grammar, anyway. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure it's a cleverness contest (well, it's a contest between our cleverness and the OPs' curiosity more than between our clevernesses, I guess), although I agree, arguing about grammar is hardly the best way to show how clever you are... Hiding it was a good call. --Tango (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me either way. There is a language desk where stuff like that happens all the time, but I agree it's bad form to get into the OP's language skills unasked. But I don't think any harm was done here, by the amok pedants or by you. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the pedants couldn't even agree with each other, I would hope the OP didn't feel bad about it! --Tango (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an error by the OP, he was entirely correct in his usage of dice as a singular. The OP has joked about the discussion, and mentioned that one of the reasons he uses the English-language Wikipedia (he is not a native-speaker) is to improve his English. He has also said (in the thread) that he found the linguistic discussion interesting. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the OP has gone out of their way to say they found the discussion interesting, there seems to be no problem here. Algebraist 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) In my opinion, people should just answer questions and stop there (just the answer/method/help and nothing unrelated). It seems that most of the time, people get distracted from the basic goal. For instance, if I were to ask what 1 + 0 was, I would expect to get answers including the concept of a group (or a ring) and that's just a trivial question... --PST 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you were to ask what 1 + 0 was you'd probably be reverted as a troll. Still, I agree that answering the question should be the priority, but after that I see no harm in further exploration of any aspect of the original question, including going slightly into pedantic discussion - that's what gives the RD such character; it would be very dull if people just answered the question and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When this happens in future - I'd recommend that when a side discussion starts to derail the original question (as it certainly did here) that the derailed part of the thread be moved down below the 'real' answers and given it's own sub-heading (eg === Comments on the use of 'dice' versus 'die' ===) in order that the on-topic replies are not lost. Quite often, interesting side topics develop long after the OP's question has been adequately answered - and that's less of a problem because a chronological reading of the thread still make sense. But in this case, there was a very real chance of the OP never getting a proper reply. Fortunately, it worked out OK this time - but that's not always going to be the case. 72.183.123.248 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really like that idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Please would an administrator edit Wikipedia:Reference desk so that the sub pages are in the same order as listed in the sub pages them selves. That is change from "Comp, Science, Maths, Misc, Hum, Lang, Ent, Archives" to "Comp, Science, Maths, Hum, Lang, Ent, Misc, Archives". Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

An admin is not needed. The relevant page, Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header, is only semiprotected. Algebraist 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I'll do the edit then. -- SGBailey (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like this. I guess I (and everyone else) will adjust, but was this change really necessary? I'm so used to automatically clicking on the language desk's icon (which is now the entertainment desk) that I end up accidentally going there every time now... -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"'Switch to Linux' answers"

At the computing desk, in the context of helping somebody to decide whether to reinstall Windows XP or install Windows Vista; and in response to my bemused observation that unsolicited reminders of the existence of alternatives to Windows are always frowned upon by most people who answer questions, the following popped up:

"Switch to Linux" answers are almost always useless. If a (potential) poster already uses Linux, it's very unlikely that they would be asking their OS-question here in the first place. If they don't use Linux, they probably don't want to or know how. By "use" I mean "have used for a while". --wj32 t/c 05:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I rush to agree that most people who don't use Linux neither want to use Linux nor want to know how to use Linux. But a lot of people who use Windows don't particularly want to use Windows (or know much about how to use it). At least in my part of the world, it's the default, and something that only a minority of people deliberately choose: in stores, Mac OS X is ghettoized, while it's extremely difficult to buy a computer for personal use with Linux or some other alternative already installed (or indeed with nothing already installed).

A computer that can run Windows can also run an alternative to Windows. I've no burning desire to turn people away from Windows; indeed, I'm contentedly using Windows 2000 (on a circa-eight-year-old computer) at this very moment. However, I think that Linux has certain pluses (as well as minuses) compared with Windows, and these are why I'd never dream of using Windows on my main computer (Kubuntu, as it happens), although I of course respect your judgement in using Windows (or whatever) on yours. My desire to be helpful leads me to think that questioners should be informed of all options that are likely to satisfy if these add up to a small number, and that Linux is very often one of three or four such options. Have I got something wrong here? -- Hoary (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC) (One disastrous typo fixed Hoary 12:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Switching to Linux is not a solution, because it creates more problems than it solves. They have to migrate their applications and their data, and go through a traumatic installation experience that may not work at all. If someone complains about a simple error message, for example, it would be irresponsible and rude to tell them to remove all of their programs (which most people pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for) in order to use something that they may not like. From my perspective, it seems as if you're telling them to go to hell. I'm not joking about that. You're also hijacking the thread. That's why I don't go around interrupting other conversations on the Reference Desk to tell Linux or Mac users to switch to Windows. But most importantly, try to answer their question. If they ask about switching to Linux, go ahead. But if they ask about fixing a problem in Windows, then tell them how to fix their problem in Windows, if you know the solution.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response surprises me. I've had two Linux installation experiences; each took about the same time as it took to install Windows, and was entirely trauma-free. "Migration of data" was as simple as it would be from one installation of Windows to another. (Indeed, it was the exact same procedure: copy to external hard drive; copy from hard drive.) There was little "migration of applications": OOo under Linux reads files created by OOo under Windows (and of course Mozilla is the same anywhere); although, accustomed to Take Command, I did have to read up a bit about bash. My mention of Linux wasn't in response to a complaint about "a simple error message"; it was a question posed by somebody whose Windows installation seems irrecoverable: he or she was asking which of two version of Windows should be used to replace it. I'm most surprised to learn that my mention of a third alternative (or fourth, as somebody else brought up "Windows 7") was a hijack of the thread and "telling them to go to hell". -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary with Linux. It really depends on your background, the distribution, and the release you choose. Some releases of certain distributions may be bug free. Others have problems. Some distributions are on the whole not very good. In general, I don't recommend Linux to anyone who isn't a computer aficionado and who won't research it ahead of time. If I do recommend it, I usually advocate a dual-boot setup, as it's pretty hard to go without Windows entirely. That's what I do. I dual-boot Windows XP and openSUSE on my desktop. My first experience with Linux was with Ubuntu 6.06. It was very traumatic for me, even though it was a dual-boot setup. If it was just Linux, it would have been even worse. My printer, scanner, wireless card, Real Player, etc., didn't work. (A new user could also accidentally destroy the data on their Windows partition.) So, I went back to the drawing board, researched different distributions extensively, and settled on openSUSE. (Keep in mind, though, that there have also been problematic SUSE releases.) Thus, I wouldn't recommend Linux to anyone who isn't comfortable with using Google, using a command shell, and who understands their computer and Linux reasonably well. Forgive me, but I also find your personal story hard to believe. You switched to Linux a while ago (over 8 years ago?). From what I've heard, Linux was much harder to use back then. Hardware recognition was much worse, for one thing. It's still not perfect, and I've had more issues with hardware inside Linux than Windows, even for the latest releases. It's getting better, but I still don't think it's beginner-friendly.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Different distributions tend to be for different kinds of people or different uses. I wouldn't recommend Gentoo, let alone Linux from Scratch (not that I've had any experience of either). Most people agree that the latest releases termed stable of Ubuntu and its derivatives (Kubuntu, etc) are pretty easy to deal with and, well, stable. Of course hardware can be an issue, but I've had no need for a scanner or wireless card, and the particular version of Linux I've used has always recognized the printer as some (perhaps much earlier, but anyway compatible) version of "LaserJet". Distant memories of dual-booting English- and Japanese-language Win95 (whichever I was using, I wanted to be in the other) mean that I avoid dual-booting; when I first installed Linux (then SuSE), I got rid of Windows. Luckily my employer had also lent me a Windows laptop that I could use for Paint Shop Pro. (Sorry I forgot PSP earlier in this thread.) I believe that every Linux installation procedure asks (in everyday language understandable by normal humans as well as computer aficionados) whether existing OSes (such as Windows) should be retained or zapped. (What it doesn't do, or didn't the last time I tried, but should do is give particularly good advice about partitioning for its own use.) I don't remember when I set up SuSE, but it was less than eight years ago: Win2k was getting old and I think XP was already out. Most people I know (who may of course be quite unlike those you know) use their computers for the web, mail (which itself increasingly means the web), things that an "office suite" does, and some sort of cataloguing of their photos; photo cataloguing aside, using Firefox and OpenOffice on Linux is the same as using Firefox and Open/NeoOffice on anything else. I do realize that many printers are exclusively designed for Windows and that other hardware can be problematic too. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it is valuable to provide alternatives, including Linux, when appropriate. If the user is complaining about Windows auto-updating their clock, suggesting a switch to Linux would be inappropriate. If the user is requesting advice on which operating system to purchase, I believe politely suggesting Linux as an alternative is quite acceptable. – 74  12:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indicating the general alternative is useful, but Hoary - you're not taking into account the full financial and knowledge investment the user already has as a sunk cost. If you've paid for Excel or AutoCad and you have the disk and the license key, and you already know how to use it - that's worth more than a new PC with the Windows OS pre-installed. (And d-uhh, XP not Vista :) For the vast majority of people, computers are only worth their usage, not their awesomeness.

So, yes, awareness is good. But tech-savvy and free-software finding savvy (Linux) versus load-and-go, load more, pay more, load more, virus, load more, crash, reload (Windows) - that's a tradeoff the user has to make, it depends what they're trying to accomplish. Franamax (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to inhabit different universes here. When I only used Windows, I used on it XyWrite, shareware whose cost totalled under $200, and software that was free as in beer (and often as in speech too). Much of the latter also runs on Linux and OSX. The typical computer user I talk to -- who I don't claim to be typical of computer users in general -- uses Windows and its components, and (because it was pressed on her as a necessity by the salesman) MS Office and one or other "antivirus" program, and that's it; she hasn't even heard of OpenOffice or Linux. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why there is value in reminding someone who is in a quandry about how to replace computer and/or OS that there is a viable alternative. Linux is a 100% practical proposition - I run nothing else at home and have had a hand in shipping thousands of Linux computers to the US military for the demanding job of doing flight simulation & training. So if someone is dithering between WinXP, Vista and Windows7 - it certainly doesn't hurt to remind them that there are alternatives. However, in response to a problem like "My realtime clock doesn't tell the right time" or "I have a virus, what should I do" - it's not a very helpful response. It's also appropriate (given Wikipedia's roots) to point out free alternatives to things like Internet Explorer, Photoshop, etc - where that makes sense given the context of the question. But this is not an advertising forum and we should only do this when the question demands it rather than as a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of issue. 72.183.123.248 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If a chap asks you how to change the fan belt on his Ford, you don't answer by saying "Buy a Vauxhall". DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I had nothing but trouble with my last Ford, and I finally just sold it for scrap. I need a new vehicle; which should I buy, an Escape or an Edge? (Is it bad that I had to Google for a second Ford SUV?) – 74  19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment wasn't aimed at replacing the whole thing but a parts repair. You wouldn't suggest buying a whole new vehicle when you need to replace a fan belt.

In general, switch to Linux answers almost always ignore the context in which the user operates. Linux is a perfectly viable option, but for most users it's not a practible one. Sunk cost, application knowledge, business environment they may be in, technical knowledge, availability (and maybe more importantly, usability) of technical resources all need to be factored into an o/s decision. Those contexts are rarely considered in the "switch to Linux" answers. It's fine to be evangelical about your operating system preferences, but you need to cut it with real world user needs. RxS (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And I wouldn't recommend replacing your OS when your timezone setting is incorrect; are we talking about the same thread here? It's true all your Ford widgets won't work in that new Vauxhall, but look! The Vauxhall comes with a trunk full o' Vauxhall widgets for free! Anyway, as I said above, I see nothing wrong with presenting options when appropriate (the user is quite free to ignore any advice that they don't understand/agree with). Yes there are non-zero switching costs for Linux, Leopard, etc., but there are also non-zero switching costs to upgrade to Vista, or even to reinstall XP (a user that is unable to transfer their documents to Linux is probably also unable to preserve them during an XP reinstall). I'm not particularly evangelical, but I do believe in options. (And the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.) – 74  20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this thread, in which the question is basically in what circumstances is the answer "switch to Linux" useful. In this thread, the context is XP vs Vista. Answering that question by suggesting Linux is not helpful. Outside of that context, if you already know how to use the free widgets that come with the Vauxhall, that's great. But if other people that also need to use them don't know how, or if other widgets that need to work with them don't, or if help documentation aren't as freely available or easy to use then they aren't really free. The sunk cost aspect is only one of the contexts I mentioned that make the switch to Linus answer more complicated/unhelpful. Anyway, for whatever it's worth people rarely admit to acting evangelical about something (outside the church ;) By the way, you responded to a comment based around a fan belt by expanding it to the whole car and basing your comment on that, which makes it pretty irrelevant RxS (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Hoary actually suggested that the OP switch to Linux - he merely pointed out that saying "switch to Linux" "isn't allowed" here under those conditions. --wj32 ^t/c 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Wj32. Yes. Sorry to repeat myself here, but while sporadically looking at answers to "Windows-specific" questions over the past few months, I've got the impression that it's possible to divide very many of them very crudely into two kinds: (i) "please help me with this minor irritation" (the broken fanbelt in the Ford) and (ii) "please help me with this major disaster" (the engine seizing in the Ford). (NB I'm not being critical of Windows [or Ford] here. One can divide OSX and Linux and *BSD [and Vauxhall] questions similarly. People do also have more or less "academic" questions -- indeed, I very recently asked one about OSX installation myself -- but they seldom ask about their satisfaction.) For (i), mention of an alternative to Windows seems otiose, although on rare occasion I suppose it might be useful. By contrast, (ii) seems to be "It's broke, so tell me WtF I should do." Now, if what's broken includes, or needs to run, AutoCAD or other goodies totaling kiloquid, then of course FreeBSD or whatever would not be helpful. But the questioners rarely say this, and my own impression is that such people don't account for a high percentage of computer users. I can agree with the general thrust of most of the responses above, but I'm still puzzled by a rule (stated or unstated) whereby options not specifically asked about should go unmentioned, and by K;;m5m's "From my perspective, it seems as if you're telling them to go to hell. I'm not joking about that" (above). -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)