Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 108

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110 → Archive 115

Instructions for species ID requests

Hi all, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to include a brief section in our header about species ID requests. As you know, we get a decent amount of these "what's this bug/flower/etc" questions, e.g. this one today [1]. Rarely do posters give us all relevant info they have, often I think due to ignorance of what type of information is helpful, or forgetting that we all aren't in their region of USA this summer. Sometimes the OP comes back to clarify, but often they don't. So, if there's a rough consensus that this would (marginally) help without adding undue clutter, I'd propose something like this:

Are you asking for identification of an unknown plant or animal?
  1. If possible, post a photo to Wikimedia commons (additional close/far photos also help).
  2. If known, describe where in the world the specimen was observed, and what time of year
  3. Additional features such as size estimates and specific location are also helpful (e.g. garden, park, rural, urban, etc)
- Adding as much information as possible to your question will help us give you better and more timely answers.

Any thoughts? I know there has been a revision of the header to keep it shorter, but I think these few lines would help at least some askers get better answers. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No. There are not enough such requests to justify such a specific addition to the header. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion, how many would be enough? I don't have time for thorough searching, but we've had two today, and I'd estimate about 10/month for the past few months. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should be giving any such specific instructions, regardless of how many cases there are. There's also plenty of "ID this piece of music/film" questions over on Ents, but I don't think we need guidelines on how such questions should be phrased either. It just puts questioners off. Let the specifics be teased out in the course of the thread. --Viennese Waltz 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The header can have a link to a new subpage called Wikipedia:Reference desk/Advanced instructions for asking questions or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Advanced asking. Someone can develop it gradually in user space (with other instructions besides those involving species identification) until it has enough content to be copied to project space.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The solution is simple. When someone asks to identify a species, song, film, person, whatever, if you want to help out, but you don't have enough to go on, politely ask the OP for new information. If you do NOT want to help out, then do nothing and let someone else help. I don't see why that is a burden. --Jayron32 16:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I've been doing. I only ever post here if I want to help and think I can provide useful information. Today, I got a clarification from OP, but requests for further info are often ignored for whatever reasons. I don't think it's a burden; my main motivation was to help askers get better/quicker answers (I tried to make that clear). I understand that many askers wouldn't notice or follow the instructions. I understand that many here think the idea is not terribly useful. What I don't understand is the resistance, as though having a few extra lines in the header would cause some sort of problem. WP is not ink after all... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're trying to help, but the problem is, human nature, almost no one reads the header already, and making it longer (no matter how well-intentioned) only gives people more of a reason not to read it. So yes, there's a reluctance to provide more instructions there.
My own opinion is that, in the end, for the most part we can't tell people how to ask questions. We have to let them ask them their own way, even though that'll usually be a suboptimal way, even though we're often going to have to ask followup questions (which they often, maddeningly, won't answer). It's all just part of the price of admission for answerers. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(after edit conflict, slightly redundant) I suppose it's not about the cost of ink, but about fewer people reading the header, the longer it becomes. A la instruction creep. As VW pointed out, song or film requests too often lack relevant information that would have been available, while questions on law or politics often leave out the relevant region or jurisdiction (sometimes leading to tedious discussions on cultural bias), etc.
I'd prefer Wavelength's suggestion for those diligent guests who would like to read all about how to ask different types of questions in detail before phrasing and posting hem. (Even now, despite the header's current brevity, we still get plenty of questions asking for medical and legal advice, questions asking for our opinions, predictions and debate, homework questions, and so forth). --Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The biggest problem really is when the OP doesn't bother following up, to answer questions triggered by his question. At that point, it's fair to assume the OP doesn't really care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But that's really not a problem, is it? (Let alone the biggest one.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's only a problem if you consider answering questions to be worthwhile. If not, then no problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the OP fails to behave in a worthwhile manner in that case, or that the would-be answerer does? (No, never mind, don't answer that; this will almost certainly be a worthless line of debate.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The "never mind" is fine, as I don't really understand your comment anyway. Answer me this: If the OP does not want the question answered, why should ref desk users try to answer it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
They shouldn't. No problem. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This page wants to pretend it's like a library ref desk. SemanticMantis asks if there's something we can do to help the OP formulate the question in a better way so that the OP can get a better answer. The problem scenario is like if a guy walks up to the ref desk librarian and hands them a blurry photo and asks "What's this?" and then walks away and never returns to help the librarian answer the question. So the librarian asks other librarians and they spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out the answer - but lacking any further input from the OP, it's just kind of left hanging. According to Summit, that's perfectly fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem in your last scenario, if you ask me, exists entirely with the librarians! —Steve Summit (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, their problem, for assuming good faith on the part of the OP. How silly of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Silly rabbit, no, their problem for wasting time (presumably to the detriment of other deserving patrons) and raising their own ire by working fruitlessly on an unanswerable problem that doesn't deserve and doesn't need an answer! Why should they make trouble for themselves in this way? (And why should you want to try to transfer their problematic behavior to us here?)
Others have tried to explain this and not gotten through, so I don't really expect to either, but here's the argument one more time:
If someone comes here seeking help, and you really want to help them, but they are so incoherent in their original question, and/or so absent in their response to your clarifying questions, that it's impossible to answer them with any clarity, it seems to me you have two choices:
  1. Walk away and find something else to do.
  2. Hang around and complain that their incoherence is a problem for us to worry about.
It's your choice. But note that there's only a problem in (2) -- there's no problem (no problem!) in (1). So it's your choice whether there's a problem or not. So in the last analysis, if there's a problem, it seems to me it's your problem. [belatedly signed] —Steve Summit (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You're blaming the victims. Why am I not surprised by that? P.S. Sign your posts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating! Where did that word victim crop up from just now? Because if I'm blaming the victim, that means you're playing one! Thank you very much. That helps a lot. I don't know why I never made that connection before. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. I am no one's victim. The librarians in my scenario are the victims. They assumed good faith in a bad-faith questioner, and when they made a good-faith effort to no avail, in your opinion it's somehow their fault. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't there some way I can be blamed for this? μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It's all your fault. I'm not sure what "it" is, but that's just a detail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments everybody. It seems the consensus is against my proposed addition. I may take up the idea to sandbox an "advanced instructions" to link on a separate page. Regarding the discussion above about the relationship to real-life ref desks: In my opinion, we have one crucial difference, and that is that our material is archived indefinitely. So e.g. this recent example of dragonfly ID [2] could be useful to any number of people in the future, not just the OP. This is part of why it's frustrating when an OP won't come back with more info. Sure, they might not care anymore, but now I might care to know the answer to an interesting question, and many others might find the info useful as well. Anyway, I'll consider this matter resolved for now. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually I would be OK with adding something short about this. But it should definitely be helpful advice, not policy. The reason for giving the instructions in advance is that indeed the OP may never come back to clarify, or do so only after someone has already put more effort in than was necessary. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Answers without references

Thread retitled from "I'm really not savoring the potential for acrimony in bringing this up again, but it needs to be addressed...".
I am revising the heading of this section from I'm really not savoring the potential for acrimony in bringing this up again, but it needs to be addressed... (attitudinal information) to Answers without references (topical information), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stu, I feel compelled to reiterate to you again that you needn't try to answer every single ref desk question if you can offer little more than stab-in-the-dark speculation, though I've come to understand it's a bit like telling Pooh-bear to keep away from the honey pots; you just can't help tasting one more. I know this posting falls a little on the unfavourable side if absolute civility, but I don't know how else to reinforce the message I (and others) have tried to emphasize here so many times -- namely that we are lucky to be left alone to operate with the degree of latitude we have on these desks as regards WP:V, but that we ought to at least keep it in sight by not making statements unless we know that, if pressed the sources exist to support claims made and that speculation be kept to a bare minimum, or else I am certain that sooner or later we're going to all end up operating here under odious constraints for verifiability that are going to severely hamper our efforts to supply quick contextual information, all because of the overzealousness of a contributor or two who fancies the notion of being capable of providing insight on more topics than anyone else, even if such insight takes the form of supposition that often turns out to be highly flawed or outright inaccurate information. I know there's very little way to take these comments without being offended and I'm sorry for that, but I've honestly put off addressing you directly as the biggest problem contributor in this regard for literally years, not wanting to offend in that way or generate bad blood. But honestly, I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels this way -- if it does turn out I am and no one else sees a problem with substantial doses of of speculation here, I'll just have to eat crow and admit that maybe I'm being a needlessly sensitive Wikilawyer. But please try to consider what I'm saying. Your dedication to these desks is phenomenal, but I don't think you approach them quite as a Wikipedia should. Snow talk 20:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your objection was to that response. Do you think that a suppressed immune system never leads to multiple, seemingly unrelated infections ? Or do you think that babies always exhibit impeccable hygiene practices ? StuRat (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that neither of those assertions are in any factual way connected to a valid, verifiable answer to the OP's question, nor to the posting which you were immediately responding to. You made a best guess as to what could explain the phenomena of the association of those two symptoms, but your guess has no factual basis in reality and, in any event, we are not meant to be making best guesses to questions here. We are meant to be pointing the users of these pages towards valid sources which further explain the concepts they are trying to understand in more depth or, at a minimum, providing insight which you know beyond significant doubt is established experts and sources in the relevant field. That is why these pages are called reference desks -- they are not meant to be forums where you supply the best theory that you comes to mind in the moment, cobbled together with no research or advanced understanding of the subject. Children are more prone to ear infections because of the size of their eustruchian tubes, amongst other facets of their developmental physiology -- that's a citable, useful piece of knowledge that sheds light on the OP's question. That the prevalence of ear infections in children stem from the fact that they stick their hands in all kinds of filthy places and then jam their fingers in their ears is complete WP:original research (and absolutely factually incorrect), and it is no less original research for the fact that you are presenting it here rather than in an article. What's more, I just did four separate searches using different wording for the subject matter and found that each one of them returned a source that had the correct explanation for the increased prevalence as the very first page returned. A minimal amount of research would have given you verifiable and correct information to give the OP on that particular point rather than your hunch (which frankly is nothing short of silly to anyone who understands the anatomy of the ear and its integration with the nasopharyngeal cavity). For that matter, our own article on middle ear infections (reached via the disambiguation page at ear infection) provides the correct explanation -- you wouldn't have had to even leave the site to establish that your theory was bunk before presenting it as a plausible explanation!
And this is not by any means an isolated incident -- you do this day-in and day-out here. Unfortunately the contributor's tool is currently down for the page statistics, but I'm going to go ahead and go out on a limb and say that you are the single most prolific contributor in the history of the ref desks -- certainly in the last couple of years. You have nearly 19,000 edits on the science ref desk alone. That's impressive -- again, without reservations, kudos as that's real devotion. The problem is that at least every other one of your posts that I've seen (and certainly I've seen hundred if not thousands) contains some unacceptable level of supposition and synthesis, because you don't exercise the degree self-restraint you should in only responding to inquires based in facts that you have very strong command over or which you took the time to research for the sole purpose of the thread. Sometimes another contributor comes along to call "bullshit", "nonsense" or "eehhh, close, but nooooot quite" on your guesswork and sometimes they don't, but regardless, it's still original research and I think it's well past time someone said something about it. It muddies the waters on inquiries (where you don't generate outright misinformation) does a disservice to the people coming here looking for guidance, reflects badly on the project, and simply flies in the face of the spirit of a pillar Wikipedia policy and in so doing invites the broader community to come in at some point and begin enforcing stricter guidelines on our process here, since we obviously are not controlling the situation ourselves. The post which I responded to with this discussion today is nowhere near the worst example of guesswork put forth by you or another editor on the ref desks, and I'm sorry to be unloading on you over it, but it's straw that broke the camel's back scenario.
This isn't an insignificant problem. We've somehow, for years now, managed to operate in a fashion that strays from pillar policies -- and yes, to some extent, this is justified by the unique role we play in the project. But collectively we've begun to take this degree of freedom for granted and I feel some habitually seem to forget that this is in fact WP:NOTAFORUM to hang about with our wiki-buddies speculating to our heart's content about any subject, provided someone asked a question which intersects with a given subject. We need a balance between the two extremes of not being able to talk about anything without securing the source first and just throwing out an explanation that seems like it might be plausible. I don't think what I'm suggesting here is at all out of proportion with our mandate on these pages, our role in the community and the best good-faith effort we can make to stay consistent with policy while still remaining efficient and helpful to those who request our assistance. And, just to be clear, what I am suggesting is no more than this -- that whenever any of us reads an inquiry and considers answering, they first ask themselves the following questions: Do I know the answer to this question -- in the sense that I can point, if I'm called upon to do it, to a reliable source in the field who can support the claims I am making in answering? If not, do I at least have sources that will point the OP in right direction? Are my responses likely to be, at a minimum, free of synthesis and guesswork? And if we can't answer yes to those questions, we simply should not engage on that question and leave it so someone who is better qualified to answer. I think these are meaningful, minimal guidelines to our approach here that we need to start re-integrating a defaults, as a matter of devotion to Wikipedia values, as a means of guaranteeing the quality of our contributions here and as a means of avoiding having the larger Wikipedia community decide that we are abusing the latitude we are shown as regards pillar policies. Snow talk 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see a source that proves that "prevalence of ear infections in children stem from the fact that they stick their hands in all kinds of filthy places and then jam their fingers in their ears is ... absolutely factually incorrect". Further, if I'm incorrect, then somebody is always more than willing to enthusiastically tell everyone so (often even when I'm right). But I believe I'm most often correct, or at least "headed in the right direction", which can point others towards the correct, and verifiable, answer. StuRat (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point Stu. It isn't other people's responsibility to prove every statement you pull out of your ass as incorrect. Instead, before you make a statement, it is incumbent upon you to either a) already cite something which supports it or b) be willing to do so if someone calls you to the carpet on it. It isn't anyone else's role to research and prove you wrong on every half-cocked guess you throw out in response to other people's questions. Instead, it's your responsibility to be able to back it up. It isn't the rightness or wrongness that matters here, one way or the other, Stu. It's your refusal to even care if what you have to say can be backed up. That's what people take issue with. --Jayron32 04:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I am generally willing to do either a or b. However, when people ask for sources without specifying what particular part they don't believe, or sources for the blatantly obvious, I tend to ignore such people. I also find it amusing when they claim my statement is unsourced and incorrect, but then offer no sources to prove that it's incorrect. Apparently they don't feel the need to back up their own statements with sources, even though they expect that of others. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
All they're doing is pointing out that your statement is unsourced. As Jayron says, it's not up to them to say anything more than that. And in this particular case you haven't done either (a) or (b). --Viennese Waltz 06:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I offered to do (b), if Snow would just tell me which part he wants sources for. (If it's that babies are not good at hygiene, though, I might suspect he's just asking for a source to be a pain in the ass.) As I've said before, I'm not willing to provide sources for everything I ever say, including the blatantly obvious parts. I suspect that the same is true for all of you. If there is a genuine question as to the validity of a statement of mine, then, and only then, will I dig up sources. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Stu, I am forced to believe your willfully ignoring the main point of my statement above, and indeed of all of the objections you get in this regard. I've said it in months past, and I'll say it again now. This has nothing to do with belief. When people challenge you and ask to provide sources, it is not because people don't believe you. When you say that, it sounds like people are accusing you of being wrong, or of directly denying the truth of something you say. It has nothing to do with that. Instead, the issue is not the absolute correctness or incorrectness of what you say, it is the inability to know if what you are saying is correct or not. There's a BIG difference between people saying "you're wrong" and people saying "we have no way to assess whether what you say is wrong or right". You keep acting as though people are saying they former. They never are. Instead, we're always saying the latter. We are asking you to provide sources, not because we are sure what you say is wrong, but rather because we cannot assess the quality of your responses because we don't know where you get your information from. If your responses have nothing to back them up, it isn't that they are wrong, it's that they aren't useful. You keep doing this sort of thing Stu, and have done it repeatedly in the past. You deflect the criticism by defending yourself against things people are not accusing you of. Again, to make it simple. We don't want you to provide references because we think you are wrong. We want you to provide references because we want to be able to know where you get your information from. --Jayron32 07:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
RE: 'There's a BIG difference between people saying "you're wrong" and people saying "we have no way to assess whether what you say is wrong or right". You keep acting as though people are saying they former. They never are. Instead, we're always saying the latter.'
That's demonstrably wrong. Here's one case from Mr. 98:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013_January_30#Wikipedia_pictures. I can provide many more instances, if needed. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not a counterexample. That was a case where you actually were wrong (or at least Mr 98 believed you were wrong). We are all human, and we are all sometimes wrong. Even I, believe it or not. What Jayron has been at pains to point out is the difference between giving what appears to be your first-hand opinion (whether it's right, wrong or whatever) and the second-hand testimony of a reliable source. We're supposed to be dealing mainly with the latter (the meat), with just the occasional sprinkling of the former (the salt). Your dishes are mainly salt, with only the occasional sprinkling of meat. That's why they've become unpalatable. All people are saying is, correct the imbalance. Less of what you think, and more of what the sources think. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I wasn't wrong, Mr. 98 just thought "free" meant something other than "no charge". And him thinking I was wrong and saying so is exactly my point. This is what Jayron claimed has never happened. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
that's right Stu, keep deflecting and refusing to address the substance of people's complaints here. It's much easier insist the entire rest of the world is in the wrong than to admit that maybe there's something you need to change about the way you work at the reference desks... --Jayron32 23:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see you admitting that your statement was wrong. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
that you found an example where you weren't wrong doesn't instantly excuse you for all the times you were. Neither does finding instances where other people fell short of expectations. Finding such examples doesn't mean that you never have to improve, --Jayron32 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't let you get away with that absurd exaggeration. But apparently you won't admit that it was wrong. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I will admit that I was wrong all day long. Let me state it clearly so it will be unambiguous for you. I was wrong when I stated that you never had been accused of being wrong before. That was an incorrect statement. That is an unqualified admission of the wrongness of my statement. Now, in an entirely unrelated fact, you still don't get to make wild, unsourced speculations on the reference desks. I also want this to be unambiguous: finding inaccuracies i others does not mean you never have to change how you work at the ref desks. Jayron32 00:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Even the sterile, plastic ones are filthy beasts.
Unlike children, Stu has a valuable purpose. If a question makes him think of something, there's a good chance someone else thought something close. If he hits the nail on the head, great! If he's a mile off, someone will correct him, and anyone else on that track who wouldn't ask for directions themselves. Stu's continuous shots in the dark are like streetlights on the road to the truth, even if they sometimes flicker. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Children have valuable purpose. But the subject of this complaint deliberately abuses a point of English grammar as has been pointed out often that he thinks his opinion supercedes. This obduracy is not the behaviour of anyone who respects what is reviewed text in Wikipedia. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I've gotten used to Stu. Some of his answers are excellent, some do seem to be shots from the lip, but they can be challenged, corrected etc, with references. I always advocate supplying references with your answer. At the same time I don't feel like badgering people who do give authoritative and accurate answers, but without delivering a quote. Stu sometimes hits and sometimes misses. But he's consistently friendly and his attitude is that of helpfulness. The same thing cannot be said about other regular contributors who also sometimes give crappy answers but at the same time can be nasty toward querents and officious toward volunteers. I've not only gotten used to Stu, I like Stu. This doesn't mean he shouldn't try harder to back up his answers with references, but I won't support any kind of official warning or sanctions against Stu, as long as we have the other mess. I suggest challenging and correcting what you see as false, unhelpful or misleading. (Sorry, this is not against you, Snow Rise. It is perfectly legitimate to bring this up. Just throwing in one opinion of someone who has spent too much time here). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of corrections, he shoots from the hip. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I picked a malaphor, but one that is used quite frequently [3] and, incidentally, one I first encountered on this talk page when the very same topic was discussed, years ago. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The cosmic circle. All good, then! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I understand. And the perspectives are welcome, even if the ultimate conclusion is that I am being a stick in the mud. And for the record, I like Stu too, I really do. If anyone can be said to be a fixture here, it's him. I certainly feel he's no idiot but rather an intelligent and broadly knowledgeable person. But he has a compulsion to try to take on every question in every domain that he has even the most superficial knowledge of and that's just not compatible with keeping this page as consistent with policy as we reasonably can within the framework of the role we serve. We all have to be able to see the limits of our own command of the facts if we are to do that. But you are absolutely right that Stu is a valuable member if these project pages and that even with this habit he stands head and shoulders above many other contributors. Nor is this issue in any sense just about him, much as I've called him out in particular here. This is something we are all long overdue to discuss, as a community within the community. We need to have a more solid and shared perspective on how to be Wikipedians and Ref Deskers without conflict. I'm appealing to Stu in particular mostly because his prodigious output means that a change in his approach will have significant impact on the page in general. I put off drawing stark attention to this issue as long as I did both because I'm concerned about the impact that even new rules that we impose upon ourselves might have to the efficiency and open exchange of our work here and because I didn't want to offend any of my cohorts here, as I like and respect most everyone on these pages, StuRat most assuredly included. But it had gotten to the point where I felt we are all just burying our heads in the sand and I think these are issues we need to start giving some direct acknowledgment before we the tone of these pages slides into pure forum mentality. On the other hand, maybe everyone will decide I'm being overly histrionic and making mountains out of molehills. That's a possibility and I'll probably just have to swallow my reservations in that event. But personally I do think these are issues that need looking at before someone else looks at it for us. Snow talk 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this is more a question of reference desk etiquette than of Stu's particular behaviour. Though Stu exemplifies the pattern of treating it as a forum for "anyone volunteering their best shot", he is not on his own in setting the pattern. Many of us (me included) are guilty of speculative answering, straying from the topic and general non-reference responses. The impression one gets generally is that most of the reference desks do not live up to the name, and that the true experts do not answer very often (though I occasionally see an extremely knowledgeable and well-referenced answer). It is quite often that questions have no effective answer, and it is not uncommon to see a question without any responses. Another significant pattern is of the OP often does not respond after posting the original question. So, is the reference desk straying enough that we should pull it into line a bit? I'd say maybe, but we must be careful about being prescriptive. For example, should we start by simply discouraging speculation typical of the educated layman who has no special knowledge in the field? —Quondum 15:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
We go through this every now and again. A general reminder to all: Try, try, try to reference your answer. Not all questions need (or even have) referenced answers, but if you have one, put it in. This alone could solve half our debates. Mingmingla (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both preceding posts. And Snow Rise does have a point regarding Stu sticking out by statistical virtue of number of responses (a point I had made, again years ago, when Stu asked why he received so much criticism. Though here again, he is not the only prolific contributor with few references accompanying his answers). Stu, when I have a hunch or an enlightening brainwave, and usually even when I'm certain I know the answer, I still google for confirmation and references when none of WP's articles provide it. It doesn't take a lot of time. Just do it, and neither you nor others will be spending time discussing this here. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
In other words, don't be content to let your response be of the "this is what I think" variety, but put the little bit of extra effort in to make it of the "this is what the reliable sources say" variety. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, this applies to all of us. Which is to say, we should all adhere to the intended style as a reference desk better than we've been doing. —Quondum 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The original question is justified. Just recently I saw a thread relating to the selection of strips for a FIFA World Cup match. What I saw was a series of speculative, personal opinions propounded as fact. It was appalling. I went off to find the regulations of the World Cup in this area which provided the kind of answer I would hope (but no longer expect) our Reference Desk to provide. The clamour of some editors to provide some kind of response, albeit it nonsense, cynicism, sarcasm, or just factually incorrect rubbish, is disturbing. If people want to simply increase their edit count, there are plenty of other outlets for it. If people want to actively support a Reference Desk with proper, factual, referenced answers, many "contributors" need to shape up or ship out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you calling "the original question"? There is no question mark in Snow's post here and you are not addressing the relevant question at the Ref. Desk which was "What is the relation between ear infection to diareah[sic]?". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The question of why some editors feel obliged to offer an opinion, unreferenced or guesswork mainly, at the Ref Desk. Which is obvious from the context of my response. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've only skimmed this wall of text, but I'm well aware of Stu's habits. Like Snow, I like Stu, and think he sometimes has valuable comments- but I also agree with Snow and Jayron's criticisms above. The crux of the problem as I see it is that Stu rarely provides references to anything he says, and I think that does our reference desk a disservice. For an example, I read his response here [4] this morning and cringed. Without any comment on the veracity of his claims, it bugged the heck out of me that he would go through the effort to type up all his feelings and guesses and intuitions on the topic, without even bothering to link the obvious articles. I tried to provide a better answer by including the relevant links. I've done this several times after Stu does that, but he never seems to take the hint... Let's hope that this direct and good faith request that he not reply if he can't provide references might be taken to heart. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "feelings and guesses and intuitions" is wrong. It's not like a I threw dice to determine what my answer would be. My answers are based on reliable sources, but which I can't identify. I've watched many medical documentaries, for example, which discussed such topics. Of course, if somebody can find a reference that contradicts what I recall, that's fine. My sources might have been superseded by more recent studies, for example. I don't believe any of your sources contradicted my recollections, though, in this case.
  • Funnily enough, Stu is not alone. There are a handful of Ref Desk "patrollers" who seem to think offering their own opinions classifies as providing suitable answers to reference desk questions. Mostly they're wrong, or just plain personal opinion. Neither of which should be encouraged here. This isn't a chat board. About.com needs new editors, as does answers.com. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a chat room. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I meant to add my agreement with the others who've mentioned that this is something many of us need to work on. Stu's just so visible here that he might attract a bit more admonishment than less... prolific contributors. I myself strive to only post when I have at least some good and relevant wikilinks (and take a few minutes to read them to make sure they say what I think they do). I don't stick to this 100%, but I'd estimate >90% of my responses contain useful and references for validation and extended information. As Jack mentions above, I do think we're allowed a little 'salt' of synthesis to go on the 'meat' of our sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC) PS I don't see you responding on the desks much these days. Perhaps you can help us lead by example now and then?
I don't have a massive problem with some lively discussion, but it should originate in fact, not pure speculation, or personal cynicism, which I see regularly from one or two of the "contributors" here. This is a Reference Desk, not a forum, not a blog, not a chatroom. There's plenty of other space in the internet for that kind of crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@SemanticMantis: Sorry, I didn't see your PS. I tend to avoid the RD based on previous experiences (like many experienced editors and readers alike), in particular the responses to questions from those who are simply here to increase their edit count, and amongst them, sadly, I see experienced admins as well as the usual "others". I will drop by to answer questions (as I did with the World Cup uniform question) from time to time, and provide a reliable source. If you need help seeing that happen, let me know and I'll clarify it for you. In the meantime, let's just try to focus on helping the reader, not encouraging people respond to perfectly reasonable questions with cynicism, sarcasm and, worst of all, simply untrue responses. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I, also, have only skimmed the thread, and while there may be valid points in general (i.e., it's true that some editors do sometimes seem to be too eager to offer unsourced speculation), it would really help if the discussion could be made in the context of example(s) that were truly problematical, which I really don't think this one was. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
SemanticMantis has a current Ref Desk answer based on OR and supposition, and no actual sources: [5].
Also note that Jack's last contribution to the Ref Desk contained no sources, only intuition: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Has_.22whore.22_become_neutral.3F.
100% of my contributions to that thread (which I initiated) have been questions. I was asking whether something might be true; not stating that something was true just because it felt right. I'm not completely guiltless on the main issue, and I daresay nobody here is. But that thread was not an example of my guilt. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
"Or maybe a case where 'insiders' are allowed, but it's still considered offensive when 'outsiders' use it." is an unsourced guess. Putting a "Perhaps ?" after it doesn't change that fact. Note that despite being unsourced, I consider your answer to be useful, just as I consider my unsourced answers to be.StuRat (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does change that "fact". But yada, yada, yada .... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, while it may be useful as a question (not the point here), it would not be a useful answer at all. Language is a tricky and complicated thing, while it could very well be an outside/inside thing, there is no way anyone could know this without doing some actual research; it is not a fact you can just intuit the answer to from an armchair - the difficulty with such questions isn't so much "I can't imagine why this would be so" as "Why is it actually so". Moreover, the asker is no better off, they still don't know if that is the case, nor can they possible verify it themselves. Finally, the worst case scenario, and probably not an uncommon one, is that people may be inclined to trust answers from Wikipedia despite that such an answer would be as likely as any other seemingly reasonable one. In short, passing off replies as if they were fact when they simply "sound pretty reasonable" isn't simply not useful, but an actual disservice.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are some unsourced answers from Jayron: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Are_there_Christian_sects_that_have_become_an_ethnoreligious_group.3F.
Note that Snow, who started this thread, currently has an answer on the Ref Desk which not only lacks sources, but also clearly provides a medical diagnosis: [6].
I've provided examples of other users giving unsourced answers in this thread, to avoid singling out any one user. So, either everyone is wrong when they give unsourced answers, or, as seems more likely to me, the rules on avoiding unsourced answers are simply too strict, and this explains why they are regularly ignored by all. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we've made it clear you're not the only one. And I think if you read above nobody is saying that occasional posts lacking refs are forbidden. However, to my knowledge, none of the users you've linked to above have been repeatedly chastised by the community on this talk page for their poor track record in providing references or speculative answers. To my knowledge, that is not true in your case. Finally, I'll note that when (occasionally) I don't post refs, I use language like "I think that...", and even sometimes use the WP:OR disclaimer. In the link to my comment above, I said "I personally know professors [that travel a lot]" and "If my clam is true" -- both of those telegraph that I'm offering an anecdote, and people shouldn't rely on my answer as reliable fact. Make of all this what you will, but I do encourage you to reflect in good faith on the comments in this thread. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That everyone does it and yet I'm the only one chastised for it is my point precisely. Of the above posts, Jayron's was the only one which took some searching to find, and he has another problem, his tendency to bite the newbies. The rest of you seem to have frequent unsourced answers. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the reason that you're being chastised is because not providing references seems to be the norm for you. I mean, good job on finding my worst post this month. I'm not going to say it was a great post. It didn't even add much, and probably nobody was especially helped by it. I can at least acknowledge that it was not good and unhelpful, and if that was a typical type of post from me, I would expect to be called out for it. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that e.g. your first-reply post on wound healing (that I linked above) was not helpful. You seem to not understand that we're not here to trust each other on claims, we're here to provide references. Sure, we can have different ideas on what our purpose and scope is, and what exactly the rules should be. But I would think that it is tautological that references are critical to the mission of a reference desk. If you disagree with that, then I'm not sure what you're doing here. Anyway, I don't mean to pile on, and I hope you're not taking this too personally. I've tried to be civil and comment on your actions, not your personhood. I can't change the way you behave here, but I also think you could do more good and less harm if you cited more sources or simply refrained from posting when you don't know how or why you "know" something. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It's statistically unlikely that your worst post this month was 2 days ago. If I cared to look through your entire months's contributions, I bet I could find far worse. Note that despite being unsourced, I consider your answer to be useful, just as I consider my unsourced answers to be. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stu, please take the following in a good spirit. I know from many previous encounters we've had that you're unwilling to admit any kind of error, and you tend to react defensively when issues are raised. You come back with "What about Editor X? He does the same thing but you're not attacking him!" type responses. You've adopted this knee-jerk approach above. Well, hear this: We are not attacking YOU. We are not even attacking your behaviour. We are noting one aspect of your MO that could do with some improvement. Do you think you're beyond any kind of improvement? Nobody else here is, so why should you be special? This has been raised before, and nothing seems to change, so ...

Please re-read the points that have been made above, particularly about getting the balance right, and please be willing to say "Fair enough, you guys have a point. I'll watch this in future", or words to that effect. That's all. Please don't make this a bigger deal than it needs to be. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been willing to admit when my answers are incorrect. I also am willing to admit that many of my answers are unsourced. However, I do not apologize for giving unsourced, but correct, answers. I disagree with those who argue that providing sources, whether correct or not, is more important than giving the correct answers. I will continue to value a correct, unsourced answer over an incorrect, but sourced answer, every time. If an answer is both sourced, and correct, all the better. StuRat (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If one gives an unsourced answer, how does anyone else know whether it's correct or not? This is the issue you don't ever seem to grasp. You asserting that something is the case, does not make it the case. Sure, sources have been known to be wrong, and that's why Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth. All we want here is a similar ethos: Verifiability, not truth. It's perfectly OK to point to an error in a source, but it's not OK to say "That source is wrong" without giving any persuasive evidence of its wrongness - and that would typically involve another, more believable source. To bypass sources entirely and base your answers on your own personal knowledge or beliefs, as if this were a quiz show where the prize is a boost to one's ego, is not remotely what the Reference Desk is all about. But that is pretty much what the majority of your responses are based on. That's OK some of the time, but please get the balance right. Mostly, answers should be sourced. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If someone provides a "source" describing a car that runs on water alone, I'm going to call it bogus, and not worry about proving it wrong with a better source. If you want to search for a source, go right ahead. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You just dig your own grave with your pen, Stu. Over and over. Doesn't matter what anyone says, you have a rejoinder that relieves you of all responsibility for your own behaviour. There's a term for that. While you remain obdurately unwilling to leave your comfort zone of rightness, and actually learn something new about yourself, I know not to expect any positive outcome from these discussions with you, so I'm outta here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
We do of course have an article on Water-fuelled car which anyone is free to link to. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stu gives a lot of good answers for which references would be available, were they requested. 90% of the questions we get here don't want references, they want to know why the jews are so and and why Americans keep when the rest of the world can't stand it.
So drop the crap. If I weren't much more busy off wiki than I have been we'd have three active talk threads on how I am so and the problem with my and the need to me.
SteveBaker's solved this long ago with his ref desk policy flowchart. Funny it still exists while Kainaw's criteria don't. Anything goes until the second day, in which case jokes and attacks are welcome as well.
I have disagreed plenty with Stu, but I for one think he is the least of our problems, and those who feel the need to criticize him have far to many mirror shards they should be looking in and cleaning up to attack yet another. Get rid of the crap here that doesn't want referencing and I'll be all for a strict reference requirement. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm on my way out, so I'll keep it short. But, over a monthly, or even weekly, time frame, I sincerely doubt that anything more than a small minority of questions are junk on par with your questions about jews that you reference. As for wanting references, most questions can be answered with some form of one, and even if the poster isn't actually looking for one, it doesn't mean you shouldn't have one - in a lot of cases, we should double check ourselves anyways, and if we are double checking, then we have something to do that by, thus, we should have a reference to provide; and even if unwanted, providing it does not hurt. Finally, just because there are problems with you that you don't listen to, or agree with, does not mean that there are not problems with Stu, or that he should not listen to them - I don't buy the "It's the askers faults we are giving such bad answers".Phoenixia1177 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Some editors here should get the picture when they re-read that most of their comments are ignored, not replied to, hatted or disputed. There are a few like this without whom the Ref Desk would operate rather well. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • In general this thread voices a valid complaint but the flowchart is kind of TL;DR. The bottom line is that a Refdesk question is like a little get-together, and when you come in it's best to have a bottle of wine or at least a bag of chips to throw into the general stock, or in this case, citations or wikilinks. You can come without, but if you do it often enough people start to talk about you. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Incidentally there was an article right around the time of this discussion [7] that suggests that diarrhea from poor sanitation causes malnutrition. And malnutrition of course can contribute to infections - in the case of ear infection, vitamin A deficiency is apparently a culprit associated with diarrhea. [8] Sorry I missed this one. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

John Doe and Medical Advice

I'm, usually, not big on hatting, and such, but the question, which I already hatted, seems pretty clearly to be asking for medical advice, or a question that could answered by a doctor doing an examination. If you replace "John Doe" with "me"/"I" throughout, it would be asking for medical advice, I don't feel that "John Doe" is used should exempt it. I'm sure there is a way to phrase this to get it by policy, but as it is now, it only encourages other like questions, I don't see how that is good. At any rate, the asker unhatted it, if there are no objections, I'm rehatting it later this evening.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already re-hatted it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the issue isn't whether it's a "John Doe" or not; the issue is whether it's a request for advice. The questioner literally asks, "Is it fine...?" And, I mean, that's just a value judgment or opinion on our part. How much risk of giving someone a nail infection is something to worry about? Are we being asked about local laws, liability, risk that somebody treats him like a leper afterward...? Had the questioner just asked how infectious a nail infection is in a swimming pool - even a hypothetical factual question like "suppose a person with a typical case of onychomycosis bathes in a [standard... whatever that is] swimming pool for one hour, which is used by 20 people for the next 8 hours. On average, how many of them will catch the infection?" -- that is something we should try to answer. (Though to be honest I haven't got a clue how to figure this out!) Such a question is sanitized of the details that make it a medical diagnosis - i.e we give the diagnosis, we say it's a typical case, and we make the prognosis for homogeneous and hypothetical people. It might be worth presenting the question this way to get more data, but as I said, it seems hard. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The user who posted that question also posted a possible spam link on the subject right beforehand. He might be asking the question just so he can answer it himself and spam further. As regards the general question, might the answer be dependent on the level of chlorination in the pool? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Matt's actions without resevrve, kinda enjoyed the little mini-essay. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the way we phrase our answers : we "will not" answer

We will not answer medical advice questions.
I would like to make a recommendation for the way that we phrase our response to medical advice questions. Ultimately, this is about the distinction between can't and won't : a distinction so important that some people choose to pose this question on t-shirts.
We will not provide medical advice.
When we phrase it this way, the discussion ends immediately.
If we choose to say that we "cannot" provide medical advice, that leaves us open to further questioning about why we cannot provide such advice; and thus opens a ceaseless tirade of follow-up questions. We don't need to participate in fruitless didactic exploration about what we "may" or "may not" do.
We choose not to provide medical advice.
If anybody would like to know why we choose this, I can speak for my reasoning as an individual, and I can speak broadly regarding some of our community consensus:
  1. Medical advice is not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia. There are other places - other internet websites, and other real-world environs - that are designed to deal with medical questions. Here, we are trying to make an encyclopedia. Answering medical questions does not help make an encyclopedia. This is the first and foremost reason why medical advice does not belong on Wikipedia's Reference Desk.
    • Answering individual questions about medical issues distracts us from our ability to build the encyclopedia.
    • Factual information about medical topics belongs on the articles about those topics. The reference desk may refer individuals to those articles, and to suitable external reference material. That material is written and monitored by editors who are interested in providing information on those topics.
    • Note that neither of these justifications have anything to do with whether we are able to provide high quality responses. Whether we "can" provide such answers is not even a factor. We will not spend time resolving the innumerable problems related to providing high quality medical advice, because we choose not to do so here.
  2. Individually, I feel ethically opposed to providing medical advice. I understand the incredible harm that incorrect diagnoses may yield. I understand the limitations of my diagnostic abilities, compounded by the fact that self-provided descriptions, written and delivered anonymously via the internet, are incomplete, inaccurate, and untrained. But my individual predilections are irrelevant: as a community we have also reached consensus in this regard.
  3. As a community, we have decided that medical advice may expose ourselves and our community to legal liability. We do not want that liability.
Let's phrase our responses to medical questions in this way. "We will not provide medical advice." Irrespective of our self-confidence in our own abilities; irrespective of any relevant or irrelevant legal restrictions; irrespective of any ethical rationale we concoct: we choose not to answer those questions. Questioners will be referred elsewhere: specifically, as a community, our consensus is to refer such questions to a medical professional.
Nimur (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm in broad agreement with the above. But we need to address the issue of when a question is seeking medical advice, as distinct from medical information. We've had zillions of debates on this very vexed issue, which goes beyond whatever our position on medical advice may be. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Toronto racist troll

The Toronto racist troll is back. He's been at it for at least a year.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. He probably ought to be blocked or something. Red Act (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone tried calling the question? It's pretty obvious that he's not looking for "answers" to his thinly-disguised "questions", since all he does after posting one is argue in favor of the answer he already believes and seems to be trying to get others to accept. So quite aside from whether he's right or wrong in his arguments, he's got the concept of a reference desk exactly backwards. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two ways to deal with the troll. First, ignore the troll. Second, report the troll at WP:AN (or WP:ANI, but this behavior isn't really an incident because it has been going on for a long time). Don't complain about the troll; that is what he wants. I suggest ignoring all questions that appear to be from the troll, and reporting the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I called him on it earlier today. He backpedalled a bit because he didn't like the word racist; and then he proceeded in the next few sentences to continue to say some of the most racist shit I've seen in a long time. I'm fine with just refusing to answer this guy anymore. --Jayron32 02:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with ignoring, deleting etc. Let's not forget the Toronto troll is probably the same editor who does crap like this [19]. (I say probably because I've never really followed the Toronto troll much and Toronto is fairly big. In fact we have at least one other Toronto editor who may not be the same editor, User:Donmust90 who is or was mostly using IPs.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually you can abandon the probably. I'm fairly certain the negress stuff is coming from same editor. Other than bothering User:Medeis‎ on their talk page which they seem to have abandoned perhaps due to semi protection, they persistent in bothering User:WeijiBaikeBianji. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If there's one thing Torontonians are genetically predisposed to hate, it's when you answer their questions with questions. What makes you think this? Why do you think that is? Where did you hear about them? Is that so? How about that? Can you elaborate/clarify/illustrate?
If I'm right, he'll piss off. If I'm wrong, he'll waste his time ranting while we make virtually no effort. Then, after a certain amount of words, we can close the discussion and make him rebook. Like professionals. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Troll blocked for 36 hours. A longer block would have collateral damage due to the IP being reassigned. Try ignoring the troll. Also try reporting the troll sooner. Also consider requesting short-term semi-protection at the appropriate reference desk when the troll pops up. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protection seems particularly ill-suited for the reference desks. Don't we have enough regulars here to hand delete the trolling? -- ToE 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I'd only ask for semi-protecting in extreme cases, e.g. the troll goes on a multi-day edit war. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I started out AGF on that thread. Ignorance is not a sin, and I thought there might be a chance to teach the OP something. Apparently I just gave him enough rope to hang himself [20]. While others may have recognized a style/pattern, I think it's best to treat IP posts de novo. In a world of dynamic IPs and many people only having access from public terminals, that seems the only fair way. Now that this one has established that he is not interested in science or references, we can feel free to ignore/delete content on that thread as necessary. As above, blocking a whole range of IPs for one minor problem seems to be quite the overreaction, and would harm many innocent bystanders. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon has requested semi for a few days at WP:RFPP,[21] but it's just been declined (I was edit conflicted by Courcelles when I went to do the same). Semi would surely shut out too many bona fide questioners. Seems to me obvious trolling questions should be deleted without comment per WP:DENY. (Compare my comment in the thread below.) It would be nice if the troll could be rangeblocked, but that's not possible with such a large range. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
I can understand why semi-protection was declined. I will point out that the standard answer, that questions by the troll should be ignored and deleted, is not an answer in the case in point. The troll is clever, and poses the original question in a way that appears to be honest and innocent. The racist comments are then worked into the dialogue. Deleting the thread after it is in progress with good faith answers is disruptive and satisfies the troll. The thread can instead be either hatted or boxed, neither of which is really satisfying. I think that in each case the best answer is to block the troll for 36 to 72 hours, which has been done in the past, has been done now, and can be done again. The IP addresses are "slowly dynamic", so that a block is effective in the short run and can be repeated in the medium run. Range blocking would be destructive, but blocking a single IP address for a day or three is the least bad answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to answer suspicious questions with a question (even along with an answer). Not "Are you some sort of racist?", but just a premise thing. If someone innocently (or cleverly) asks something like "Do Peruvian babies ever look like their parents?", you might want to wonder aloud where that idea came from. The bigotry (or lack of it) in the answer should be clearer than in the original question. When troll has the opening move, he's free to come from anywhere. Once you (politely) move him toward a corner, it's a different game. Like boxing a chess player through the mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

False accusations of lying

When a questioner has stated explicitly that he is not seeking medical advice, and indeed that he has ready access to free medical advice as a result of the socio-political situation of the country of which he is both a resident and a citizen - what action is appropriate toward another editor who falsely claims that his question is a request for medical advice? DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this and this? If so, I see it as contradiction, disagreement on what constitutes medical advice (in the context of the reference desks). I won't comment on where I stand there, but I don't see disagreement as the same thing as calling you a liar. Nor do I see removing a post according to what one sees as policy as vandalism. I'm not a fan of medeis' keenness for removing stuff, as often stated, but I don't see you being called a liar. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
He said it was a request for medical advice, which I had clearly stated it was not - and I had gone on to explicitly state the sort of information (NOT advice) which I was seeking. That is about as obvious an accusation of lying as it is possible to make. DuncanHill (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. You could be saying something isn't a request for medical advice (according to the way you understand it) and yet it could be medical advice according someone's (possibly more narrow) interpretation of what we here at the desks define as requests for medical advice. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
No comment on the substantive issue, but I'd have to suggest that in general the fact that some people may have free access to qualified medical advice is sadly no guarantee that they won't seek unqualified advice elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"What (if any) research has been done..." was the question. Not "What should I do" or "Have I done the right thing" or "Would you get pissed in my situation" but - "What (if any) research has been done... and where can a chap access it"? Now, I do not know any clearer way of expressing that I do NOT want medical advice (I get that free from a properly qualified G.P. and pharmacist whenever I want it) but rather what I DO want is links or pointers to research on this subject. DuncanHill (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The remover's interpretation could be faulty or the question might not have even been read properly, but that still isn't the same thing as not believing you or calling you a liar. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sluzzelin - that's the problem - either the remover did not read what he removed, or he did not have any understanding of what he removed - but he CLEARLY stated that it was a request for "serious medical advice". He's either a complete idiot or he accused me of lying. (I have here used the pronoun "he" in the traditional English way to refer to a third party of either or indeterminate gender). DuncanHill (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
(Ok, I guess I will comment on where I stand) I read the question as a request for referenced medical research on a particular topic. The question was introduced with a personal anecdote which made it personal, possibly a red alert to some users here. The fact that you have free access to medical advice isn't that relevant per Andy. All things considered, I think your question should stay. That doesn't prove your dichotomy though, it's possible to be wrong or careless (or lack consensus) without being a complete idiot or accusing you of lying. If it was carelessness, then I'd ask medeis (and everyone) to really make sure you've read and understood what you're removing. If it wasn't carelessness, and was based on enforcing their understanding of policy, then I'd ask medeis to reflect on the fact that their judgment of what needs to be removed and what doesn't has been questioned here more often than almost anyone else's and that they should perhaps not remove anything at all, but leave that up to those who are better at assessing what can consensually be removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sluzzelin- I certainly intended it as a request for referenced medical research on a particular topic. I did indeed introduce it with a personal anecdote - both because that is what is regarded as good manners in most countries (in my experience), and because I am aware that many editors are kindlily disposed to their fellow editors, and care about their well-being. I have tried to avoid naming the editor who decided to remove my post (who did so without bothering to either ask me about it, or to tell me what he had done) - but I did ask them on their own talk page to desist. I still feel that to accuse another editor of requesting "Serious medical advice" when it has been explicitly stated that no medical advice is sought (and the reason that such advice is unnecessary has also been stated) amounts to a direct accusation of dishonesty, and was and is entirely unjustified. DuncanHill (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the statement that a person is not asking for medical advice is pretty much irrelevant as we cannot verify it. Whether a person is annoyed that some unverifiable stuff they say is ignored is their problem, this is not a social support forum. Personally I think the current policy about the handling of medical advice is wrong and should be changed to just say that anything medical must refer to recognized medical sources or Wikipedia and not have any personal opinions but the current policy is as it is and takes precedence over peoples feelings. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I SPECIFICALLY asked for research - not for advice. I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference. If we are to be, as you wish, forbidden from asking for pointers to actual research then we might as well just shut the RefDesks down entirely. Hell, we might as well say that your comment above was a request for medical advice - after all it contained exactly as much of a request for advice as my original post did. DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
What you say about yourself is unverifiable and in this case not even very relevant. We must follow policy and not just ignore it for everyone who says oh my case isn't really one like that. Please see On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not ask for medical advice. I asked for references to research. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning given for this deletion ("remove request for serious medical advice") neglects to explain why the answer by Srieffler is deleted. Srieffler's answer is helpful, relevant and demonstrates that the OP's question can be addressed by Wikipedia references without giving personal medical advice. It was certainly visible to Medeis who chose to delete it. It would be peculiar if Medeis holds Srieffler's response to be legitimate but wants to delete both posts to pre-empt anyone else who might have an equally legitimate research reference to add. Shall Medeis clarify here? A note to the OP: it was inappropriate to insert a political slur "commie pinko liberal socialist free healthcare for all" in your question. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you follow the link for commie pinko liberal socialist free healthcare for all? It leads to civilization. DuncanHill (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did. Your politics disinterest me and such a gratuitous non sequitur merits no more than a reminder of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the use of "disinterest" as a verb, and am unsure what you mean by it. If you mean that you're not interested in my politics then please feel free to ignore anything I say that has, or could be construed as having, a political meaning or content. If you are interested in my politics then please feel free to continue commenting on them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary has disinterest Verb (transitive) To render disinterested. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
So my politics render you unprejudiced about my politics? DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatev'. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and WP:RD/G#What the reference desk is not. He said "According to the latter, high doses of alcohol don't promote sleep very well". There is no special dispensation for good or accurate or cited medical advice. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what had raised the ire of DuncanHill (talk · contribs). It's no wonder: He's been here for eight years, but he's being treated like a drive-by. There's a reason we have the "don't template the regulars" guideline, and this looks like a corollary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think should happen? Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
For starters, everyone who's treating that 8-year user like a newbie needs to reach out and apologize for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong has been done to the person. Their annoyance is their own business, they are not entitled to any apology. Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll remember that the next time someone claims I'm being mean to a troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Bugs, you seem to be saying that newbies should be treated badly until they show sufficient strength of character to withstand whatever we can dish up, hang around for a while and become regulars; and only then become entitled to decent treatment. Is that what you're saying? If not, what? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, either that, Bugs, or we should expect an 8 year-old user to read disclaimers and guidelines and not ask us to advise him whether a specific and rather toxic and governmentally controlled substance is effective as a barfight invincibility drug. That reminds me, what's German for nausea? Barfheit. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Medeis - I specifically said I did not want advice. The barfights are all in your own fetid imagination. I clearly asked for references to research. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dmcq (talk · contribs), Medeis (talk · contribs) - I do not want, and did not ask for, medical advice. Nor, Medeis, do I want the benefit of your extensive experience of attacking people in bars. I asked for references to research. That is pretty much exactly what the RefDesks are meant to be for. I will be blanking any further insinuations from either of you that I am or was lying about this. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP asked why consuming alcohol seems to reduce pain. An editor responded with links to articles that might answer that question. I'm not seeing any request for medical advice in that question. Bear in mind that alcohol consumption has been used this way for a long, long time. I've been to more than one colonial-era re-enactment where they had a doctor talking about that era's medicine. When doing amputations, they would give the subject a bullet to bite - and a choice of cocaine or hard liquor to help ease the pain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not ask why consuming alcohol seems to reduce pain. I asked for references to research into why pre-existing pain seems to reduce the inebriant effects of alcohol. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have considerable sympathy with DuncanHill. This seems to be a classic case of something I alluded to 2 threads above (@ Nimur: Regarding the way we phrase our answers : we "will not" answer). We have the OP who has been at considerable pains to insist they have only ever asked for referenced medical information, while some other parties see it squarely as a request for medical advice, and they won't be dissuaded. This is just going to keep on happening unless we can agree on some ground rules for distinguishing between the two and not putting our clients and ourselves (sometimes they fall into both camps, as here) into anguish. I know this is not beyond our collective intelligence.
One thing we definitely have to get beyond is situations where an OP clearly states their request is not being made for self-diagnosis and self-treatment, but a respondent says "How do we know you're not lying?" or words to that effect. Our OPs are not 11-year old children and we are not their parents or legal guardians. If they make an indelible written statement about the purpose of their desire for certain knowledge, then they're taking responsibility for whatever they might actually do with it once they get it. We never know what people actually do with the info we give them here; not just in medical/legal cases. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said above I think the current guidelines could do with changing. We simply can't go around checking on peoples intentions, they are not observable. People can always write they are just interested in the question. We do not have a button saying 'I am over 18 and am adult enough to be told dangerous crap about medicine by ignorant people'. Plus it is not just the original poster who reads stuff here, I'm sure some 11 year old children contribute never mind read it. I believe we should get rid of any business about the original persons intention and concentrate only on what is allowed to be said in relation to medicine on the reference desk. Dmcq (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
My question was entirely in line with policy and guidelines, and neither you nor Medeis have even attempted to show otherwise. There are encyclopaedias specifically written for children, and parents/carers/guardians concerned about what their wards are reading can restrict their access accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have always edited under my real name, and have included a lot of information about myself (where I live, grew up, was educated, etc) on my userpage and elsewhere on Wikipedia. I've tried over the years to ask and answer questions responsibly (and I'm sure that on occasion I've failed, for which you all have my apologies). In this case I took great care to make it clear that I was not in any way seeking medical advice, but rather an explanation for a phenomenon which I had observed. I stated clearly that I was looking for references to proper research. That I should now be accused entirely groundlessly, by Medeis (talk · contribs) and Dmcq (talk · contribs) of lying, of wanting to get involved in violence, etc, is intolerable - even more so as both of them edit anonymously. It's clear that the RefDesk community in general is not prepared (or perhaps not able) to do anything to deal with their trolling and unpleasantness. That is why I have had my userpage deleted, and that is why I am seriously considering invoking the right to vanish.
  • The misuse of these pages by Medeis and Dcmq to attack real people, with real families and real jobs is intolerable. They are using the shelter of anonymity to do real harm. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am entitled to my privacy on Wikipedia and such a complaint is an attempted outing. No 'real harm' has been done to you. And since you are looking at my stuff can I say I think it is a bit ripe of you to come here complaining about your feelings being hurt and then say things like 'I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference' and I notice you recently both complaining about incivility and being uncivil on Jimbo's talk page too. Dmcq (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Not an attempted outing. I don't give a damn who you are, and would be happier to know absolutely nothing whatsoever about you (including anything whatsoever you may have posted anywhere on the internet). And there is a world of difference between saying that someone is a flaming idiot who shouldn't be allowed to eat unaccompanied (no moral judgement whatsoever), and saying someone is lying (moral judgement). I never asked for medical advice and my question cannot be construed in good faith by a competent person as a request for medical advice. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And Dmcq, if you don't want people "looking at your stuff" then edit from a changing IP, not an account. I looked at your userpage, and a handful of your recent edits. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Medeis is under the false delusion that she is the sole arbiter of what is (and is not) allowable at the reference desk. If you stay around here long enough, you'll learn to do what everyone else here does, which is to summarily ignore everything she says and give it absolutely no credence. Trust me, she's background noise, and not worthy of your even noticing that she exists. --Jayron32 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    I've been here long enough. Perhaps too long. Anyway, having just noticed Medeis's advice to put caffeine into a toddler's juice as part of potty training, I must assume.... well, let's just say yes, you're right, nothing that person says should be regarded as having any value whatsoever. We should have a notice at the top of RefDesk pages warning users to ignore them. DuncanHill (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
My dislike for a lot of μηδείς's closures and the way the handle them is well known. That said, I don't have much sympathy for DuncanHill either. They have said they are experienced (and I have seen them around a fair bit) so I'm not going to offer much slack for the poor way they've handled this.
First, they accused μηδείς (and others?) of vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the closures, they were clearly not WP:vandalism and anyone with experience with wikipedia should know that, and know why it's incredibly harmful to make such incorrect accusations. (Frankly it would be nice if μηδείς was guilty of vandalism since it would be far easier to block or topic ban them. But while I still believe plenty of μηδείς's actions are against policy and merit a block or topic ban, they're clearly nothing so simple. And yes these sort of discussions are annoying precisely because they are so poorly handled that rather than discussing the possible problems with μηδείς's editing, we end up discussing other pointless stuff.)
Then there's the question themselves. This is more of an RD thing that a wikipedia thing, but DuncanHill is also claiming experience with the RD. And anyone with experience with the RD should recognise insisting something is not "X" is not the most important thing.
Far more important is that you ensure people don't have good reason to feel it's "X". Personal anecdotes and information are sometimes helpful to the question. But when you give personal anecdotes relating to on health and related issues from yesterday, that's generally a bad idea. Even if you are genuinely not looking for medical advice, there's always going to be a concern that either people will give it anyway or that you will take the information and use it unwisely. There are several options on how to handle such issues, again anyone with much experience with the RD should recognise them. Either don't give the information or at least wait a few days so you aren't asking about something which is current.
It's also worth remembering it's unresonable to expect anyone to recognise you when responding to an RD question, even more so if you've chosen to delete your user page (which is unquestionably your right). In other words, it's entirely resonable for people to respond solely by what was said in the RD question, not extranous personal information relating to your experience that you think they should know.
This discussion itself, with all the claims about lying etc is another example which seems to reflect a lack of experience of wikipedia. As others have pointed out, saying that someone is asking for medical advice even when they say they are not doesn't automatically mean you are accusing them of lying. It could be they simply don't understand what medical advice is and so are asking for it without realising. This is an important point because unless you can find very good evidence, it will be impossible to prove there was an accusation of lying. Which means the "lying" issue becomes a needless distraction in a discussion which should be about the merits of the closure and whether it was handled well which frankly is what we should be handling here anyway. (If you believe someone has falsely accused you of lying, either take it up with them directly, head off to ANI if you feel it's appropriate, open an RFC/U if it's a persistent problem, or just drop it.)
Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot that one should not ask questions at the time one is interested in the answers, and yes, I forgot just how bizarre some people's minds are.sarcasm I did raise the issue directly with Medeis. They have not bothered to respond. Given Medeis's history of disruption I actually am more convinced than ever that their behaviour here was vandalism - it caused, and was intended to cause, disruption.
Accusing someone of doing something that they have explicitly stated that they are not doing is an accusation of lying.
Not sure that I ever suggested anyone should recognize me - and the deletion of my userpage came somewhat after my question. Indeed, after the actions by Medeis that caused the problem.
It still remains the case that no-one has made any kind of case for how my original question could have been interpreted in good faith as a request for medical advice. Neither Medeis nor Dmcq have attempted to do that. Instead we have had nonsense about "think of the children", about barfights, about nothing at all to do with the case in hand.
If requests for referenced research on medical subjects are no longer acceptable then 1) we need to say so clearly, and 2)we need to delete all our articles on medical matters as some 11 year old might read them! DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And if people had bothered to respond "solely by what was said in the RD question" then this whole shenanigans would not have happened. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There are good and specific guidelines about how medical articles are handled and people can remove silliness easily. However on the reference desk experience has shown that responders are all too ready to give their own ideas and anecdotal advice. So you're sarcastic about how people respond on the reference desk, and yet you still persist in being hurt because people have not treated your query as some pearl to be treasured but as some potential cause of trouble which the guidelines say should be removed. And then you ask for an apology from a person you call a vandal. Get your bruised ego under control and just Wikipedia:Get over it or go to WP:ANI and see what is said to you there about your behavior. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
When you treat an established user like a jerk, you shouldn't be surprised when they throw it back at you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well that's very cosy with DuncanHill defending you at ANI and you defending them here. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of whatever you're referring to at ANI [nor do I see his name anywhere at ANI currently]. I am aware I misread his original question, and that the IP troll-sock was partly right, in that in that instance I was indeed a moron. What I don't understand is why the editor was being treated like a jerk, almost accusing him of lying, though maybe not quite saying it that way. And I still don't think it's a request for medical advice. But even if it is, treating him like a jerk is an extreme reaction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Baseball Bugs disruptive behaviour on the Reference Desks is what I was referring to. Water off a duck's back comes to mind. In what way do you consider DuncanHill has been treated as a jerk? I believe they have been treated in full conformity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, perhaps you can point to something in the guidelines that it might be reasonable to change. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Good grief, you expect me to remember details from an ANI page from like 3 months ago? Well, the "treating like a jerk" refers to all the bad-faith comments early in this section - which are only slightly euphemistic ways of saying "you could be lying to us." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure, Dmcq, that as you continue your trawl of the archives you'll find plenty of occasions when I've been critical of Bugs. At some point in the future I'm sure you'll drag them up as proof that I have a vendetta against him, should it suit you at the time (I'll go back and read what you linked to in a moment, like Bugs I don't recall it atm). I never demanded that anyone treated my question as a "pearl to be treasured" - if people didn't like it they were, and are, free to ignore it. No skin off my nose. But again you haven't bothered (or are unable to) come up with any explanation of how you think my question was not in accordance with policy. All you have done is express vague concerns about the people who live in your imagination and may read it later. Our responsibility to our readers is to be accurate, not be be their mothers. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And if anyone wants to see just how cosy I was with Bugs in the thread Dmcq mentioned the following is the sum total of my contributions to it "Oppose, BB can be a bit of an arse sometimes, but then so can most of us RefDesk regulars, including me and everyone above. No good will come of any sanctions here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)" DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well putting it in your terms you talking about people accusing you of lying because of your question is one of those occasions where you are an arse. Dmcq (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq, will you please explain just how you think my original question was in breach of policy? Use one side of the paper only. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your request asked for medical advice -" "What (if any) research has been done on the effect(s) of pre-existing pain on the intoxicant effects of alcohol in the adult human? And what were the results and where can a chap access them?" Dmcq (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
That is obviously not a request for advice! A request for advice is something like "what is this lump in my groin" or "how much aspirin should I take" or "which leg should I amputate", or "am I pregnant - or just fat?". "What research has been done..." is a request for research, not for advice. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Some have said that your explanation of your personal circumstances makes it pretty clear you were asking for advice, i.e. what future action you might take. But it seems clear to me that you had already taken an action (drunk 2/3 bottle of malt), and discovered it hadn’t affected you as much as it normally would have. You're wondering whether the fact that you were in pain might have lessened the effects of the alcohol. This didn't have to relate to you, it could apply to anyone. Nowhere do I see any indication that you're considering drinking whisky as a regular way of either reducing pain or achieving sleep. You experienced two things: (a) pain, causing lack of sleep, and (b) not being as drunk as you expected. You're just wondering whether there's any research about (a) causing or being related to (b). Had you just raised a general question: Is there any research about pre-existing pain lowering the effect of alcohol?, I don't believe anyone would have had any issue with that. Why your personal story suddenly makes this a request for advice, escapes me. People very often come to this desk to ask a question that's been prompted by some experience they personally have had. That is called curiosity, and it's a very good thing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
If they are researching the subject they should check it up themselves and not ask for our opinions about what the results mean. We are not entitled to give medical advice. I did not consider whether a person who had already that evening taken 2/3 of a bottle of whiskey to drown their pain and then stuck a question on the reference desk about it was asking for personal advice. The guideline does not specify that only personal advice is forbidden. All medical advice requests should be refused. Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not ask for anyone to give an opinion about anything, Dmcq! Why are you pretending that I did? DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Duncanhill that no advice was requested in this question. I"m pretty shocked that anyone could interpret that he did. He specifically asked for research and papers on the topic. He never asked for an interpretation by any of us. Dmcq, you are exactly right about what the policy says. The only problem here is that the policy doesn't apply to this because he asked for neither advice nor opinion. Advice would've been "Should I do it again?" Mingmingla (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, we DO see people lying about this all the time. Quite often someone wants medical advice and knows damned well that we don't allow it - so they stick "This is not a request for medical advice" in their post and hope that's enough to get their question answered. But we also see people who don't understand that what we consider to be a breach of "Kainaw's criterion" may be narrower than what they imagine it to be.
So when you say "Not a request for medical advice" - that can have no influence whatever on whether we answer the question or not...truly, it's irrelevant that you said that - you might as well not have bothered to write it.
In this case, we don't know whether you're lying or simply mistaken about how our rules are interpreted or something else.
So when someone contradicts you, they aren't implying that you're deliberately lying - they are simply ignoring what you said and forming their own judgement. They are required (by WP:AGF) to assume that you're acting in good faith - so it's likely they are assuming that you're merely misunderstanding this somewhat arcane rule. But similarly, YOU are bound by the very same WP:AGF rule - so rather than jumping to the conclusion that this person was accusing you of lying, we expect you to assume that the person was ALSO acting in good faith...which means that you are not supposed to jump to the conclusion that they were accusing you of lying when in fact they might only have been assuming that you were mistaken.
No matter which of you was assuming what about the other person's thought processes, neither will ever know for sure. So "Assume Good Faith" and the problem is simply resolved.
SteveBaker (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly why I think the guideline need a bit of updating. We shouldn't be trying to interpret a questioners intentions when they are very likely to try and phrase a question to get round the guideline. I interpret the question on the basis of the information requested and they explicitly asked for the results of the research which would require our interpretation and that goes against the medical diagnosis guideline. We should only point them to reliable papers or to a Wikipedia article and not put in our own opinions on medical matter. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No Steve, it's not that someone assumed I was mistaken when I said I didn't want medical advice (an odd assumption for anyone to make at the best of times). Medeis explicitly said that it was a request for medical advice, despite their being nothing in the question that could be so construed. Medeis did not bother to ask for clarification, Medeis did not bother to say anything at all about the removal to me, and Medeis hasn't bothered to make any sensible response. What they did do was to say that when I said I didn't want medical advice that in fact I did. That was how they accused me of lying.
Saying that "there's no point" saying that something is not a request for advice is also a non-starter too - unless there's no point saying anything at all. People should answer the question, or not, as they see fit. What they should not do is delete it on the basis that it's a completely different question to that which was asked!
I'm still utterly baffled as to what advice Medeis or Dmcq think I was asking for! DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
And Dmcq - I was asking for pointers to reliable papers! I never asked for interpretation, you are making that up. DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears that your mistake was to personalize it in any way. If you had simply said, "I've heard that the effects of alcohol can be mitigated by pre-existing pain," followed by a request for research, they wouldn't have had anything to hang you with. Meanwhile, some editors' continued insistence that "you could be lying" is a highly offensive personal attack - and if they had said it to an IP or redlink, someone would read them the riot act for dissing a poor little newbie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember Bugs, I have to assume good faith of all the people who are suggesting that I would lie! They can repeatedly say I did things which I didn't, or they can accuse me of wanting barfights, but I have to hold them in a warm glow of appreciation. But anyone who I might have said a supportive word or two about in the past isn't allowed to support me. There are some bizarre people in this world. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. Ya know, if Drmq thinks "can be a bit of an arse sometimes" qualifies as a gleaming endorsement, it's too scary to imagine what he might think a criticism looks like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we have a problem with deciding what does and does not violate our medical advice prime directive. I also believe that it's ridiculous to turn it into a kind of word game as Bugs seems to think we should. It's like the ridiculous rule in the Jeopardy game where answers have to be phrased in the form of a question. It doesn't change either the questions or the answers in any useful way. Providing a form-of-words that allows one to ask for medical advice without seeming to ask for it isn't helpful. To someone who currently has either indigestion or a heart attack, it's every bit as dangerous to provide an answer to "I have this pain in my chest, should I take an antacid?" as it is to answer "I've heard that people who have chest pain should take an antacid, is that correct? (I'm not asking for medical advice)".
Providing a general answer to a general question on a medical topic ought to be OK - but if people who are trying to circumvent our rules simply have Bugs help them to rephrase it Jeopardy-style until it passes muster - then we're failing to stick with the guideline. If there is a magic formula that turns any medical-advice question into an acceptable one, then there is little point in having the medical advice guideline in the first place. Since we most certainly DO have that guideline, then it's inevitable that some legitimately non-violating questions will get deleted, hidden or simply unanswered as a side-effect of not having a clear way to know what's in our questioner's minds.
This is serious stuff - so we MUST err on the side of caution and refuse questions that could be simple rewordings of unacceptable questions.
SteveBaker (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly endorse that type of weasel-wording. I'm just saying that personalizing it is what gave other editors the justification for boxing it. And telling an eight-year user "you could be lying" is in no way appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Steve, no-one, not you, not Medeis, and not Dmcq, has suggested any possible unacceptable question that my question could have been misinterpreted as. It wasn't a medical advice question, and could not realistically have been interpreted as one. Please stop implying that I was or might have been trying to circumvent any rule. I wasn't. If you want to accuse people of gaming the system you need to have a bloody good reason - and you haven't. DuncanHill (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yet again I repeat, you asked for the results of the research. That required interpretation of medical results by a person responding to the request. We are not entitled to do that, it requires medical experience which we don't have. We are not allowed to give medical advice. If you're interested in researching the matter then it is up to you to look at the papers yourself or get someone with medical experience to interpret them for you. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No Dmcq. I do not want you to ever try to interpret any scientific paper for me. I did not ask for anyone to interpret them for me. You keep pretending that I did. Why, I do not know. You have produced nothing to support your contention. Absolutely nothing. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)It's reasonable to suppose that a website that posted such medical results might give their own interpretation - none needed from any wikipedian. I really don't get what dmcq is on about. If this were me making dmcq's personal attacks, I would have been dragged to ANI and someone would be screaming about disruption and topic bans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We are not allowed to copy stuff from elsewhere, that would violate the copyright rule. We need to put things in our own words. What is I have said that you interpret as a personal attack? Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
We're allowed to post links to other websites - or is that now against the rules? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Which is all DuncanHill ever asked for. Links to relevant sites containing details of research and whatever the findings were. That's it. Eventually the defence of the indefensible must cease. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. You know a debate has gone on too long and to no avail when the Venezuelan troll crawls out from under his slimy bridge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You didn't understand what you were asking for when you asked for the results of medical papers. Are you trained in medicine and statistics? Are the people who would respond to that trained in such subjects and in communicating such results with the public? Do you for instance understand properly for instance what a false positive and its effects in a test and how would one communicate that to someone without such expertise? Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq - as you have shown repeatedly that you assume every word I say is a lie, why should I bother to respond to your questions now? But, yes, I do know what false positives are. And I do know a lot of other things too, not least when I'm being patronized by a second-rate whatever. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That looks like another attempted outing to me as many people would respond to such an insult by giving some personal information. Could you just leave out such silliness please. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq - fine, I'll leave out references to your occupation, you leave out nicknames of mine from other sites. But I'll stick by patronizing. Not satisfied with implying that I'm dishonest, now, when it's obvious that that bird won't fly you say I'm too thick to understand my own words. If you have nothing constructive to say, why do you keep saying it at such length? DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Attempted outing is not good, although if an editor on Wikipedia has stated his real name or occupation somewhere in Wikipedia, they can't claim outing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Which he has. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe I have ever put my real name or occupation on Wikipedia but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to work them out. I would thank you to not go around trying to find them out or publishing them. I don't know why you have put in something about your nicknames on other sites, I have not looked up your details or tried to find out anything about you and I most certainly don't know any of your nicknames except perhaps in the sense of the Eubulides paradox of the masked man, I don't mind people knowing I am interested in things like that. As to being patronizing I guess I may come over like that sometimes as I try hard to be understood. Dmcq (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, a really long thread full of wiki-drama and guess who is the catalyst yet again. Surly it is time something was done? 190.205.218.253 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, it's the Venezuelan troll. Where you been lately? On vacation? In jail? Hobnobbing with your brother trolls? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I do remember now why I didn't have this talk page on my watchlist for so long. It's going off it again now, if anyone does have anything they want to say to me, they can do so on my talk page. Except Dmcq - as he won't let me post on his, I'm returning the favour and asking him not to post on mine. Hopefully we won't ever have to deal with each other again. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine by me. I prefer not to have arguments duplicated on my talk page. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Good grief. This whole thread just reinforces a point I've been making for years, namely that those seeking medical information should be careful to depersonalize their questions. If DuncanHill had not included a personal anecdote this discussion would never have happened. --Viennese Waltz 19:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a two-edged sword, VW. People bent on self-diagnosing and self-treating only have to depersonalise their questions and hey presto, they've got what they want. Same with people constructing their homework questions in such a way as to make it seem it has nothing to do with homework. I give DuncanHill points for (a) explaining what prompted his question, because a little background is usually helpful for us to see the context, and (b) pointing out in the question itself, and numerous times here, that he was not interested in advice of any kind. He's gone the extra mile in giving us some context, and now he's being judged harshly for it. I don't see much justice there. Is there anyone who's never had the experience of having something happen to their body and simply wanting to know more about it, but without wanting anyone to tell them what to do or not do? I doubt it. We cannot possibly frame our policies on the basis of what personal material OPs happen to provide or not provide. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree we should just judge by what information is requested rather than by our ideas of what they intend to do with it. For medical questions about things which may reasonably be dangerous we should not do any OR, whether it is trying to diagnose their problem or giving our ideas about treatment, or what some research means which is what they did even if they also asked for references to the papers. We could be more constructive by trying to figure out allowable versions of questions but it is difficult with medical questions as people so often stick in their own opinions and apocryphal stories. It would be nice if we could for instance treat them like some crystal gazing questions where a reasonable response is to point to an article which summarizes works which try to forecast the result - a straight reading of the guidelines would mean we just remove the question because we don't go in for opinions or predictions. Dmcq (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Why hasn't Medeis been banned from removing "medical advice" questions? That editor clearly has a non-consensus idea of what that phrase means, and is unwilling to assume good faith, or to consider the possibility that they are incorrect.
How many times must the reference desk talk page dance on command for Medeis' amusement? 75.69.10.209 (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why was my question deleted without comment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=621089929

Not so friendly greetings 95.112.189.179 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I think that @Baseball Bugs: is the only one who can answer for his motives. The question itself seems fine to me, in short you are asking "what is the adaptive value of tooth innervation"? Thas is not a request for medical advice, but a request for information on evolution/ecology and human physiology.
Thanks for asking here rather than edit waring. If, after a few more comments have come in, consensus seems to be in agreement with you and me (that the question is fine), feel free to repost at that point.
In the mean time, to address (my rephrasing of) your original question, have a look at Dental_pulp#Functions, which has some brief into. Also see this paper which discusses the function of dental innervation [22]. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SemanticMantis and support restoring the question. Maybe it was a slip of the finger. And just in case the removal had something to do with the question referring to a specific editor by user name, I suggest leaving out that part (in other words: "And, no, I'm not looking for medical advice." will do. No need for the pun). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Greetings" is a rather odd word for you to use; if you know who Medeis is, you clearly have some history around here, and aren't just a first time poster.
As far as us being able to answer your question about why your question was deleted without comment, how about helping us out with that? What previous questions have you posted, under what previous IP addresses? If you helped us out with that, we'd be better able to make a judgment as to whether Baseball Bugs had a good reason for deleting your question. Red Act (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The trolling mention of a specific editor was a good reason to delete the question without comment IMO. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
Yes, that is precisely why I deleted it - a trolling comment. Also, of course, a question about why evolution did this or that. Perhaps a daunting question, but possibly researchable. But the pointless shot at another editor left three options: (1) Let the personal attack stand (which does not seem right); (2) Delete just that part of the comment (which is typically frowned upon); or (3) Zap the whole thing as trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And the reason I deleted it without comment was to avoid feeding the troll - as per advice I have often received from admins and others. Of course, you all have been gladly feeding the troll here, so it's too late now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if OP has asked any previous questions or not, that is immaterial to whether this question should have been removed. Why does it seem that many regular users treat IPs as second-class citizens? We have no rules against mentioning other users by name, and no personal attacks were made. Is it so hard to WP:AGF that the OP wants to know about teeth? You know, I wouldn't even care if this IP were the same person spouting all the racist crap discussed above. This question is clearly a request for scientific knowledge, and we should be able to provide references that explain what's known about it. Funnily enough, if the IP OP is a troll, this discussion is probably far more entertaining than answers to the original question would have been. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. It isn't up to the OP to have to justify why their question should NOT have been removed. It's up to the editor who removed it without explanation to come here and explain why they did that; and if consensus is, as it seems to be, that it was an inappropriate removal, it's that editor's job to make it right by restoring it.
The mention of a certain editor was unnecessary, but did not amount to trolling imo.
What's this issue about use of the word "Greetings"? I can't even see where they used it, but so what if they did? What makes it "odd"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
They (the OP) used it at the top of this section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the question, as worded, should have been removed as a troll question. The question of why there are nerves in teeth would have been a valid question, but then the question went on with content intended to provoke. It wasn't as subtle as the previous troll question, and I concur with the removal. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, that. I read it as a comment on the removal of their original question. They're saying the removal was hardly a friendly way of greeting an OP. Maybe they were asking for it by their mention of Medeis's name in that way. But it was hardly a hanging offence, and it certainly wasn't a personal attack. Obviously they've been around here long enough to have learned about some of the regulars and their ways, but there's no crime in that. Wouldn't this just have been better resolved by removal of the Medeis reference (with or without explanation) and letting the guts of the question stand? That would probably have ended it. As it is, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, and we now have this debate. You accuse us of feeding the trolls, but you took the intemperate action that led to their reaction here, so you must accept some of the responsibility for it, imo. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Read my comments farther up. That's all I'm going to say, as the troll has already been overfed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the question should have been removed. I do think that the Medeis part should have been removed and a note left on the askers talk page (Ip, or no), but the question was fine. It doesn't matter if they asked bad questions in the past, nor if they were trolling, source of questions is immaterial, the question as it stood was fine, and that should be all that actually matters unless it is clear that they are banned user (and I don't see any definite evidence presented of that). It's not like we're swimming in flawless questions around here, I'd rather have more things asked in this vein than nothing at all. Finally, despite my position, I do see where Bugs is coming from, and if we had a stronger flow of questions here, I'd be far more supportive of cutting borderline acceptable fare - but, we don't, so for now, I'm more supportive of embracing what we can get, lest this place wither up and be replaced with tumbleweeds blowing past in the internet winds:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Tinkering with a question as you and other suggest would guarantee verbal crucifixion here. Maybe the OP could demonstrate good faith, and restore the question, minus the gratuitous shot at another editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Very true, I forgot about that aspect. In that event, I do believe that the removal was a fair move (though, I may not have removed it myself - then again, I wouldn't care if someone said my name nastily, so that may have something to do with it). I do thing, however, you should have mentioned that the question could have been re-asked sans reference to other users; just a suggestion, as mentioned, we sorely need more traffic, which is the angle I'm coming from - I understand your motives, don't disagree with them.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Baseball Bugs on the removal, but yes a pointer to the reason for removal and ways to do things right is a good idea. On the other hand in this case it looks like they have enough experience of the reference desk the OP should have known better anyway - they are not entitled to any special treatment under don't bite the newcomers which the word 'greetings' implied. I am always amazed by the way it is the people who insult others who seem to complain most about things like this. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think editing the question to read "...[user name redacted]" would have been fine and appropriate in this specific case. But as you say, that action can itself be provocative to some. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To the OP et al. My understanding of the above conversation is that there is consensus that the question of nerves in teeth is appropriate, and that Bugs removed your question because of how you mentioned another editor in a way that seemed intended to provoke. As per Bugs' comment above, I think you should resubmit the question with no mention of any specific user. I personally think it is a very interesting question, and though I've posted some leads above, I don't fully understand the explanation yet. I was tempted to ask the question myself, but didn't want to seem WP:POINTY. Though this process was a bit tedious, I think we handled it fairly well, and would encourage you to continue to ask interesting science questions, while staying as WP:CIVIL as possible. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I partly disagree with SemanticMantis. The question of what the purpose of nerves in teeth is was an appropriate question. They do have purposes, such as to warn if a bite on bone is about to cause tooth breakage. However, there was not one troll flag in the question, but two. Another editor was mentioned, which seemed to indicate a dislike of that editor and may have been intended to bait. Second, the wording of the question was strange and provocative, and appears to have been intended to provoke an intelligent design / evolution quarrel. There are too many of those at the intelligent design article talk pages and evolution talk pages, let alone here. The combination of two factors was a strong reason why the troll post should have been deleted (and why any follow-up questions from that IP, which we have not seen, should result in a block). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I guess this is a lesson in subjectivity of interpretation. I had a completely different interpretation of the OP's linked text. I read the ID bit as a joke, a jab against ID, and intended to indicate that the OP was not interested in the non-science of ID, but in peer-reviewed, well-accepted scientific findings. I don't think any of our respondents would have said this, but the OP seemed to be chuckling about the hypothetical non-answer of "teeth have nerves because you were designed by God, and he wants you to feel pain." Anyway, perhaps I'm too permissive, but I think it's fine for an OP to say they are not interested in answers based on pseudoscience. For context, it's par for the course for our editors with real science experience to poke fun at thinks like ID, perpetual motion, homeopathic dilutions, and other forms of pseudoscience that we occasionally get asked about. While this might not be the best tactic for educating believers in pseudoscience, it seems to be generally acceptable behavior. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have much to say except that I agree simply removing the offending wording may have been acceptable and nice in theory, but history has shown such edit can be controversial even if it's within policy. Also, and the main reason I replied, is to say I'm not interpreting the "Not so friendly greetings" part the same way others above seem to. In particular, I'm not sure the OP was complaining about what they saw as unfriendly greetings. It sounds to me like instead, they were intending to say their "greetings" to people here aren't so friendly. And I don't see that there's anything wrong with this since they were clearly aggrieved, rightly or wrongly. Putting their greetings near the end of their post rather than the beginning may have been a bit strange (although most of their post was in the subject title which is never a good idea anyway) but perhaps reflective of the fact their greetings were largely an aside. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

One IP blocked

I'm not quite sure its the same person but this edit[23] makes a serious threat towards Baseball Bugs. So serious that I gave the IP an immediate indefinite block.[24] I'm not upto speed with the pattern of behaviour and if there are other IP involved but these might require blocks as well.--Salix alba (talk): 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Salix alba, I agree about the serious threat, but you can't indefblock a dynamic IP. The same person appears to have been using it since 4 August, so two weeks may be possible at a stretch. I've changed it to that. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
4th August? I'm pretty sure it's been the same editor since their first edit 06:57, 21 February 2014. That said, I agree the 2 week block is fair. Even a fairly sticky IP can easily change (usually "unintentionally") when an IP gets blocked. Considering this editor has been frequently asking questions about their novel [25] [26] under that IP, and previous ones for nearly 2 years now Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 September 28#Lifesaving medal [27] and generally shows a highly pro-American (& American right wing) POV (and other stuff) in their posts (which also seems to be implied in their novels) so is probably easily recognisable to many regulars, I guess this means they no longer want our help.
Then again, looking a bit more I'm pretty sure this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 June 23#Testing medicines is the same editor and if so, it isn't the first time they were blocked although last time it was for personal attacks [28] so them coming back may have been acceptable if they stopped with such attacks. (Although I'm not sure that was the only time, I seem to recall this editor may have been blocked at some other time.) Stuff like "THIS MAY COST YOU YOUR LIFE" is something else and IMO it would be acceptable to apply WP:DENY to this editor from now on, unless they are willing to give a clear undertaking never to make such comments again.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I was right about the 67 IP being blocked before [29] (this IP I think Special:Contributions/67.170.215.166). Also their previous personal attack was fairly violent [30] too although not an apparent threat and they seemed to have other problems before being blocked that time. BTW, I don't think this is directly related to the above thread or IP. BB did remove that question earlier [31]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My question

My youtube question has gone nearly a full day without answer. why is this the case? I should have recieved an answer a long time ago. Pablothepenguin (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What youtube question? Should you be asking the question to youtube rather than to Wikipedia? If you really have a Wikipedia question, remember that we are all volunteers, and 24 hours is not a long time for that purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean this question: [32] It hasn't been answered because none of the volunteers here have chosen to answer it. Possibly because it isn't a question, but multiple questions, and you don't seem to have made the slightest effort to look for answers yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You DID get an answer. It just wasn't the one you were looking for. I recently asked a question about the TV series Unforgettable and I didn't get an answer of any kind. That's how it goes sometimes. This is a voluntary site, so there's no "should have" about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The only "should" around here is what rules questioners should read and apply. Less than 24 hours after posting your question, you were berating us for not answering. Apparently, you didn't read the instructions at the top of the page, which include: Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days. In the meantime, I've added some thoughts about how to address your nervousness issue. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 archives not yet listed

The Aug 2014 archive pages are not showing on WP:Reference desk/Archives. This should happen automatically, right? -- ToE 23:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's the one thing the bot never learned how to do, but there are several people about who are good at creating those pages manually. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Done (though this was a first for me, and I took me two steps. CiaPan who's been updating that template like clockwork for over a year (and always in a single edit) might be on vacation :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks to CiaPan as well for all the previous updates. -- ToE 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back. ;) You guessed right, Sluzzelin, I've been on vacation. :D --CiaPan (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Japanese keyboard question.

I realize we got a bit off-topic, but does that justify this? Aside from that, the question and answer worked well together.

Hard to tell whether that's a confused newb IP or an experienced editor with an actual reason. Normally, I'd revert it myself, but given that I'm apparently verging on crapsackery already, I figured I'd ask first. Fine with the hat on the sidetrack, even total deletion (if that kind of thing is forbidden), but let's not throw the babies out with the bathwater, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored the question and the first answer from Dismas, everything else seems to be an offtopic discussion about the term "jap", it contributes nothing and can stay unrestored unless someone else cares to bring it back.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You may have missed the fact that the original section heading said "Jap" rather than "Japanese". That's what triggered the discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that it did, but I don't think such a long discussion about it really belonged; it would have made more sense to hat it, leave it, or handle it on a talk page - the question itself does not need a debate on if "jap" is acceptable. As it stands now, with the word replaced, what was restored is perfectly acceptable, that is the context in which I was responding.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I still intend to "bring it back", it being the term, but Wikipedia isn't exactly the best platform for that. Helpful in teaching me there was a problem in the first place, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)}}
Yes, this is not the place for that, but it is an interesting thing. You may be interested in Reappropriation and Category:Reclaimed_words. We can't tell group X that the words that others want to call them are not offensive to group X. Apparently reclamation worked out ok for Whiggism and Whiggery, at least for a while... SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Fairly interesting, thanks. Just for clarity's sake, I don't think we should call them Japs, like "Hey Jap, come here a minute" or "How's it going, Jap?" That sort of weight on the nationality seems undue. I'd call them their name, or something like "sir" or "buddy" if I didn't know it. I mainly want the world back where non-Japanese people can refer to Japanese people in a concise way, like we do innocently with so many others.
It's not like most other slur words, invented or used solely for the purpose. There's no inherent derogatory English association, like in "porchmonkey". Just part of the word "Japan". We can't tell Group X the word's inoffensive, because telling people what to think is offensive. But if we show them it can be used in a peaceful context, it should naturally take on meaning, just like it did in the 1940s.
But yeah, that's the last bit of soapboxing I do here, I swear. On that issue, anyway. Still going to be inedible elsewhere sometime. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Laser question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Lasers_that_curve

So, um. Apparently 84.209.89.214 feels very strongly that we've all horribly and arrogantly misinterpreted the question (including the person who actually asked it in the first place). Is this sort of thing typical of the reference desk these days? (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 18:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

When you read "..the OP and some responders here clearly understand "laser" to mean the beam of light that the device projects." why did you respond "So, you think they're actually asking if you can make a curved laser diode." ? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Since posing the question, the OP has returned twice, to argue with responders, but on no occasion has he actually explained exactly what his question means. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't know whether the OP (specifically 108.170.113.22) is present to explain their question here and nobody participating at the desk found it necessary to ask them to explain it for the simple reason that it is "fairly obvious" what a "laser that curves" means. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. Hence the lack of any debate on that page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Finally got it. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Your statement wasn't a commentary on the original question, or on the answers provided. It was just an observation of how the usage of the term 'laser' evolved from the original acronym?(+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 20:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you also get exactly what the OP was really asking? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume he was asking if this is possible (the answer is: yes). I can't think of what else he could have meant. (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 21:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, given the misunderstandings in that paragraph, assuming anything might be risky. It's unfortunate that the OP seems to have beamed up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Protein Chemist for apologising and I accept that there was only a misunderstanding as you describe. Also thank you for mentioning some interesting forms of fallacy! 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Intellect of human

A question about "intellect of human being a product of natural selection" was posed at WP/S. The question was answered by myself and by Dmcq, in both cases providing relevant references to Wikipedia articles. This is responsible dialog where Wikipedia expresses no view about alleged racial controversy but is not deterred from reporting that such controversies are documented. Baseball Bugs has intruded on the dialog 3 times with no other purpose than to disrupt it by heckling "Is this yet another white-supremacy argument?" and hatting "Race-baiting trolling"[33][34]. Just as responders at the reference desks are not so bigotted that they think any question about the Jap(anese) justifies bellicose heckling about Pearl Harbour, there are responders who should not be inhibited from giving referenced answers about human evolution. If Baseball Bugs will not keep his provocative interjections out of the ref. desks he must be forced to do so. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to raise the matter at WP:ANI - where the obvious links between the IP you have been using for some time and a blocked former contributor will no doubt be raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Andy you are worth your salt. That I am self-declared is old news. I recommend the advantage of working as an IP: nobody gets frightened that one is an anagram of anything. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You're funny, Mr. Anagram. It's nice to know you've found nothing useful to do since 2009. In this particular case, the OP admitted he was arguing for white supremacy. Maybe you're OK with supporting that argument. I'm not. But if consensus here is to restore yet another race-baiting question, then I won't stand in the way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, nobody but you mentioned "white supremacy". You now shift blame on to a contributor who has inferior language skill for responding to the inflammatory question that you threw at him. He has decently apologised on his page. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked the question, and his answer I interpreted as "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
What you interpreted as a "Yes" to your white-supremacy question was actually a neutrally worded and probably naively put question that if answered would have exposed the knee-jerk thinking that generates racial tensions. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't noticed the plethora of recent questions about race and genetics which are very thinly disguised attempts at justifying racism, specifically white supremacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I notice that you degrade the Ref. desks with that type of question. Evolution of human intellect is a subject that has nothing to do with the skin colour obsessions of racial bigotry, and you will not make it so. The complaint is against you alone here. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
For a guy who's been here a long time, you're not very observant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This deletion by Baseball Bugs lacks a summary, but I shall comment on it. In my opinion a poster in a thread has no right to impose their views on the same thread by exploiting the hat function. Removing all hatting from the question about human intellect lets everyone see who started race baiting about "white supremacy", and it should stay that way. Of course that does not solve the problem of racial tension - some people cling to their illusion that thinking is done with the skin, and Baseball Bugs pretends to be solver of the problem that still haunts the country where he grew up. A form of "gun control" that the community should consider will be for Baseball Bugs to lose the right to hat on any ref. desk. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't be much of a punishment, as I almost never hat things anyway. But if you're going to let the original race-baiting question stand, you also must let my question and his revealing answer stand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal action required?

Is it time to take some sort of formal action against User:Alex Sazonov? I think it's well-established that his contributions aren't just a product of mistranslation from the Russian, and, IMO, we should have some sort of official justification to delete his postings on sight. If so, what's the best course? RFC/U or ANI, or something else? Or should we just continue to let him amuse himself on RD/S? I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other, but other users have been banned for less egregious violations. Tevildo (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please Confine This To Your Own Section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We should refer him to this place. And, as I pointed out in the thread above, we should all consider moving there ourselves. Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
How would the average internet user find it? Or is that the whole point? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think they're that disruptive at the moment; I would suggest to simply ignore them. Although, I think if their number of posts escalates, then some form of action should be taken.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, he posts far too infrequently to be much of a problem, in my opinion. In light of the thread above and our previous discussions, I'm inclined to think attracting more users will help our desks more than pushing them away. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I refer the committee to this, and would reiterate my suggestion a little more forcibly. Tevildo (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hard to tell what to think of this one. "Preservative of the human genome" could mean a few things, or something else or nothing. Does it mean anything to any scientists on the committee (do I even work here)? Hard enough to mention black and white skin together in plain English, fake Russian's more open to interpretation. That part of him still isn't great (which is why I felt OK giving him a Skeletor answer today), but this might not be an "escalation" into hate speech or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say to discuss the issue with the user, if they give no response (or a ridiculous one), then we could start handling future questions a bit more aggressively - though, I don't think they've done anything to warrant deletion on sight, or anything along those lines.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Hard to tell"? I assure you it's not a language issue (I speak Russian), but a good faith issue (ie, it's a troll) or maybe even a personhood issue (ie it's a bot) Asmrulz (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue isn't in translation. I think we generally accept this is an English speaker with a Russian gimmick. Given that, "preservative" is still a bit confusing. Is there a thing (in any human or animal) that actively prevents DNA from changing? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but "preservative" means "condom" in a number of languages (whereas preservatives proper are called "conservants" or some such word). So, yes, in a way preservatives do keep DNA from changing (bodies) Asmrulz (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

archiving hiatus

I've been called away suddenly on a trip that will leave me without internet access for a week, so I won't be able to run scsbot to archive the desks. Hopefully with the lower volumes lately they won't grow unmanageably big. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in helping, but isn't sure how: User:Scray/Manually archiving the RefDesk. Matt Deres (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've archived a few of the larger desks, but didn't bother with the daily indices; I'll let the bot fix that up later. I also updated the instructions, in case anyone tried to help out and wondered why they didn't make much sense - the settings for archiving have changed since @Scray: (and I) made them up a few years ago. Matt Deres (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, [MattBot]! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to help and more needs to be done, but I'm unsure of the template needed when starting a new month. If anyone has any bright ideas, I'm willing to do the grunt work. Matt Deres (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Passports, frogs, etc.

To anyone who might be wondering... Back on July 19th, I did in fact ask whether passports were kept in a safe on international flights. I made no claim that they actually are. (Maybe someone else did, I don't know.) The reason I asked is because it has been a long time since I have taken an international flight, and I don't recall all the details. So I thought it was a reasonable question to ask. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable question to ask, and one that has a simple answer ("Yes" or "No") that can be provided with appropriate references. No wonder it was considered controversial. - EronTalk 20:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was a reasonable question. And it was answered at the time, although I don't recall if it was referenced or not. I might have been able to recall if it was referenced, but I can't, because I'm just a know-nothing idiot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the referencing thing that's not so straightforward. To anyone who uses a passport regularly, it's simply a blue sky thing that doesn't need references. Eron - where would one find sources? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That's actually an interesting point - the answer to the question is "No", but how does one reference the fact that one isn't required to do something? It's trying to prove a negative.
"Has it ever rained frogs on the fourth of July?"
"No."
"How do you know?"
"Well, I googled 'frog rain july 4' and got no results. It seems like the sort of thing that would have been recorded if it had happened, so I would say it didn't happen."
"So you don't know that it didn't! It could totally have happened"
"<head caves in>"
At which point someone will chime in and say that they extrapolated weather trends and frequency of amphibian precipitation and can say with certainty that frogs have in fact rained on the fourth of July. Somewhere. Somewhen.
For the passports, we could probably say it's a blue sky kind of thing; there are many people with direct experience of international travel who can answer. If pressed, I'd probably link to three or four airline sites and point to where they don't ever say, in their information for passengers, that passports will be locked up. - EronTalk 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The way around the frog question is to say that raining frogs is a very rare event. Then if someone cliams it has never rained frogs, then you say, well, 0 occurrences qualifies as "rare". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Except it has rained frogs. --Jayron32 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Just not on July 4th, or at least not recorded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how embarrassed I would have been if that link had been to a July 4 incident? - EronTalk 02:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Better red-faced than green-faced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
When a fact is generally considered to be "obvious", we don't need to provide references. If someone wishes to object that the answer is not in fact, obvious - then we may need to seek references. But remember, this isn't article space - we offer great latitude for WP:SYNTH and such like. To anyone who's flown recently, the answer to this one is pretty obvious, it's unlikely that anyone is going to pop up and proclaim that we're incorrect. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for this simple question. But when it gets more complicated, people have different ideas of what is "obvious". They don't always respond to requests for references or support.
For example, the recent Hot vs. cold thread on the miscellaneous desk. There were some wild-assed guesses thrown out, and requests for references were met with replies like "I have no intention of wasting my time proving the obvious," and "No, I won't." These weren't blue-sky claims, either. - EronTalk 02:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_108&oldid=1137434493"