Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

Removed non-science question from RD/S

Diff. I also left a note on the user's talk page. Nimur (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly acceptable question for the Miscellaneous Desk, perhaps moving it there would have been the way to go. I don't understand the message you left on their talk page about "off-topic jokes and chattiness". I agree they are problems on the desks, but how do they relate to that question? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I reposted it there (at the Misc desk) and left a placeholder and link at the Science desk. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I subst'ed the Template:Refdeskchatty - I guess I didn't remember the wording of the message; it's more specific than I intended. Woops. Nimur (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hard to figure why the OP would be asking about the "style" of that chair, unless he's looking for something more specific than "folding lawn chair". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

LC FAQ -or- How to recognize cows from quite a long way away
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The banned user "Light current" ("LC" / "Elsie") has been creating socks and causing disruption since at least August of 2009.
Luckily, the user is easy to recognize, as noted below.
As a banned user, any of its edits are subject to deletion on sight, regardless of their "quality". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Often found editing from British IP's in range 79.75, 79.76, 88.104, or 88.105 (no other user has ever been demonstrated to emanate from those IP's)
  • May begin by asking a seemingly harmless question (while hinting that it's a sock), then quickly going downhill:[1][2][3][4][5]
  • Registers below-the-belt or otherwise silly user ID's, often created months before: [6][7][]
  • Reveals its true nature from time to time: [8]

When deleting one of its threads that has already had a response, it would be courteous to notify the responding user why you've deleted it.

Also, it's best to state something briefly in the edit summary, such as "rv banned user".

Does this person really think that is some sort of "accomplishment"? Astonishing sometimes the sorts of things otherwise bright people find amusing. And wouldn't the best way (in the sense of expending the least effort) to nip activity of that sort in the bud be for us RD-editors to simply avoid squabbling like unruly schoolchildren no matter what/whom the cause may be? Wikiscient (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Here, have an apple: ;) Wikiscient (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Bugs: You could add a FAQ to the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
See the first draft, above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've semi-protected this page for a day to cut down on the noise. An unfortunate consequence is that new people with legitimate questions will be prevented from posting here. I've also removed Ludwigs2's last post, which is making me think about fully protecting the page. Please people, settle down. Franamax (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
To quote:"But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder" (Malaclypse the Younger, K.S.C.) Give it a try, Anon., you might like it. Wikiscient (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser uncovered a whole mess of socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current

Bugs, at time of reading that is a pretty good summary for an FAQ. We've already established though that the Elsie metaphor is insulting (Perhaps to cows? I don't remember.) so that cannot be part of any official account. I also question whether the material should be part of an FAQ for various reasons and would likely not support its inclusion. Insert apostrophe in "its" if appropriate. :) Good summary though. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
That's just a draft. Feel free to reconfigure it to more appropriate wording. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course its fundamentally pathetic for a person to spend a huge amount of time on something that gives them no benefit whatsoever. This kind of thing always strikes me as basically very sad. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahem. Comment on content, not the contributor. Please. Franamax (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a massive "Feed the Trolls" area on this page. "Some think that do not feed the trolls" means "talk about feeding the trolls". Ha! On a more serious tone, this discussion is mostly emptiness.--Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I slipped the troll an apple under the table because the troll called my first comment above "wise". I thought that was nice of it, so I gave it an Apple. I agree with whomever then zapped the troll's comment into emptiness, though, even if that means I have to offer this defensive explanation of my posts above to avoid confusion, because trolls feed on negative energy, which can be a real nuisance. Cheers. Wikiscient (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Bugs's information above could perhaps be logged at WP:LTA, which is specifically geared for holding reports and information of this nature. --Jayron32 04:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I regarding Cuddlyable3

I have started a discussion about Cuddlyable3's recent conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grammer nit-picking on discussion pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And as a result of that discussion, Cuddlyable3 has now been blocked for one week, for disruptive editing, by uninvolved administrator Fram. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
While I greatly respect the principled opposing arguments advanced by the dissenters in the proposal above to enact a targeted sanction on Cuddlyable3, I must ask them whether this was their desired outcome? AN/I is a bit of a crapshoot; here we ended up with a decision made in under 2 hours, which decision has deprived us of C3's valuable contributions to RDQ's for a week. It seems a pity that we are unable to introduce nuance into governance discussions... Franamax (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A week-long block is harsh. But if you look at the length of time this has dragged out, you will see that Cuddlyable3 was unwilling to respond cooperatively to a clearly-established norm: his behavior continued to worsen, and when it became evident that he was not going to willingly back down, outside intervention was necessary. If any editor refuses to behave reasonably, what other recourse is there besides a block? The consensus is easily summarized: do not disrupt Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 continued to disrupt Wikipedia despite repeated warning; he was blocked. When he returns, he may choose to behave well; and we can all move on with life; or he can choose to continue harassing users, and we will need to pursue additional blocks. These are the only options. Nimur (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is that the sanction we were considering here would have allowed C3 to continue participating in answering substantive questions (which by the accounts I've read they have done well), whilst curbing their undesirable/disruptive contributions. Isn't that the desirable outcome? This way we lose everything. Sure, C3 may not have agreed with the sanction, but then it would have been enforced by block, exactly the same way. I think we ended up with a "lose-lose" situation, that's all. Franamax (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't have really, though. He almost certainly would have 'tested the limits' of his new rules and been banned in short order. APL (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone still does not understand the consensus viewpoint, allow me to summarize:
  • Please try to use proper grammar. This is a good goal for the desk.
  • Do not disrupt the Reference Desk by harassing users about incorrect grammar. There is no requirement for perfect, publishable copy on the Reference Desk; a different standard applies to the desk than to the article space.
This is sort of like the robustness principle: write well; but tolerate others' good-faith mistakes. Nimur (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(Responding as one of the dissenters addressed by Franamax): No, it wasn't my desired outcome at all. The problem of lack of nuance is WP:ANI's problem (perhaps also its strength). I would still oppose this talk page pronouncing sanctions against one editor, on principle. We don't need more bad blood at the desks or at this page, and I'm afraid that getting into the habit of sanctioning volunteers would poison the desks. My desired outcome was that Cuddlyable3 call off the apostrophic crusade. It didn't happen. It was taken to WP:ANI and dealt with swiftly and bluntly. I didn't wish for this, but I can live with it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
My desired outcome was that he stop. I really, truly, sincerely thought he had stopped- I even stopped checking his contribs, yesterday, because I thought he had stopped. I thought he'd finally gotten the message that this wasn't okay. I feel really sad that it took a block to make the behavior stop. I don't understand why he wouldn't stop. But since we already tried reason, asking nicely, and warning firmly, I can't think of anything else we could have tried besides a short block. And we really couldn't let him go on harassing people, because it isn't okay for people who participate at the Reference Desk, which is a great public good, to get harassed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I also hope we can all get along. When the block expires, Cuddlyable will have the opportunity to return, and I'm sure many of us welcome his productive contributions, and that he will voluntarily cease his unproductive contributions. All of us can agree that we want this entire silliness behind us. Nimur (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course a block is unfortunate, but frankly, he made his own bed and now has to lie in it a week. What the dissenters wanted is rather immaterial; the situation was entirely under C3's control. Matt Deres (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I even smacked him with a dead fish. He got outta line, he got whacked. Fuggedaboudit. Wikiscient (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed request for legal advice

See [9]. Question asked "can I sue them." Requests for advice on whether or not one should sue someone else is legal advice, and inappropriate to the reference desk. Feel free to pillory me over this. I fully expect someone to restore the question immediately and demand that I be banned from the ref desks. Have fun. --Jayron32 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support removal. Questioner has an uneven history but isn't a newbie...high-volume questions (not itself a problem) but some inappropriateness per guideline and/or way off-topic. DMacks (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Support removal. I didn't think legal advice was allowed on Wikipedia until I saw that question. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it technically true that you can sue anyone for anything, you just might not win? (Curiosty question only)Aaronite (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to make that comment, and on that theory the initial answer to the question was correct. But that could be misleading, as the user might think that would be a ticket to victory. In fact, if there were no witnesses, it would come down to credibility of the two participants, which is pretty dicey. Hence, the OP needs to talk to a lawyer, not to wikipedia, about his chances for winning such a suit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not really true. A judge can deem a lawsuit frivolous and throw it out without further consideration, ordering the filer to pay costs. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
True, but the plaintiff still filed suit, hence 'sued'. Googlemeister (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can file any suit you want to, but it might only last 5 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I support the removal, though I do have a pillory that's just taking up space in my house. Matt Deres (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed a collapse tag.

Here, I removed a "collapse" tag that Grsz11 had inserted (in which he was replacing a "Resolved" tag) for a question whose only answer could be "You need to see a psychiatrist about this". This is only because I thought the collapse made it possible that the OP would miss the response. Really, I know removal is a popular reaction to medical advice questions, but I think the mission of the Reference Desk to help querents is better served if we say "This is a medical advice question; you need to seek out proper medical advice from a real life doctor", and then box up the thread somehow in a way that discourages future responses but doesn't just erase or hide the thread. Thus we help the querent while limiting ourselves appropriately. Removing doesn't help the poor querent, and collapsing makes it less likely they'll see the help, such as it is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Such as it is. I do get anxious on behalf of the various frightened and unhappy people who pose medical or legal questions, I hate to see them being given what must seem like a cold shoulder. 213.122.55.221 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty understanding the problem here. this woman is clearly asking for medical advice of a psychological nature, and the manner of the posting is mildly inflammatory (suggestions of childhood abuse in an open internet forum is a clear troll-magnet, not to mention an attractant for good-hearted, sympathetic, and entirely misguided advice). She has gotten the only help we can offer - see a physician or a therapist - no more needs to be said, and no more should be said. why are people resistant to closing this thread? --Ludwigs2 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to an 'archive top' format, so that the responses were closed but still readable. hopefully that will satisfy. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Now my only contribution to the thread is off-topic, rather than the vague sympathetic words I had in mind to add to the end, but that's no great loss. 213.122.55.221 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's alright - I probably should have used 'therapist' rather than 'psychologist'. less confusing: the two are not perfect synonyms. --Ludwigs2 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"Therapist" can also be confusing (in many contexts it means "physical therapist", and I don't know what it might imply in the century-old psychology/psychiatry dispute); not having read the original thread, I don't know if "professional counsel[l]or" would be closer to or farther from conveying the intended meaning. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That archive box is just what I had in mind — thanks, Ludwigs2! Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Archival madness

I've been experiencing an issue on the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Freud_in_modern_Psychology thread. when you click the edit button, it actually goes to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_September_7#Freud_in_modern_Psychology and edits there, though whatever post you edit there is transcluded back the main humanities desk. is this the expected/desired/intelligently-planned behavior of the ref desk, or is it just plain screwy?

P.s., that discussion is over as of now, so no need to worry about it. I just want to know why this occurred. --Ludwigs2 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Only the current day and the day before (and maybe the day before that?) are actually "live" on any given RefDesk. 1 or 2 days prior to that are transcluded from the archives, and older archives are just left "archived". This is by design. Personally I think we should move away from Scsbot and archive with Miszabot, which (like WP talk pages and every other internet forum in the whole world), archives threads based on the age of the last post, not the first post. This would "sweep out" stale posts while keeping alive current discussions regardless of date-of-first-question-asking. However this would be a fundamental change to our day/month/year archive naming structure and go to a straight numbering scheme, which some people have an issue with (whether personal or technical I don't know). Zunaid 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Yes, that happened to one of my edits, too. I was also wondering about that. WikiDao (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) And, weirdly, I didn't make all of those changes in that diff (afaik). How'd that happen? WikiDao (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The ref desks used to contain a week's worth "live", and was cut back to its current length as a result of discussion last spring or so. The argument was that typically if there's an answer to a question, it's going to turn up within a couple of days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I started the discussion motivating for the desks to be cut back, simply based on excruciating load times and unnecessary bandwidth wastage. I still think we should go with Miszabot. What's the big deal about having the archives named by day/month/year anyway? Every talk page on WP seems to survive just fine with a plain numbering scheme, so do the Village Pumps. Using Miszabot would actually simplify our lives much. Zunaid 20:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to give it a try; I don't have any particular attachment to archiving by year/months. IIRC, the one argument against it that I thought had weight was that most questions are answered within a couple of days and that posts after that are usually the regulars debating crap, arguing, or joking around - though I haven't studied that. Matt Deres (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe this scheme is also used at the Help desk. One major rationale that I can see is that the question posters don't have to know anything about the intricacies of Misza-style archiving or using the archive search. If they asked a question on May 3, they can just look at the archive page for May 3 to see what happened. Franamax (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Scsbot archives the Help Desk, too, using the same algorithm. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Which, if addressed to me, is pretty much just what I was trying to say, though maybe not clearly enough. I think the current algorithm has sufficient desirable function that I've not found yet a compelling reason to replace it and live with a different set of drawbacks, but that's just me. Of course you do go on holiday every so often, which is a terrible thing. :) Franamax (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the number of "live" days varies with different desks; the Science Desk is on a pretty short leash compared to the Ent Desk, for example. In case it's not clear to you, anything you post gets transcluded back anyway, so people can still see what you've written. After the transcluding stops, there's little sense in continuing to post to a thread since few people will see it. Matt Deres (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (indicated by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

might be best to put an editnotice on that page that asks posters to specify computer model, operating system and OS version. Is there a sysop around who wants to edit that in? --Ludwigs2 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just taken to asking, first off, what their OS is, if the question is ambiguous. If they don't get back on that I assume they've lost interest or fixed it themselves. I'm not sure putting an additional guideline into the header would actually result in better questions (the people who ask bad questions will probably continue to do so, and does anyone really read the boilerplate?), but I guess it can't hurt. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is huge!

It is bigger than the whole science reference desk! Too many discussions, huh? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this month it happens to contain three large kerfuffles with Cuddlyable3. To cast it all in a more positive light, we're very thorough. 81.131.46.171 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Archiving is set for 10 days, so some of those long sections look like they would be going away in the next archive-run. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

can i get pregnant even if i had a postinor 2 tabs( within 48 - 72 hours)

Removed per no-med-advice. Obviously lots of possible articles to read to learn general medical principles, but the whole point was asking for medical diagnosis and expert synthesis of facts not just the fact themselves. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal, was doing it myself when I got an EC Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Some flexibility in the application of the "no medical advice" principle is needed. Obviously, the poster wasn't requested that we diagnose whether or not she was pregnant based on the information provided; even a doctor wouldn't attempt to diagnose a pregnancy based solely on the question posted. Some general information about the issues involved, followed by a recommendation to see a medical professional for an actual diagnosis and treatment recommendations, would be more helpful than "Go away!". In the interest of doing the right thing, I answered the question on the user's talk page [10]. Also, though it didn't seem likely in this particular case, there are some regions of the world in which medical assistance by qualified professionals is simply unavailable to significant portions of the population. If someone from sub-Saharan Africa asked a "medical question", a response from editors at the reference desk would better reflect science-based medicine than consultation with a sangoma.
Claims that a request seeks "psychological treatment" are particularly problematic, because of the extent to which the professions of psychiatry and psychology have impinged upon the traditionally non-medical management of emotional states. If you saw a girl crying in the street, would you try to comfort her, or simply advise her to seek the assistance of a mental health professional and walk away? Does the "no medical advice" rule really require Wikipedians to adopt the latter approach? At what point does our allegiance to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer end, and our responsibilities as humans begin? Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure yet which rules actually require Wikipedians to do anything (if any: what if I just quit editing?). Seems to me so far though like a case-by-case balance as to how to answer some questions both non-professionally (for legal/public-image purposes mostly, I guess) but humanely (out of simple common human decency toward someone who seems to need help). I support the use of the template discussed in the next section, too. WikiDao (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above in the thread "I removed a collapse tag.", I don't think we should remove medical advice questions, but instead should place our no-medical-advice statement under the question and box the thread up with an "archive" tag. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This approach has, I believe, been tried before. Unfortunately, even with the question collapsed and the conspicuous template applied, we still get people replying to the question. Responses will include both the advice that we're not supposed to be offering, along with meta-arguments about whether or not the question is asking for advice. As far as I know, the only way to reasonably effective way to discourage medical advice is to remove the questions entirely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right. Presumably the original heading should be left there along with an explanation of why it was deleted (which seems to be the general practice anyway), just so the OP won't think it got deleted by accident. I could give a non-medical answer to the OP's question, though: "Sure you can. There are no guarantees in life. For further information, you need to talk to a health care professional." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Med-advice template doesn't say "ask a doctor"

Ref-desk guidelines recommend using {{RD medremoval}} for editors who ask for medical advice and "Encourage the poster to direct their medical questions to their physician, pharmacist, parents, or guardian." The template says "Please remember the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations." and had information about discussing the removal (at WT:RD), but does not actually say anything about asking a professional. If the guideline says to tell them to ask a professional, why don't we just put that in the template? DMacks (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Onlye been edited twice so probably just never occurred to anyone so I say add it Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed wording (added): "Please remember the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations (see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer). Consult a physician, pharmacist, parent, guardian, etc. to get a professional opinion.". DMacks (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm opposed to that. I consider it bad advice to tell people to consult doctors when there is actually nothing seriously wrong with them. We should just say that we don't provide medical advice and leave it at that, at least in the template. If individual editors feel that advice to consult a doctor is clearly warranted (e.g., "There's a bunch of blood coming out of my ears, what should I do?"), they can say so outside the template. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Looie: I disagree:
  1. We are not in a position to judge whether or not there is 'actually something wrong', so making a editor-based (i.e. random) choices on whether to tell someone not to seek medical advice may encourage people not to talk to a doctor when they should (on the 'well they told X to see a doctor, but not me, so I must be OK' theory).
  2. Seeing a doctor who will tell you there is nothing wrong is infinitely more healthy than sitting at home wondering whether there is something wrong. the reassurance is worth the doctor's fee and the doctor's time.
I think the wording is good, but I'd kill the underline. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Mostly agree with Ludwigs2 here and I think others have said similar things. If Looie496 still has concerns, perhaps a slightly re-wording to make it clear we're not necessarily recommending they see a doctor etc? Like replace "to get a" with "if you need a". I would note the RD template says "For such advice, please see a qualified professional" yet the informing the user medical advice one we're discussing doesn't say anything of that sort (hence the discussion here). Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The underline is an editorial markup to denote the added content (clarify the proposed change in-context), not a proposed formatting for the actual template. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Another possibility would be "If you're concerned about your health, please consult...". —Steve Summit (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to say "consult a [big list of professions here]"? Wouldn't "Please consult the appropriate medical professional" suffice? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that we should always recommend a medical doctor. The issue is, of course "over-medicalizing" the issue; and that is a legitimate complaint; e.g. "does a stubbed toe really warrant a visit to an MD?" We're not going to make that call - when we recommend a medical doctor's advice, our recommendation is not an order or an obligation - the OP can always choose not to follow our advice and pursue a pharmacist, a new-age faith-healer, a man on the street-corner, or whom-ever else they trust to receive medical advice from. But by officially "recommending" a doctor, we are emphasizing that here on the reference desk, we have an official policy that we consider the licensed profession of medical doctor to be the most reliable, trustworthy, and qualified source for medical information. Users can opt for other choices at their own risk. If we posit that a question falls into the Med-Removal guidelines, we have already classified it as falling within the medical domain. Nimur (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought a better wording was to recommend that they consult an MD "if they're concerned" or words to that effect. Otherwise it could be read as "We've read your description of your problem and decided that you need to speak to a doctor immediately." APL (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should refer the poster to qualified medical professionals, but we should not necessarily be quite so specific in that guidance as to only mention medical doctors. For example, we get quite a few questions about drugs (over-the-counter and prescription, indications for and contraindications against, interactions with other meds, etc.) that can often be answered without an appointment, for free (in countries without public health care programs), by the pharmacist in the shop around the corner. Pharmacists are generally quite well-trained and quite heavily-regulated, and they know when they should refer their questions to another professional. Truth be told, most pharmacists will also have much more experience with, and knowledge of, the sort of day-to-day issues we hear about here.
Similarly, many jurisdictions employ 'nurse practitioners': nurses who have received additional training, and who are qualified to perform certain tasks (basic diagnosis, prescribing certain meds, reading simple x-rays). Further, even nurses who aren't trained to the level of NPs are trained in when and how to refer patients to other specialists. Our recommendation should be proper, but flexible. Addressing APL's point – that we shouldn't be overly alarmist, or inadvertantly discourage people from using the template because it might be perceived as overly alarmist – "consult a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, or other qualified medical professional with any concerns you might have", or something to that effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed some countries have services like [11] which are suitable for certain questions we get Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
But for a set template we need a general term that encompasses all the professionals that overlook certain aspects of health. We don't offer medical advice, dental advice, veterinary advice. So on the template don't we need a generic term like "appropriate medical professional"? Unless you want to create several templates for each outcome, but it seems ridiculous. People will know who their appropriate professional is. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Life and Ontrack Fix-it

Why is Bugs going around deleting people's questions? [12] [13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not "people's" question, but questions posted by Light Current. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
See [14] and [15]. Please provide an edit summary. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No. WP:DENY applies here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
An edit summary like rm question would be fine. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You're creating a mystery and inviting curious threads here. Whatever your intention, I don't think DENY is the end result.
Silent removals might (might) make sense for the rest of the encyclopedia, but here they just invite long discussions and controversy. APL (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing exactly what I said I was going to do, and no one objected at the time. What edit summary would you advise, that doesn't call too much attention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
"Reverting. Banned user." Ideally the name of the banned user would be mentioned, but I suppose nothing will convince you to do that, so this would be fine. APL (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur - edit summaries are very important to prevent a thread like this one. APL's proposal seems appropriate. -- Scray (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, a thread will result either way. Every time LC starts one of her periodic binges, like today, someone who should know better asks "Who is Light Current?" and then we have to go through this whole megillah again. LC has told us in the past that the way to fix it is to ignore her (i.e. to take the Neville Chamberlain approach), but that's bogus, since if you ignore her then she just tries harder. Either way, she thinks she's won (see taunting comment by 88.104 below). The only way to stop her is to take down the entire 88.104 IP range and other known ranges, but no one wants to do that, on the grounds that someone from that range someday might actually be a legitimate user, despite the lack of any evidence to that effect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus not to remove questions which people had spent their time composing good replies to, regardless of the source. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit, and those who answer should be more alert to who they're answering to. Note that today, I myself was initially fooled by that user, and gave a straight answer, now erased. It happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
That's rather a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Please read WP:DENY. And when you're done, we should also delete this section here. I don't understand why we have to keep re-explaining this character to everybody, every time he turns up, which is like once every couple of weeks. Is everyone's memory really that short here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy. It doesn't have to be followed, and when following it removes several users comments which they spent time writing / researching it's more disruptive than simply leaving the questions where they are. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
What part of "banned users are not allowed to edit" do you not understand? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely you realize that there is a large logical leap (correct or otherwise) between "Joe is not allowed to post." and "It is appropriate for Bugs to delete all of Joe's posts, all of the replies to Joe's, and to leave as little explanation of possible as to what he is doing and why." You can't just say "Banned users are not allowed to edit" and when someone questions you on the details. It's rude. I understand and sympathize that you're trying to make this thread as short as possible, but still... 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason you have to keep explaining it is because you carry DENY to an extreme where you don't communicate about it at all, and no one has any clue what you're doing!
It's more important that people understand that what you're doing is right. DENY is a secondary concern. APL (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


These posts aren't signed by Light Current (whoever that is). Are you saying that these are sockpuppets? Did you open an investigation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light current‎
and keep it on your watch list, as it turns up frequently.
Also read the archives so you can see what that cat has been up to for the last couple of years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I was somewhat annoyed at the removal of an interesting question about steel wool--one of the few real interesting ones. But I didn't feel annoyed enough to lash out at the deleting editor. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Banned users are not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged "quality" of their editing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue here isn't the "quality" of the banned users edits (assuming that even was a banned user, since I can't see any checkuser case) but of the quality of others who spent their time giving good answers to the questions. I remember the last time this discussion came up ages ago, the consensus was to remove the questions if they had no replies, but removing questions which people had replied to was discouraged. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Banned users cannot be allowed to have a foot in the door, nor to have themselves memorialized in the archives. If the question is that important, it will come up again, posted by a legitimate user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, without my taking sides in this issue (I don't really have an opinion on it), please note that wp:DENY means Deny Recognition, not Deny Access. If This LC idiot thinks that you're constantly on the look-out for him to the point that you will excise questions on mere suspicion, then he will feel like he's being recognized by you as an evil nemesis, and it will feed his ego something fierce. Really, the best thing you can do about his socks is treat them like any other clueless newb - answer good questions, ignore/tag/delete stupid questions, and etc. when/if the SPI investigation pans out, then you can delete to your heart's content.
Don't pursue wp:DENY to the point where you run afoul of wp:DNFTT. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
P.s. - lol... I just realized those two essays got merged at some point, so now both those links are the same. but you get my drift. ..--Ludwigs2 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Haha! It took me a few seconds to puzzle out what you were trying to say. I couldn't remember what DNFTT stood for! APL (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
82.*, I remember that discussion, but I think it was more about new trolls not existing banned users. APL (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, henceforth I'll say "rv banned user" or something like that, rather than leaving it blank. Now, in the interest of WP:DENY, can we delete this section? Or do you want to preserve it so LC can read it over and over in the archives? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care, it's achieved it's purpose, but it may cause more confusion if you delete it right now. Some of the editors who participated might not be reading on a minutely basis and will be confused. (I suppose they'd figure it out, though.) APL (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Ps: Uh, it probably goes without saying at this point, so sorry if I'm pointing out the obvious, but if you do delete it, please leave a descriptive edit summary so that concerned editors can locate it with a minimal of hassle. Thanks. APL (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably stating all these policies is like WP:ALLOW and WP:FTT. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I found this discussion interesting (as an RD n00b, just by way of getting a better sense of what goes on around here) – I probably wouldn't have seen it if it had been deleted. But, since there's a lot of stuff to see by way of getting that better sense, it probably wouldn't matter much to me, either, if it had gotten deleted for some good reason to do that. But just wanted to point out: there's always a trade-off to be made with all of this sort of thing. Wikiscient (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

However this all works out, could you at least, please, leave a nice note on my talk page when you delete something I wrote? I've had two threads that I've posted in deleted without me being aware, which means I have to search through the archive to see which little turd deleted my posts, and why. Even saying: "You might be interested to know that I deleted a thread you participated in: [diff]" would be sufficient. But I don't like my stuff disappearing without explanation, because I will hunt through the history to find who did it, which does make me crabby. </rant>. Buddy431 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How much more advertising do we need to give to that character? We've already given it too much today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to advertise at all who it is; all I'm asking for is that you leave a short note on my talk page which (I assume), is not read by whoever your nameless troll friend is and will not give them any satisfaction. It's threads like this that give them recognition, not short notes on editors' talk pages. Buddy431 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I did some deletions of my own last night, LC's pattern is obvious enough. All edits should have a summary though, "rmv thread started by banned user" would do. I left a few that seemed fairly harmless but I probably should have nuked those too. Buddy431 I can understand your annoyance, but for this long-term disruptive editor, notification as you suggest only feeds their game. (Although not half as much feeding as how someone always charges to the defence of freedom and enables this guy yet again) Their aim is to disrupt until they are given freedom to post whatever silliness they want. It's unfortunate that your good-faith efforts are wasted, but they were wasted the minute you started typing your response, because the OP doesn't care about the answers. All they care about is trolling. Franamax (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem here. Banned users aren't allowed to edit. Bugs is being helpful by removing the edits of a banned user, and doing it in a way that doesn't feed the troll any more than necessary. Eventually, she will grow up... or eventually she will die... and until then, we sigh, and remove, and move on. Thanks, Bugs. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, here's the thing: I feel that (outside of article space anyway), I should have control and oversight over MY edits. Even if my edits were inappropriate, I would expect someone to notify me when they removed it. When they are NOT inappropriate, I sure the hell want someone to tell me when they do ANYTHING to my edit, let alone delete it. And when I notice my edits disappearing without explanation, I WILL dig through the history and find who removed it, and I WILL leave a polite note on their talk page. If they continue to remove my edits without telling me, I will leave not-so-polite notes on their talkpage. I would never modify someone's post without telling them, let alone deleting it, and I expect the same courtesy extended towards me. That is all. Buddy431 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Although I tend to agree with FisherQueen in principle, it would have been more courteous had I informed the responders. I've included that suggestion in the new FAQ, which is in the next section below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The thing is though Buddy431, you don't have control over your edits here. The people with root login on the servers control your edits. They answer to the trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. WMF grants us access to those servers so long as we comply with their policies and principles, with the expectation that we will form a community to manage our own affairs. But don't kid yourself, the off switch is always within reach. You are correct that you should always be extended the courtesy of notice, but it is a courtesy, not an absolute right. In the words of others, you have precisely two rights on Wikipedia, the right to fork a version and the right to leave. (Not that I suggest either for you!) When things like this happen, there are a whole lot of pages to start watching, WT:RD, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, user pages, history pages - and all of them need responses when appropriate. I'll apolgize in advance, because when this all happens again (and it will), I might leave your notification way down the priority list or forget it altogether. That doesn't mean I (or we) devalue your efforts, it just means we're off chasing dragons and trying to get things on the level again. en:wiki can be a chaotic environment at times, don't take it personally! Franamax (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I certainly realize that I don't actually have any sort of legal or even policy based right that my posts not disappear without warning (and I don't think that I have said that). Though my comment was perhaps over-dramatic, I still stand by it, and I will look through the history when I notice my posts disappearing, and I apologize in advance for being crabby when I find out who deleted them. Buddy431 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If someone takes the time and trouble to provide a good answer to a sensible question, which contains information of general interest, and especially if it is well researched and referenced, they deserve at least a note on their talk page explaining that it was deleted to deny recognition to a banned editor. An essay on "DENY"ing recognition to a banned editor does not give license to delete the good-faith postings of editors in good standing. If the banned editor, under a sock or IP address, started a thread on any discussion page, and a number of editors posted responses, and had a general discussion which contributed to the purposes of the page, I do not agree that any self-appointed censor has the right to delete all their postings without notifying them, just because the thread got "cooties" from the touch of a banned editor. We should be clever enough to find a way not to cut off the nose of the other editors to spite the face of the banned editor. Removing the signature or IP address of the banned editor while leaving a sensible question and informative answers would be one method. I would not oppose the removal of obviously trolling questions and responses, but an explanatory note to good-faith responders is appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The ideal solution is to recognize LC's behavior and head it off at the pass. And it's not about "censorship", it's about the rule that banned users are not allowed to edit. If they want to get unbanned, there are channels they can follow. But that's apparently of no interest to them. They would rather just play this game forever. And sometimes we catch them right away, and sometimes editors don't recognize it for who it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree that "nonbanned editors" ARE ALLOWED TO EDIT without your singlehandedly removing their work with no notice to them? You may be throwing the baby out while eliminating the bathwater. Edison (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that he behaves like a nasty little Tourtuous Convolvulus who likes to stir up fights. Notifying Buddy might have spared him annoyance and might have spared us all this discussion. Notification should not be at the bottom of the priority list, unless you enjoy these discussions (I know Lc does). Not everyone knows about Lc, nor should they be expected to. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
LC is (hopefully) on ice for the next month or so, and if it becomes necessary to remove an entire section in the future, I will notify those whose words I have chopped. As far as sparing someone annoyance, their lack of vigilance is their own problem, so don't blame me for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
To explain a little more about the "last priority", when you start taking concrete action (as opposed to commenting on the actions of others), you can quickly find that events have overtaken your initial (not yet committed) explanatory post, in the form of multiple edit conflicts, orange "you have new messages" bars, threads firing off in all directions, &c. I can confirm it turns out that way for slow typers like myself. I agree that no-one should be consigned to "lowest" priority, but it seems that's how it sometimes turns out, for good or bad. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, I'm not interested in blame. It's a simple fact that not everyone reads this talk page, let alone has been reading it in the past, because they're new, because they don't care for it (can't blame them for that) all sorts of reasons. This discussion alone teaches us that notification is important, not only because of upset feelings, but also so you can educate them and thus increase vigilance.
(Franamax, I confess that I have ignored threads by Lc with the clear intent to troll, because I too am slow. And lazy.  :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This section started with a complaint that I was deleting stuff without notifying legitimate posters. I've said I'm going to notify them in like situations in the future. Are there any other issues to be settled, or could this section be boxed up? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh? We're discussing civilly. Why box it up? Let it peter out. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"Boxing up" is a form of censorship, and I object. I disagree with a claim of a right to delete the good faith postings of editors in good standing just because an informative and encyclopedic thread began with some posting believed to be by a banned editor. If it is a silly troll question, then spot it and delete it with an edit summary that it was a post by a banned editor, and notify any responders. If it is a sensible question, and others have worked to provide informative and useful answers, then perhaps delete the signature (maybe leave it "Signature redacted- banned editor") but not the responses. That is one "issue to be settled." Edison (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
How about this as a proposed, two-part solution:
  1. Unanswered questions which have been very recently posted by a banned user may be deleted on sight, with an appropriate edit summary like "removed, banned user".
  2. When such questions have been answered in good faith by editors-in-good-standing, the question is to remain, uncommented on (per WP:DENY), and allowed to run its own course. The question diff itself can be used for evidence at WP:SPI cases, but once answered in good faith by editors who were unaware they were responding to a banned user, just leave the question alone, without comment or deletion.
That provides a compromise between enforcing the ban, and not disrupting the good-faith contributions of the rest of us. Comments? --Jayron32 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
NO. Banned editors are NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT. Period. End of story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
While I think it would be helpful if we remember that SHOUTING won't resolve the issue, I'm afraid I have to agree with Baseball Bugs' stance here. In this case, we're dealing with someone who regularly vandalizes Wikipedia pages, stalks other Ref Deskers, and who spends an inordinate amount of time and effort to create and age sockpuppets in order to troll the Reference Desk. (Since last Friday, Checkusers uncovered yet another batch of more than sixty sockpuppet accounts, some of which had been saved, unused, for nearly a year.) Jayron32's proposal, while well-intended, effectively says "Even though you're banned, and you've harassed and stalked and vandalized the work of many of this service's volunteers, as long as you can trick one editor into replying to your post, you'll get a free pass. Please enjoy this new game, which will provide you with another opportunity to taunt the good people who contribute their efforts at the Reference Desk."
I agree that every reasonable effort should be made to communicate why these removals are being made, as innocent users who were just being helpful in offering answers are going to get caught up from time to time. These days, when I've pulled a question (and occasionally, a thread) I use a brief (per WP:DENY) explanatory edit summary along the lines of "rm LTA" ("remove long-term abuse"). If anyone should follow up with me, I am more than willing to explain the reason for this more-than-usually-harsh response to block evasion.
At least part of the problem in this instance is that Bugs – while understandably frustrated by this long-term troll – was less patient than he should have been in responding to queries about his actions. Buddy431 did absolutely the right thing when he had a question about Bugs' removal — he went to Bugs' talk page and asked politely: User talk:Baseball Bugs#Removal on the reference desk. Bugs' initial response was quite curt, and his sarcastic "oblivion knows no bounds" remark later on didn't help either. It's worth remembering that in large part because of the ongoing efforts of a substantial number of admins, checkusers, and Ref Desk old-timers who were around for the 'bad old days', the nuisance of LC has been kept to a minimum that doesn't interfere much with today's Ref Desk. It's quite understandable – and a sign of our success – that new volunteers here, and even some folks who've been working with us for a year or two, can remain unaware of his existence. (Remarkably, my first attempt to post this response edit-conflicted with yet another sock account.)
While I'm handing out trouts, I'm a bit disappointed by A Quest For Knowledge's decision to start a thread here on the Ref Desk talk page without querying Bugs on his own talk page – or even looking at Bugs' talk page – first. The question at the top of this thread was answered on Bugs' talk page nearly three hours before AQFK asked it here. If AQFK found Bugs' response unsatisfactory (or if Bugs had failed to respond to queries in a reasonable time), that would be the time to escalate to a broader discussion on this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades: Huh? I shouldn't have to go to editor's talk page to find out what's happening at a project page. Anyway, all of this could have been avoided had Bugs included an edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You posted here, "Why is Bugs going around deleting people's questions?" Why would you ask the peanut gallery to guess, when you could just post a question directly to him on his talk page and know? Indeed, you would have found out if you had looked on his talk page that the question had already been asked and answered. It's simple courtesy — don't talk about a person until after you've tried talking with that person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The last time LC went on one of his little binges, I said I was going to zap without comment, to minimize whatever pleasure he gets from this process. No one objected. So I did it, and got objections. So next time, I'll do an edit summary and explain the facts to the innocents who got their stuff zapped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Jayron32's proposed solution, to be ignored (with appropriate explanation) at the discretion of editors with a clue (of whom I am not one in this case, so would appreciate the explanation). Wikiscient (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • SupportJayron32's proposal. Please do not create strawmen regarding "taunt(ing) the good people who contribute their efforts at the Reference Desk." It is very bad behavior to delete the carefully written work of numerous editors, sometimes reflecting considerable time and effort. I have gone to a reference library to dig up information for some Ref Desk questions, and I would be outraged if my work was deleted because I had unknowingly responded to a fine question from a suspected sockpuppet of a banned editor. Some Ref Desk responses have gone directly to articles which needed improvement. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do not demean and frustrate good faith editors to "deny" a troll the dubious satisfaction of asking a sensible question and getting a sensible answer. I said "If it is a sensible question, and others have worked to provide informative and useful answers.." then no one has the right to unilaterally delete the contributions of those good editors. A taunting troll post can and should be removed. A sensible question with informative and encyclopedic answers provided by good faith efforts of other editors should be left. Edison (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Jayron32's proposal. I concur strongly with Edison and similar sentiments from others. Comment: shouting WP:DENY and making a big fuss is actually giving more attention than just ignoring the user. Anyway, sensible questions, with sensible answers, are useful to the community at large; it doesn't matter who asked them or what their motive was. Nimur (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a third option. A common practice throughout the wiki is to use strikeout (<s>...</s>) notation when a newly-discovered sockpuppet had previously generated discussion valuable of itself. I would oppose this proposal as-written, first because it tilts the playing-field toward the troll; second, because there is no inherent sanctity in edits you contributed in good faith; in a related way, third because I'm not convinced that RD-answerers need extra-special protection from the reality of editing in this environment, so you got fooled into taking a question seriously, so what? I also oppose this narrow codification because I'm not all that sure exactly what I'll do next time. I think I'm on the relatively lenient side, but it all depends on what the level of disruption is. Franamax (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment. We want to provide information that visitors to the RD find useful and interesting, especially if it leads them into further use of and involvement with WP. Sometimes such information in provided (to RD visitors generally) in response to malicious, malformed, inappropriate, or otherwise unacceptable questions. It will take discernment and experience to apply the proposed policy in a way that balances effective troll-control with effective RD operations, but it seems like a good "ideal" to bear in mind for those concerned, and even to have on the books in some way, to me. Wikiscient (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
To be quite discourteous, and using "you" as in "y'all": why do you value your precious gems of wisdom so? The desks are not in the business of thinking up questions where the desks could have really interesting answers. The objective is to answer real questions, from people who are really interested in the answers. Franamax (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Fran, my attempts at casting "pearls of wisdom" in the general direction of the particular swine in question here were very courteously not deleted (yet), as it happens. So I don't really have a horse in this race, but if I did I would promptly sacrifice it to the greater interests of WP if civilly called upon to do so in a way that I could genuinely agree did that. Do I seem annoyingly arrogant to y'all or something? 'Cause I sure don't mean to be, and sure have no problem with you on a personal level, and have been having a pretty good time around here lately in what I had hoped was an at least occasionally mutual way – so why do you ask? Wikiscient (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a cultural slip in there, I was also going to use "'you' as in the royal 'you'" - but was trying to make very clear that I didn't have 'you' the one specific editor in mind. Maybe I've spent too much time in Texas...
I was actually trying to challenge the mindset that "my own edits are vital to the persistence of this wiki", which may or may not be held by you or others to varying degrees and I've observed in many cases is not all that helpful. Nothing to do with you in particular. And I was talking about answers on the desks as the "pearls", on discussion pages your ideas are free to smell just as bad as mine. :) Franamax (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, see, I did interpret it as being directed at me personally. Perhaps I've spent too long in DC, lol...
But, and as perhaps my wikiname suggests, I am personally (as a minor character here at WP) invested in whatever is best for WP, and fully approve of the various processes by which that gets determined. I only regret that I do not have more time to spend participating in those processes myself, at this point.
My position here, in any case, is this: do whatever you and others who know what they are doing think is best, and if that seems best to me too, from my perspective, I will support it and abide by it as productively and civilly as I can, and if it does not then I won't (as civilly and productively as I can). Capiche? :) Wikiscient (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, right. Maybe this was the source of the misunderstanding: Y'all#Use with a singular reference
I've heard it used any number of times in Northern Virginia with what is, for all intents and purposes, a singular reference (singular use seems entirely permitted and understood in my experience). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC) →(formerly known as User:Wikiscient)
Yes you can certainly use it for the singular (that I know of) but if there's a possible "all" it defaults to meaning the plural (that I know of). For instance, if someone said "do y'all want to come over for dinner Friday?" and you were the only other person in the room, you wouldn't say "no I don't want to leave my wife to eat alone" - wou would bring your wife. But you don't have to get someone off the street so there's more than one of you coming over. It's context-dependent. But I specified I was using "you as in y'all", why would I do that if I still meant the singular? Or wait a minute, are you saying there is another one of me in Northern Virginia? I wonder what he would have posted to the singular you? :) Franamax (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
 – lol :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The one user who actually came to my page to ask about it, seemed more upset about not having been told than about the fact it was deleted. You've got a point, though, that the troll is probably posing seemingly legitimate questions just to get her foot in the door, more than to actually have a question answered. If that's all she ever did, no one would notice. But that's not interesting enough for her - she's got to stir the pot, presumably as revenge for having been banned almost 2 years ago. Trolls are persistent. They can keep these things going for years as long as they still find it fun to watch us scurry like ants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Franamax's proposal is workable - The purpose of the ref desks is to educate. I thought everyone who visited the ref desks regularly knew who that cat was. But apparently not. I think everyone's agreed that an unanswered question from a troll is fair game for deletion. If the question itself appears reasonable and has already been answered, but is demonstrably a troll (like 2 minutes later making one of his stupid bodily function jokes somewhere), then the question is fair game for tagging, to educate those who answered the question. I'm convinced now that the WP:DENY rule is of little value here, because what gets her going is stirring things up and seeing disagreements; so posting a comment that the question was asked by a troll, retains the information in case someone else cares about it, and it also educates the answerers. If we can all agree on an approach here, that should go a good ways towards squashing that troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
So strikehrough then, on the OP question and any followups they posted before discovery? Add a comment in <small>: "Struck edits of banned user. [sig]" at the first strike? I wouldn't necessarily do that for a one/two-answer thread and would delete it instead, but then the "notify-editor" rule would come into effect. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a practical and brand-new example:[16] The question appeared reasonable, I answered it immediately, others answered it, and then when I did a followup I happened to check and the OP has been indef'd for block evasion. Who it's a sock of, I didn't check. But someone figured it out, and I pointed out that fact rather than zapping the question. So, how could it be handled more smoothly in the future? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's how I would handle it then: [17]. Got the edit summary wrong though. I'm willing to put my name on that edit due to behavioural evidence. We'll see how well the idea flies. Franamax (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The way Franamax struck the question while leaving the answers on this EST question looks fine to me, and I would encourage that approach. And yes, I do think that some (not every) answer that I and others have provided, if it is a good answer which required hours of research, and if it can be used to improve an article, or generally to add useful information to the Ref Desk archives where others can find it in the future, should not be casually deleted to punish a troll who happened on some occasion to ask a reasonable question. Baby/bathwater, nose/face. Crappy and trollish question? Just delete it, even if some incautious editor responded with a typical argumentative off-the-cuff response to trolling, but notify the goodfaith editor why the deletion was done. Several good faith informative responses to a sensible question? Do the Franamax thing. Edison (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The Franamax approach seems to work. It's clear that consensus is against zapping seemingly neutral questions once they've been answered. I think it's important that we present a united front against trolls, as much of their pleasure derives from getting us to argue. If we all agree on an approach, it won't be so much fun for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Spot on. Deny drama, withhold reinforcement for aberrant behavior, and the frequency should diminish, per B.F. Skinner. Edison (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even realise this was still ongoing. But anyway Support Franamax's proposal,Strongly oppose Jayron32's proposal. I don't personally mind that much if my good faith answers are deleted as I've said before. It's clear not everyone agrees. I respect that.
However I'm strongly opposed to the idea we should just allow clearly bad faith questions to be unmarked. If people want to reply to a troll, that's up to them but as I've said before I usually don't want to so don't see why I shouldn't be informed that the OP is a troll and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one. The fact that people have already replied is no reason why I should potentially waste my time on a question no one may really be interested in.
As I've also said before, I recognise as I presume do all respondents to the RD that there's no guarantee anyone is going to be interested in or even read my particular answer (we know there's evidence to suggest quite a few OPs don't check out their questions) but as hopefully with most people my primary motivation for answering or offering comment is usually in the hope it will benefit someone. The OP is usually the most likely person to have an interest so when the OP is a troll I.E. has no interest I do want to know that.
I recognise that there is somewhat of a risk of disputes which we clearly don't want, and I myself have made a mistake in identifying someone before but I do not believe simply leaving unmarked and without comment the questions of clearly identified banned trolls is the way to go.
Note that in addition to allowing users to make a choice in whether they want to answer a bad faith question where potentially no one is interested in the answer, identifying trolls also enables people on the RD including those who have already answered to be better aware and perhaps better identify trolls themselves potentially reducing the chance they will spend time on a troll in the future if they don't want to.
Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
In my view, its not so much the right and wrong of a banned editor posting, but more a case of what can practically be done to stop him, short of blocking whole tranches of tiscali (which seems a bit unfair)--SlimyFace (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Banning policy

  • For all those ignorant parties (puns not intended!) doubting Baseball Bugs good intention, please refer to WP:BANBLOCKDIFF:

Full stop. Period. End. Zip. Finito. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are some strong words for a context such as this, Dave.
  • "may be reverted" is not "must be reverted"
  • "edits by and on behalf of banned editors is not allowed" is not "edits already made by or on behalf of blocked editors must be reverted"
Why stir this up again? We were doing fine. WikiDao (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, it's so convenient that Dave1185 deliberately ignores the exceptions linked in his quote. Let me actually quote the exception relevent to this case "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." In other words, as relevent here, if editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to a ref-desk question, then it should be decided on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to remove the question or just let it go. --Jayron32 05:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(e/c, much in the same vein as Jayron32) That's a pretty narrow reading. Beware of quoting from what a policy page says in words, as opposed to watching how things actually unfold in practice. All policies have to co-exist. Simply removing a talk(ish)-space edit from a banned user when it has generated useful discussion renders that discussion unfounded. If we are not going to delete good-faith editor posts, then we have to provide the context for why they were posting in the first place. You'll see this happen often in article deletion discussions, you can't just delete the reason the good people were talking in the first place, just because a sock started the debate. You strike it instead, then everyone knows what the debate is, and everyone knows who started it. Subject, of course and always, to limits. Franamax (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32 & Franamax: My bad, I was rushing for time to head out of the house to attend to a RL event when I quoted that policy and left out some part of it by chance. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Vickreman.Chettiar and User:Rocketshiporion impersonation?

Please refer to this diff. It appears that either these two editors are the same person (or sharing accounts) or that Vickreman has changed his signature to link to Rocket's user page for impersonation or obfuscation purposes. Most recent examples on WP:RD/C are signatures looking like this: Vickreman.Chettiar (hover over to see the actual user page linked). Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, be aware that the name signed next to the post might not take you to the expected user page when clicked. I've already left notices on both users' talk pages and invited them to comment here, we can take this further if warranted. Zunaid 09:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe Vickreman Chettiar is Rocketshiporion's real name. Why the two accounts, I don't know. Perhaps one was a preemptive registration and is now used with untrustworthy computers? If it is impersonation it seems to have stalkish overtones Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible he/she copied the other users signature because they liked the look of it, changed the display name but forgot to change where it links to. I've seen that happen a lot with new users, copying timestamps and others signatures by mistake. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
Update: both users have cleared my message off their talk pages (indicating they've read it) and Vickreman's signature is now pointing to his user page. Zunaid 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal advice, right?

Is it just me, or does Kainaw's claim at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#American_Citizenship, that the OP can safely avoid paying back student loans by relocating outside the U.S. sound a lot like legal advice. I think we need to remove it. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statements of reality need not always be considered "legal advice". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Coffeeshivers. If Kainaw had used an expression like It is my understanding that or As far as I know or In my opinion he (or she) would have made it clear that the advice was only as good as Kainaw's personal assessment of the situation. However, he doesn't use any such expression with the result that he sounds entirely authoritative and convincing. It is conceivable that the OP might be persuaded to make a significant life decision, or commit significant finances, as a result of reading Kainaw's reply. This is not what the Wikipedia Reference Desks are trying to achieve. The Reference Desks are intended to allow skilled Users to use the resources of the encyclopedia to answer readers' questions of an impersonal and objective kind. The question, and Kainaw's answer, go beyond the intended role of the Reference Desk. Any person giving advice of this kind really should be accountable for that advice, and should be able to be held accountable if the advice causes the recipient to suffer a loss. Any User giving advice at the Reference Desks is not accountable and therefore should not be giving advice of this kind. Dolphin (t) 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay by me! For WP's sake though we ought to make that disclaimer really stand out about how "we are not to be held accountable for anything we say here, whether singly or collectively, especially if it seems at all like medical, legal, or other professional advice". ←free advice WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Avril troll

Thoughts? Note the wikilink. There are others that have raised my eyebrow lately, but I'm inexperienced at sussing out this kind of thing. Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

it's a mindless question, but is there any particular reason to think that user is trolling? I'm not familiar with the 'Avril Troll'. --Ludwigs2 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Avril troll was/is a troll who, in the past, asked multiple questions about Avril Lavigne and then escalated to annoying vandalism of templates and the like, leading to the protection of multiple templates that hadn't needed protection before. The Avril troll has also declared (off-wiki, if I'm correct) that he intends to continue the trolling. It is possible that the same person or people are behind the wave of red-linked single-edit OPs we've been seeing for a couple of weeks, but as long as the questions are of general interest (and I think this one fits that description), I see no reason to do anything except answer or ignore the questions. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's Avril, we'll know soon enough. The question is not all that bad. Ludwigs2, that particular troll was rather infatuated with Avril, as in very, and successfully exploited the complex structure of the RefDesk header templates to express their love with neat-o images that took an Easter Egg hunt to track down. That's why all the header templates are protected. Franamax (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating. has anyone done a study on the expression of psychosocial dysfunction on wikipedia? From what I've seen, this place could be a hell of a good diagnostic tool. --Ludwigs2 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Some history: 1, 2, 3. There's lots more to be seen if you search the RefDesk Talk archives for "Avril". Matt Deres (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There have been many studies of good and bad wikipedia behavior patterns. I know I've seen one specifically about trolling, can't seem to find it though. DMacks (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Found it: doi:10.1177/0165551510365390. DMacks (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed Special:Contributions/Avril6790 and some other questions myself. I hope it isn't the former? Avril troll/admirer since they seem to have been well behaved after they went back to their olds ways for a short while after the fuss over signing posts. We shouldn't of course forget other trolls must be aware of the Avril troll/admirer and as there's at least one who's still active it's possible they may pretend to be the Avril troll/admirer for whatever reason. Also in terms of questions which may be referring to the Avril Lavigne provided they aren't disruptive and there doesn't get to be too many, I don't personally feel they're a major problem. I may be mistaken but my impression is there's never been any evidence the former? Avril troll/admirer wasn't/isn't sincere in their 'fascination' with Avril Lavigne so while we can't help them with whatever problems they may have, if they are serious questions that they are interested in and are suitable for the RD and which we can answer and provided they aren't being disruptive I don't see any problems letting them remain. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussing living persons

Ok, the thread on Aishwarya Rai has been removed [18] per concerns of violating WP:BLP, concerns that had already been brought up in the thread itself. To be honest, this has been a concern of my own in some questions we've had (particularly on the Entertainment and Humanities desk). Obviously, we're not article space, but I think we should not be speculating on living people without providing reliable sources. I don't want to phrase a new refdesk guideline and then have our policy-minded volunteers remove stuff on sight, but please just think about this before posting replies. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


Why I asked the Aishwarya Rai Question ?

I have come across thousands of manipulated pictures where a woman-who-would-otherwise-never-pose-topless's head is fixed on another naked woman's headless body. This can be done with softwares like photoshop or GIMP or others. I have seen such fake pictures of all Indian top actresses like Madhuri Dixit, Kajol, Katrina Kaif, Kajol, Karishma Kapoor, Sridevi, Kareena Kapoor, Hema Malini and others. Usually it is possible to tell right way that such fake picture is fake. The Aishwarya Rai picture was the one and only such picture the forced a conviction in me that IT MAY BE REAL. Why ? Size ! It is not possible ( unless I am very much wrong ) to produce a fake of such size as more large the picture is, more difficult it is to diminish the "borders" that are bound to appear, the difference of texture in skin between face and body, the appropriation of position of hair (and their tone). Was I sure that picture is genuine ? Of course no, for then there was no question of turning it into a RD question. I was aware of the super-star status of the subject that made it difficult to believe that she should have posed topless. I felt that my knowledge of show-biz psychology, technology, cinema-superstarism is too small to reach a final verdict and it was the time to let the better minds ( I believe people who visit RD are far more resourceful in every sense of the word ) decide for once and all if it was real or fake. I had a quick glance at some internet discussion about this picture that was already there, but it sounded very childish and immature ( arguments like "No !!! Aishwarya can't do that for a trillion dollars " etc. ) What I wanted was unbiased answer, this I think is the place for it.

Though not sure, I had a conviction that it might be real afterall ( I forgot to tell before I posted the pic on imgur.com, I removed the wording :" Most people will say it is fake, it's not. Aishwarya took $ 2.4 million from Penthouse to pose nude in Feb 2004 ". I removed this wording from the picture because it may be hindrance to unbiased verdict. )

However, serious discussion from other users has now almost proved that it seems to be fake.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note:I have also posted the same text elsewhere

This morning, it's painful to urinate. How come?

Here : Removed blatant request for medical advice. -- kainaw™ 12:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no fan of templates, but rather than blanking the whole section wouldn't it be better to retitle it if necessary and tell the enquirer to seek proper advice from a doctor, nurse or clinic (or at least a pharmacy)? We're necessarily vague about how and where to seek such advice, and our own referrals are not always that helpful (e.g. that worried husband in one corner of Botswana whom we were referring to the few specialists at the opposite end of that huge barren land). Some people who seek such advice are trolls or people with some agenda, but many are just looking a bit desperately for advice about a painful or difficult personal situation. We could at least tell them why the Internet isn't always the best place to seek specific advice, especially from anonymous editors with wildly-varying qualifications that are inherently unverifiable. I doubt that the IP enquirer reads edit summaries, but if he or she does and is in real pain, then "blatant request for medical advice" might seem gratuitously accusatory, as if the question had been deliberately malicious. ("Why are you bugging me with your troubles, pal?") —— Shakescene (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you willing to be the one to write it every time? The template helps to indicate to others who may want to ask such a question that it isn't appropriate, and the time consumed responding personally can be better spent answering other questions. After all, for the purposes of these questions, we are being unhelpful. On purpose. It isn't meant to be mean-spirited or anything, but it's the way it is. Aaronite (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
we have the {{RD-alert}} template. it would be easy to flesh it out with some parameters for different kinds of problems (e.g. {{RD-alert|medical}} to give a template for medical advice). --Ludwigs2 17:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought that we already had such a template to tell questioners why we're not the people who could help them (and—in more or less the phrasing we've agreed to for the top of the Ref Desk page—who might be better able to), and prospective ref desk respondents not to attempt answering the question. But I must have confused the agreed language at the top of the Ref Desk about the kinds of question we can't answer with a standardized template suitable for individual questions.—— Shakescene (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless a question is a gross rules violation, such as asking "How come all [ethnic group]ians are morons?", just zapping it might look like it was accidental. Leaving an explanation removes that doubt. As to the specific question, it could be anything - like maybe if he got caught in his zipper, that could be painful. But only a professional can help the questioner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I whipped up a quick template for closing threads at {{RD-close}}, using the standard archival tempalte. it looks like this:

CLOSED
Wikipedia editors are not medical professionals and cannot give medical advice. This is to protect the original questioner and any subsequent readers from physical harm due to misinformation. Please consult an appropriate health care practitioner for qualified diagnoses.

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

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

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

currently you can use the parameters med/medical or law/legal to get different messages. first parameter is the type, second parameter is the text to be closed. I'll add documentation in a bit, if this looks like a usable idea. --Ludwigs2 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need a disclaimer on that Latin megillah that says (in Latin), "If you can read this, please consider helping out at the Language desk." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The text is extracted from Cicero's De finibus bonorum et malorum or "The Purposes of Good and Evil". But it is improperly extracted so suspect anyone who claims to translate it. Wikipedia has an article that explains. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
People, the lorem ipsum is just for demo purposes - it's a standard filler text. imagine instead that the the body of an actual question and its responses were there instead.
I mean seriously dudes. People who use the word 'megillah' in proper context shouldn't be confused by this. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
A megillah is a long, drawn out story. Applying it to the above stuff is probably a misuse. "Gobbledygook" is more like it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x 3) More specifically, or generally, it's more-or-less standard (if textually inaccurate) dummy text that's been used for centuries to fill in graphic representations of what prose will look like once it's written and printed or displayed.—— Shakescene (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I had never had occasion to run across that item before, as I'm not in the publishing business. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

¶ I find that this question was discussed last week (although somehow I didn't notice or remember specifically) at #Med-advice template doesn't say "ask a doctor". I also find that we do already have two templates that cover part of the problem, Template:RD medremoval, apparently for the questioner's Talk Page, and Template:RD medadvice, for the Ref Desk section that's being overwritten. The language at the top of edit/Ref Desk pages is

Yes, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere.

  • The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead.
  • The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

—— Shakescene (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't that template used to be used when an improper question was posed? And not all that long ago, either. But somehow it slipped away. "It is the doom of men that they forget." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I just made this template. I archived a question a couple of weeks ago in the same way, but it used the {{archive top}} template directly. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
What template is BB referring to? We have Template:RD-deleted and Template:RD medadvice. These aren't for closing threads per se, the first one is from the wording intended if you replace the text, the second one if you leave the text but want to warn others to be careful how they respond. I think most people currently use RD-deleted Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is really the great unsolvable RD debate! I created what is now Template:RD medadvice 18 months ago to attempt to address the problem, as this very question has been sparking long and tedious debates that people get all emotional over ever since I discovered the RD existed, and probably even longer. Eventually I got the shits with this endless merry-go-round and distanced myself from WP until I started to feel positive about the whole thing again. Now here I am coming back again and it seems little has changed, other than the templates have changed colour. FWIW, here's my current opinion: All the RDs have a disclaimer saying dont ask for medical or legal advice (or whatever). That should be sufficient - the OP has been warned. It should really be incumbent on the OP to follow that rule, and if they don't, and if no-one happens to post the currently favoured template and instead put forth opinions, then the OP should accept the consequences of acting upon the information, good or bad. There should really be a "Well Duh!" law that prevents people from litigating about their poor choices, like not looking out for the cracked pavement, diving into the creek without checking for rocks etc, or acting on unreferenced information they read somewhere on the internet, solicited or not. I think there's at least a disclaimer here somewhere that says that. Anyway, I think the closer template is fine, if that's what you want - but perhaps you should say the responding editors may not be medical/legal (or whatever) professionals, and unsupported opinions provided are best not relied on. then direct the OP to seek advice from a trusted professional known to them. Cheers! Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere."

The advice at the top of the RD pages is, "Yes, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere." The thing is though, advice and opinions are given here. It's hard to avoid it. And despite all the discussion about it above and all the criteria and templates: things that could somehow be taken by someone to be what sounds at least a little like medical, legal, or other professional advice do get said here. And not always reverted, or even detected as such. Shouldn't there be some appropriate (and legally sound) disclaimer (or warning) about this eventuality, and WP's (non)responsibility for it, at the top of the page, too? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do the Wikipedia disclaimers not cover this? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's worth stating "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead" right up front on the top of the RD pages, then it is worth also mentioning that you may get something sometimes that sounds like such advice, and we (collectively at least) are not to be held responsible for it if so despite our best efforts otherwise. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the banner is insufficient, as some folks ask those questions anyway. Some editors here say the ref desk should be like at a library, i.e. helpful. If you put up a sign somewhere that says don't ask medical or legal questions, and someone asks anyway, are you going to boot them out the door? Or are you going to reiterate, "We can't answer legal or medical questions"? Which approach is more user-friendly? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about that rare case when someone does seem to get something that sounds like such advice, and then blows him or herself and others up or something. Considering what does get posted here (even if for only a few seconds), it would be nice for WP's sake to have that (legally) covered. This is not meant to be taken to be legal advice, btw, it is only just idle speculation ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As asked above... How is it that Wikipedia's disclaimers do not already cover this? -- kainaw™ 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
They are not prominently displayed next to the "ask question" button. I am proposing that be done. It would look good in hypothetical court cases. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Aside from well-meaning but possibly incorrect advice, one of the scarier things I've seen sometimes, from some editors (don't recall which ones), are comments advising not seeing a doctor; apparently because the editor thinks he can diagnose over the internet, and that the OP should not be wasting a doctor's valuable time or something. That kind of response is really dangerous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll speculate that at least some of that may come from contributors who are thinking "wait a minute, it costs $50 to go see a doctor, I can tell you right now that a muscle-relaxant won't cure your cold" Waiting for someone to cite the one case where it will... :) Living in a public medicare system makes it very easy to say "see a doctor". That's not always the best option for everyone everywhere... Franamax (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The first step can be to call and talk to a triage nurse or something, and that typically doesn't cost anything. To die or suffer greatly out of not wanting to spend 50 bucks does not seem particularly to be in one's best interests. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
We really don't want "advice-or-opinion" questions, nor do we want answers like that. There are two components there though: OP's who post questions explicitly or implicitly seeking advice or opinion rather than verifiable fact (where the question should be flagged and unless someone has sourced commentary that goes beyond advice or opinion, answers are discouraged); and ill-formulated or even well-made questions where the respondents themselves eem unable to keep themselves from offering opinions and advice.
This is not a web forum, no matter how knowledgeable or experienced the participants are. It is a place to ask either questions where you are unable to find a reliable answer on your own or where your question requires a synthesis not represented in our articles, but still verifiable if you want to trace back through the textbooks (or for RD/E, fanmags and TV guides) (or for RD/C, try this, it works). RD/M gets some wobbly questions, like "why can't I get a date" - but even there, we should be presenting sources, not opinions or advice. It may seem clear by now that I favour a rigourous presentation in the answers... :) Franamax (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I just want to re-emphasize that we should not be presenting our own opinions. Presenting referenced opinions (from mainstream to the fringes, from experts and scholars to notable demagogues) is fully within our scope (just like it's within the scope of the encyclopedia). I'm assuming there is consensus on this, but I have seen people dismiss a question asking for opinions, when we could easily have provided referenced and notable opinions, while shutting up about our personal views. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The exception would be when that "opinion" is "Go talk to a professional." And you're right, I have many times seem a snippy response to a non-medical "opinion" question, followed by a response that contains links, thus showing up the initial responder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
All well and good. My point though is that advice-and-opinion does happen here, and it gets done sometimes even by people who seem like they should know better and/or complain about others doing it. It happens. All I am saying is that we should prominently display right up front that we do not take any responsibility whatsoever for any action anyone may take in any way as a result of anything they read here in response to their question or someone else's. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
When someone asks a medical or legal question, it should be immediately responded with something that informs the OP that we don't answer those questions. So what you're saying is that we need an addendum to that warning that says, "...and if someone does answer this question, ignore it, or follow it at your own risk." And there is another layer, in that some editors disagree over what constitutes medical or legal questions and advice. Some are borderline. Like the recent case where someone said, "Can I sue?" and the answer was, "Yes, because you can sue for anything, but that doesn't mean you'll win." That's an old saw, and if the OP doesn't realize the difference between suing and collecting, it's probably not useful to the OP unless it's explained. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly why we should explicitly not be taking any responsibility for anyone's confusion that way. The jurisprudential world has "trolls" too -- and again all I am saying is that we say "no responsibility for anything you do with a response" right up front to all visitors. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been in places where they had signs saying, "Not responsible for lost items", or whatever. Similarly, we could say, "Not responsible for death or illness or jail time or lost revenue due to inaccurate advice given on medical or legal questions." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
lol, right :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"We" the wiki, as in the WMF, are already shielded by the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (link on request). "We" the editorship are on our own. If you yourself choose to cross whatever lines you perceive (or a court of equity deems unjust), then so be it. No instututional warning will shield you. As noted elsewhere, anyone can present a tort claim anytime they want. That becomes your own specific problem. WMF will resist subpoenas for evidence, but not forever. Take responsibility for your own posts. Franamax (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Or as the preacher said to Sheriff Bart, "Son, you're on your own!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Okey-doke, gotchya. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure it is. Until the next time. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a guideline somewhere that tells us specifically not to worry about WP's legal liability, and to only worry about WP's rules? (Leaving the legal stuff to WP's actual legal staff.) APL (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We're getting decidedly mixed signals on this matter. I had previously thought that what you just said was correct. But according to Fran, it is only the wikipedia foundation itself that's protected from legal liability, and someone could theoretically sue the individual that gave the misleading advice. Maybe it's time to consult wikipedia's legal beagle and get the straight dope on this question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we're getting mixed signals. You should worry about enforcing WP's rules, not imagined legal threats to WP. They are not necessarily in place in order to shield it from legal threats (some are concerned with some aspects of this, like WP:BLP, but even that is mostly about ethics and not law). You are liable for your own actions as an individual contributor. If you violate copyright or slander someone, you are the one who gets sued, not WP. That doesn't mean that your copyright violation or slander should be kept on WP, of course — there are ethical reasons to not want that kind of content. WP is really in no threat of being sued because of bad medical advice given. That's not why the no medical advice rule is there; it's there because giving medical advice on a forum such as this is ethically problematic. Medical and Legal advice are special categories because they are areas that can really affect people's lives and require pretty competent expert knowledge to get right. Nobody is going to die or lose their house if we give them bad information on King George III. Though we don't have a rule about it, generally speaking people have been pretty careful about giving advice relating to dangerous home projects (e.g. playing with electricity) for the same reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What you're saying does not square with what Fran is saying, so we should let the two of you slug it out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • - All users are totally personally legally responsible for any comment or addition they make to the wikpedia. This page looks to me like it has lost its way, I would support its deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming Off2riorob means the reference desk (has a talk page of an existing page ever been deleted before?). Either way, Off2riorob is free to nominate for deletion as they see fit. Obviously, we won't be discussing deletion here, as we are biased on this page. Off2riorob, if you have concrete concerns or constructive criticism beyond "looks to me like it has lost its way", please elaborate. Otherwise, WP:MFD is where you should be bringing this up. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I tell ya what, though... If the theoretical risk of suits against us individually is a realistic possibility, and if Rob is suggesting shutting down the entire ref desk in order to protect ourselves, he might be on the right track. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make that choice myself. I protect myself by not giving this kind of advice, and by trying to reference as many replies as possible. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We'll have to wait for Rob to clarify just what he meant by that comment. But the thing that gets amusing, sort of, is how often this exact same debate arises on this talk page. Do we have a policy, or don't we? And if we do, how come this same question turns up like every week or two? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there are two elements. 1) We have a lot of people answering (and asking) questions who don't read the guidelines, don't read this talk page, don't even read the header, are new to the desks, etc. Some of these might not be aware of just how problematic certain types of advice can be. 2) There is a certain reluctance to enforce guidelines rigorously (medical advice excepted). We let a lot of things slide. (One reason being that removing stuff usually leads to frustration, long debates, and occasionally even retaliation). Some of the stuff we ignore might be borderline, some might have already crossed the line. This becomes a vicious circle when newbies see these replies and emulate (see #1). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The core issue seems to be whether to delete or to "quarantine" such a question. I've been lectured over and over about how the ref desks are supposed to provide a service to good-faith questioners. Zapping a good-faith question is not a good-faith response. Unless the question itself is a gross violation of the rules, it should stay, and should be responded to with the statement that we don't answer medical or legal advice questions, and that they should see a professional. This all sounds quite simple. I don't see why it keeps turning up here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

Here's that link Franamax alluded to above: Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (May be relevant to what's been going on here since I declared this question "resolved"). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not seeing how though right now. Anyway, not so "resolved" as perhaps I thought. I did finally look at the disclaimers; WP:NOLEGAL says this:

Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, nor sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.

Similar wording in the other disclaimers does suggest, Franamax, that us here individuals ain't responsible. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds clear as a bell, and reduces the hand-wringing on this to simply one of ethics rather than legal liability. The only question would be whether it's simply the theoretical position the foundation takes on the matter, or whether it's actually been tested in court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)So, I guess the question now is: if none of us is responsible for what actions readers take as a result of reading anything at WP, then why do we need to strive so hard to be sure not to give anything that sounds like professional advice? And I know the answer is basically "because WMF wishes us to". Quite wisely, I'm sure. But since nothing here has to be deleted because we are responsible for what people may do with it if they read it, then we ought to at least be able to ease up some on deleting such material. I'm not looking for a policy change, I'm still just wondering what the best policy is given those disclaimers vs. applicable wiki-guidelines. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 98 says in the previous section that it's about ethics. If that be the case, then the deletionists should back off, and the proper way to handle a good-faith question is to tell the OP we don't answer those kinds of questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well said Bugs, and may I add that I've been saying for quite some time that its not for us to attempt to govern other peoples' lives by trying to cover our asses. That was the whole reason for plonking a banner at the top of a question seeking medical or legal advice. If an OP, despite the warning, is foolhardy enough to post a question that seeks advice and gets answers, then at least the banner points out the responses may be dodgy and the best option is to seek real-world professional advice. Its my belief that leaving the banners and questions in place will also help point out to inexperienced editors what style of questions are inappropriate, and should also caution editors as to how they respond to these questions. I think deleting them just sweeps the problem under the carpet and does nothing to educate people using this resource. Cheers, Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Without wanting to get too OT, I think people are mistaken if they believe the legal disclaimer is some sort of super magical thing, which protects people against any and everything they may do on wikipedia. It's clearly not in the WMF's interest for their contributors to be sued hence they will attempt to prevent this, for example by providing a disclaimer which attempt to protect their contributors.
But, and this is one of the reasons we don't provide legal advice, each person's situation will depend on a number of factors including what they've written, where they live and potentially where the person who reads their content lives. I'm quite sure if you ask our lawyer, he will say something similar, i.e. he can't advise you on your personal situation and if you are concerned you may be sued, you need to either consult a lawyer who is able to provide legal advice or not contribute to wikipedia.
I'm not saying I think it's likely you can be sued for medical or whatever advice you provide on the RD, as we've discussed many times before when this comes up, that isn't the primary reason we discourage people from answering such questions. I'm simply saying it's a mistake to think the disclaimer is magical. If there were some magical wording which can protect anyone and everyone in any country against any possible lawsuit related to what they may say, don't you think lawsuits would be far less common and courts every would be throwing out lawsuits saying "they said the magical words so this lawsuit can't proceed"?
(Note that things like libel and copyright infrigement are a bigger risk for contributors. For example, if you intentionally and continually libel or infringe copyright, I don't think it's likely the disclaimer provides much protetion, particularly in the case of libel if you and the person you're libelling lives in a country like the UK with libel laws generally held to be plantiff friendly.)
BTW, perhaps I'm mistaken by my impression is the DMCA safe harbour provisions only relate to copyright infrigement. I've done a few searches and some comments I've read agree with mine. It's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which is generally held to protect ISPs for other things, like most forms of libel.
Other then that though, I don't believe anything I've said disagrees with Franamax. My impression is he? was simply trying to emphasise that users need be aware they are responsible for what they say and need be aware that there are specific legal provisions in US law which are generally held to protect the WMF but which don't apply to contributors. The US of course is where the WMF is based as with their servers so of primary concern to the WMF and their lawyer.
Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I checked just to be sure - definitely a he. :) I believe you're right about Section 230. You have accurately summarized the intent of my statement. Franamax (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
[original research?] It may be helpful if you provide graphical evidence so at least people can confirm your findings. Nil Einne (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been around here long enough to know what the history of this issue has been. I wonder what can be done to resolve it at least as clearly and stably as your average WP:POLICY?
I have noticed though that non-approved opinion-and-advice do occur at the RDs. My first question was about whether it would be a good idea to make that possibility very clear right next to the "ask question" button by stating it may happen and we're not responsible for what you then do; my follow-up question is now about why there is so much effort and conflict put into what to do with questions asking for opinion-and-advice when there is no need. It is permitted to respond to such questions. People here are going to respond the same way they would respond to any other question asked here: see if they can dig something relevant or helpful or interesting up.
I support also the use of templates re-warning OPs and responding editors that we take no responsibility for what readers do with the responses. (Where can I find some of those?) Then I say just have at it consistent with WP's other policies. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer (really), however, I think I can say a couple of things. First, as pointed out above, a disclaimer is not a magic spell that washes away liability. Even in signed contracts, liability waivers are sometimes found unenforceable -- for example, business have lost lawsuits because the disclaimer is "too hidden" in the fine print. How much more so for a unilateral declaration on a website! But more importantly, let's keep in mind that we are not selling a service or claiming expertise in any area. People give medical and legal advice all the time -- you might tell a co-worker, "I'd take a Tylenol for that cold" or "I think you should sue the guy who hit your car." Certainly you can't sue your non-expert co-worker for giving you bad free advice. I'm not saying we should give medical or legal advice; I'm just pointing out that we need not panic that the Wikimedia Foundation is going to be brought down because a piece of advice slips through. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I think we should just answer professional-advice questions the same way we would any other. And I did just remove a "malformed" question from one of the desks, it's not like I'm against that sort of thing altogether. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks an amateur advice-giver cannot be sued, best they read Good Samaritan law, whose implications include the possibility, in some jurisidictions, of being liable for giving non-professional medical attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But the main idea in that article is to say don't worry about being sued for good-faith attempts to help. Which is what responders here are mostly doing when they link to useful articles etc. in response to a question even if that question is an unambiguous request for medical or legal advice. I'm saying "don't worry about it" and the chances that I'll get sued for giving that legal opinion right there are vanishingly small, Bugs. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It sounds rather as though you wish to re-purpose the desks into more of a free-style forum than a rigorous encyclopedic resource. Keep in mind that there is no inherent "right" to have Reference Desks at all. They were originally set up as a dumping ground to get non-WP questions off the Help desk, and over a long period of time and much wrangling have evolved into their current form. Perhaps you should set up another project-space page where questions asking for advice can be answered (WP:Advice desk say). If it performs an encyclopedic function, the community will approve of it and it will stay. If not, it will go to Miscellany for deletion and be considered there. Franamax (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. I've been pretty happy with the way legal and medical-sounding questions have been asked and answered on the desks the last few days. Maybe there's no problem. Just from reading this talk page you'd think there was, and there seems to be a history of one, but I'm not sure what the exact nature of that problem is. This thread has mostly just been my trying to find that out better. Thanks for the responses. I guess I'll just wait and see how things go and if I see a way that might better resolve whatever the problem might be, I'll try to say so. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You need to look at the archives. Now, there isn't much of a problem, except occasional disagreements as to whether something crosses the line. Sometimes we disagree as to how best to prevent newbies or incorrigibles from crossing the line (removing the question and adding explanatory blurb seems to work, mostly). But consensus was reached and still seems to hold.
In the past, the problem was that a very few contributors had strong views that they should be able to offer a diagnosis, tell people not to see a doctor, and recommend a treatment. Asked not to, they pretty much responded with "I do wha' I wan'". These people tried to characterise the objections to their irresponsible behaviour as 'fear of legal consequences', and thus tried to address every objection on these grounds. Despite having the real objections repeatedly explained, they still spoke of the legal aspect every time medical advice came up. This, combined with the discussion of the legal situation when people were trying to explain the ethical problems (if I recall, medical professionals in the US and UK would risk being struck off, at least, for diagnosing based on a description here. This is because of practical problems which make it an ethical concern) might lead someone who wasn't spending a lot of time following this page to believe that the primary concern was legal. The primary concern is ethical, and it mostly comes up on medical and legal questions because people don't seem to have the same 'I don't actually know much about this life-altering area of knowledge' reaction they have when they see a question asking how to rebuild a load-bearing wall in their house. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I see. Okay. I support the ethical side in principle and will try to do so in practice when applicable. Sometimes the ethical thing to do is to suggest a relevant article that the visitor might find informative. Sometimes it is to say "ask a professional" and box (administratively close?) the thread. Almost always it would be ethical to leave the question up; if a visitor is concerned enough about the question to check back for responses to it, we should be leaving those responses there for them to see. I have a better sense of the history, though, thanks. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Moving the question to the visitor's talk page and offering to help word it better for the RD would be a good idea too, sometimes. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How to link to google searches

Which domain name should one use when posting a link to a google search? My google is set to .ch, and I always used to change the posted link to .com. Recently, however, I've noticed that when I myself hit that link, it somehow redirects me to google.ch's start site without any search specifications. Latest example: I googled "Trace Adkins" + "This Ain't No Love Song" + "Jamie Edmondson" and got this on google.ch. I changed the link to google.com (by only replacing "ch" with "com"), but the result redirects me to the start site of google.ch, which is useless.

What's the best way to post a link? Will google.ch links direct users outside Switzerland to the right place? (In order to answer that question, click on this and tell me whether you get proper search results or merely the start stite). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you signed into a google account? I think .com defaults to whatever that's set up to be. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I have no google account. I have the preferences set to search for English language results (I think google or my computer or whatever did this itself, after I kept replacing .de with .en), but that's about it in terms of special usage. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: My concern is whether others (particularly the OPs) will be able to see the search results. I don't care whether I can see them, but, presumably, if I can't, then others can't either. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I bet the computer desk knows. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I asked there now. Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I tested your links and they all work. But to simplify things perhaps remove "#hl=en&safe=off" and other preferences stuff from the url, and format it as http://google.com/search?q=WHATEVER 82.44.55.25 (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll do just that! (And sorry for the confusing cross-posting). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried the link, and it stayed at .ch, with 572 results. I tried substituting several other country codes (.fr, .hu, .es, .ru), and they all stayed at what I chose, with either 572 or 507 results. For .cn (China) and .jp (Japan), I was redirected to the main Google page for Hong Kong and Japan, respectively.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I recommend to keep &safe=off as it may affect the results Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
While removal of "&safe=off" may alter results, I strongly recommend removal so as not to alter the user preferences of those who click on the link. Not everybody wants the full gamut of Google's search results suddenly returned to their computers. — Lomn 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well IMHO it's up to people to take responsibility for what they click on. If you don't want click on Google links with safe results off then don't. It's easily possible someone may link to a search engine without safe search options, or where the default is off and you don't have a default or whatever. If I do see something rather offensive in a result I may specify it but otherwise I leave it up to people to manage for themselves what they want to avoid if it's necessary and IMHO that means if you actually care, you should check out the link before clicking and seeing precisely what it is.
Similarly, while I would usually specify when a site is NSFW, if should be obvious from the discussion or link it such, I reserve the right not to and see no reason why people should have to. At the very least, if you ask a question and don't want people to help in a certain way, you should specify it.
Just to be clear I'm not saying we should intentionally try to shock people. Rather I would prefer to be as helpful as possible without spending unnecessary time and effort (since it's obviously possible to test whether safe search makes a material difference) or avoiding something just because there's a chance people may be offended by the resources you provide. Particularly since ultimately of course we have no way of knowing what people would take as offensive, some people may take a picture of Muhammad as offensive, some people may take an article about evolution as offensive.
Notably here, safe search is AFAIK the default option, so it's likely that plenty of people with it on, don't actually care that much, which is even more reason why those who do care, should be the ones to take responsibility for their personal preferences, rather then the answer for those who don't be affected or made more difficult because of the need to cater to the tastes of the people with a personal preference.
Of course I'm not trying to dictate what others should do, simply explain why I am likely to still keep the safesearch (I actually used a bare query in the past, but it occured to me recently it may make a difference so I might as well leave it) and why I would encourage others to do likewise if they want to try an ensure people see the same search results as them (which seems to be the primary issue of concern here).
Nil Einne (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. On further consideration, specifying that safesearch is off with the result is an easy alternative if there are concerns the user may not check what they are opening, something I may do in the future. Also it should go without saying that my suggestion to keep the safesearch specification applies if yours is set to moderate or full. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
For on-wiki use, we have a {{google}} template. DMacks (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your tests and insights, all! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

time to call in a sysop?

Ok, User:Jon Ascton is gradually devolving: Now his endless pointless questions are starting to get salacious as well, as with Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Aishwarya_Rai_topless_.3F. I suspect he's in it to see how far he can push the envelope if he inches his way up (since these obviously aren't serious questions), so it might be time to have a sysop formally caution him about posting irrelevant and disruptive questions. Either that, or we should start community ban proceeding to limit him to X posts a week, or ref desk ban him entirely. it would improve the ref desk signal-to-noise ratio tremendously if we did. do we have any consensus on this kind of action? --Ludwigs2 06:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that Ludwigs2 had in fact already addressed the issue on Jon Ascton's talk page (here). My own suggestion is to simply ignore his questions when you find them pointless. Not saying you're wrong about why he's in it (I have no idea), but if you're right, the less attention the better. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd normally agree, but the ref desk has too many participants, so it's likely that someone will respond to his questions if he makes them juicy enough (and yeah, he's all about juicy mindless questions - it's pretty much his MO). that's why I think something a bit more authoritative is in line. always going to be someone here to feed his inner child with the attention it craves. --Ludwigs2 06:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As an admin, I don't find Jon Ascton's questions to be blockable so far. The anal sex and nude indian actress questions are probably toeing the line, but I think we need to handle this by less severe methods, such as (semi)private conversations on his talk page and see how that plays out over the next few days, before considering any further action. --Jayron32 06:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I was kind of glad that he asked his Indian actress question. And a lot of people seemed to have enjoyed his anal sex question, too. <shrugs> WikiDao (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I found that previous interaction myself Ludwigs2, where you drew conclusions based on "(t)he timbre of your responses" without discussing any specifics of your objections, and I note you went on to criticize the editor's choice of policy-compliant signature formet. Now there's butts and breasts involved and you want an admin to look at it? Thanks and all, but you need to raise your own level of discourse a bit. Where is your substantive effort to work out your problems? Franamax (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
franamax - I think I've been very polite to Jon, and I have absolutely no problem with questions about anal sex and nude indian actresses (individually or in combination). But neither (as phrased) is really a question answerable on the ref desk, and neither scores any points for maturity. They are just (as I said) salacious questions designed to get people yacking. Is that what we want? yeah, the ref desk is a little bit looser and more 'opiniony' than the rest of wikipedia, but Jon's been abusing the privilege, and since he hasn't responded well to polite requests, it may be time to step beyond such. --Ludwigs2 06:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Which polite requests? If there's something beyond the user talk thread referenced, please point it out. To me personally, or here if you really want to carry it on. You haven't shown where you brought it up with the editor first, in a substantive way, and failed to resolve your issue. Franamax (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I made a request in his talk where I explained the situation, he chose not to respect it. This is not rocket science, or a legal preceding, or even an exercise in parenting; I have a reasonable expectation that polite requests for mature behavior will be honored (just as others have a reasonable expectation that requesting me to be mature will be honored as well). I am not against occasional immature fun on the ref desk (or elsewhere on wikipedia, for that matter) - heaven knows I like my own little jokes. But Jon is riding that interminable adolescent 'class clown' thing, and it's irritating. I simply asked him to rein himself in a bit; he clearly doesn't want to (with - again - typical adolescent self-righteousness). Now I can wit a couple of years until he grows out of it, sure, but I'd rather he got a clue about it now. understood? --Ludwigs2 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not right. Your friendly warnings did not fall on deaf ears. I am very understanding type, not the typical stubborn type bent upon pressing his point and gaining attention. Things like wanting attention is last thing on my mind, believe me. Perhaps my problem was my ignorance of actual rules and guidelines that are followed here. If I did something wrong, it was due to inexperience and not malice.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
May I say that going forward, someone should insert a NSFW into his section headers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
what is NSFW? --Ludwigs2 17:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
NSFW. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the questions about sex or identifying photos or whatever. They might be a little immature in their wording but neither are really inappropriate in and of themselves, unless we are adopting some kind of no "sexy stuffs" filter. (PARITY ERROR!) I don't even think they need a NSFW warning — the one with the photo was pretty obviously going to be NSFW if you actually read the question/header before clicking on the photo, while any workplace that prohibits you from reading questions about anal sex is probably going to prohibit you from looking at the Ref Desk and Wikipedia in general. If this sort of thing were really overwhelming the Ref Desk, and people were using it as an excuse to drop their standards, well, maybe then we might want to call for a moratorium. But I haven't seen that yet. I do think that we need to, as answerers, try and maintain a high quality of response, and not let threads derail into sophomoric ribbing and opining. I would focus more on policing the answers than I would the questions, if there was a choice to be made. The Ref Desk should basically accept all questions, no matter how immature the asker, if they fit within the realm of reasonable Ref Desk topics. But we should be very careful about what kinds of answers we give. It is the answers, and not the questions, that distinguishes us from Yahoo! Answers and other lousy Q&A sites. I think in this particular case, a suggestion to Jon to try and maintain a serious and mature attitude, even with writing about titillating topics, is probably all that is needed. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Mr 98's comment about a suggestion to Jon to try and maintain a serious and mature attitude, even with writing about titillating topics would normally be a good one. However, be aware that two Users (Ludwigs2 and me) have written to Jon in this way. You won't see our comments on Jon's Talk page because Jon deleted them two days later on 5 September. See diff. If Jon has continued to offend since 5 September that indicates he is not willing to take notice of Ludwigs2 friendly and helpful advice.Dolphin (t) 23:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I did remove them, but before removing them I answered them in most appropriate manner. That means I took the warnings seriously, admitted I was wrong (in my choice of words, not ethically), I was bit over-zealous, and not aware of actual standards of Reference Desk. Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
When editors start calling for sysops to look, sysops start looking. Results may vary. Addressing an established editor with things like "random meanderings", "random chatter", "timbre of your responses", "someone with a clean conscience would not", "questions young children would ask their parents", "people who can't be bothered to read" - that's just not on, and will not get you a beneficial response. Throwing in stuff like "signature...a bit of an eyesore" in the same discussion is petulant at best, how come no-one helpfully told him he is a smelly-pants too? "This is not a threat or a warning", then 9 days later, with no apparent further communication asking for administrative intervention is not "friendly and helpful" and is not going to help with "well, I've done all I can" justifications.
You tried to adopt a friendlier tone but used a comparison to a child and didn't spell out exactly how those questions could be independently researched, and I think some of them are interesting and will look up the threads myself to see what transpired. The RefDesks often have more detailed information than can always be fit into an article, and pretty good sources that wouldn't fit either. And BTW, yeah, the RefDesks do exist largely because people can't be bothered to use their own techniques to acquire knowledge. You can get any question answered without visiting an Internet forum, but that's why we have a lot of "read our article on [Xyz] and let us know if you have more questions"-type responses.
Here's a tip for anyone reading: if you don't like a question, ignore it. If someone asks lots of questions and no-one answers, they will go away. If people just feel compelled to answer, discuss it with them as Mr. 98 implies. Especially so in an environment with overwhelmingly male participation when someone says "boobies". If there is disruption that is becoming serious, then communicate more and establish your case. Respectfully. And with detailed reasoning. And accept that others aren't always go immediately conform to your expectations, but with patience and tact, and even though they may never ever admit they've changed the slightest thing, they may indeed change. Make that honest effort and if that doesn't work, call in the admins. </rant> Franamax (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, those comments came a couple of different editors, not just me. Second, those comments are almost entirely accurate. If an editor acts like a child I tell them that they are acting like a child, in the hopes that they will begin acting like an adult. I would hope that people do me the same favor in those cases where I act like a child.
You seem to have a bug up your a$$ because I expect people to behave with a degree of maturity on project, but what I'm not clear on is whether you're annoyed because I have that expectation, or annoyed because you think I'm being paternalistic. if it's the first, I don't really care: a serious encyclopedia ought do have a degree of maturity to it, and while we make allowances for the broad range of contributors we get, Wikipedia is not an exception to that rule. If it's the second, then I'd welcome any ideas you might have for suggesting to people that they behave a bit more like adults that doesn't sound paternalistic. I am (frankly) tired of watching wikipedia suffer from the kind of cognitive devolution that is typical of internet chats (where the people who want to have regular conversations get drowned out by the those who want to blather on about their dicks). You might like that, I don't know, but even if you do, can you justify it as a way of improving the encyclopedia?
Few if any of Jon's multitudinous questions can be seen as improvements to the encyclopedia, except by the most arcane convolutions of reason. that's an unfortunate fact. When he goes on to claim (as he did here) that he is posting pictures of nude celebs and asking others to do post others for comparison because his is trying to make people think, then you can be darned sure that he is just jacking us around. or do you personally feel that a comparison of images of nude celebrities to determine their status as fakes is designed to make people think? --Ludwigs2 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: I'm still thinking about whether nude celebrities are fake or not. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
mere stimulation of brain cells does not constitute thinking in its analytic sense. Or perhaps better put: 'Thinking' and 'drooling' are distinct concepts, though they are often confused by people with a vested interest in drool. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's much chance the anal sex question was asked in good faith - as I mentioned in my response, he claims it's physically impossible while admitting it happens all the time, then wonders if it even exists in real life, while linking to a thoroughly referenced article that clearly spells out that it's a real thing. There was no real question, just an excuse to soapbox a bit about how weird he finds the thought of the act. In principle I don't have a problem with something like the Aishwarya Rai question, where we're asked to determine if a picture has been photoshopped, but if it is photoshopped or even an unauthorized, but otherwise "real" photo, it's a pretty huge and blatant BLP violation and should be struck if not oversighted immediately. Matt Deres (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


This thread began with Ludwigs2 making some allegations about inappropriate performance by User:Jon Ascton, and suggestions for ways to solve the problem in the interests of a high quality encyclopedia. (Ludwigs2 is perfectly entitled to use this Project page to make such allegations.) Very little has been written to defend Jon Ascton's performance against the allegations. When I saw Franamax's response I thought Here is someone articulating a defence of Jon Ascton. Unfortunately, Franamax's response contains little to defend Jon Ascton but quite a bit in the way of criticism of Ludwigs2. (Let's assume for a brief moment that Ludwigs2 is a serial killer, and a vicious troll on Wikipedia. Those two facts are no defence of Jon Ascton, and don't help in the debate about whether the Reference Desks are performing their intended function, and whether anything can be done to improve them.)
The personal approaches to Jon Ascton by Ludwigs2 were, by Wikipedia standards, benign and constructive. His choice of words was euphemistic by Wikipedia standards. (Franamax seems to be saying they weren't euphemistic enough.)
There is a serious issue implied here by Ludwigs2. Should the Reference Desks be Project pages for serious questions and seriously legitimate answers? Or should they be fun places for people to post fun questions and Users to post fun answers? If it is the former, how should we respond to questions that we consider to be of the fun kind? Should all questions be Patrolled before they appear on the Project page? (I think that would be a good approach.) A question is sometimes deleted, but that can be a Draconian response. A personal approach to a serial offender's Talk page is a commendable and private way of tackling the offender.
If the Reference Desks become conspicuously fun places, the serious editors will go elsewhere. Dolphin (t) 03:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the conflict. If you do not like the "fun" portion of questions, just ignore them. If they are disruptively fun, they seem to get dealt with appropriately real quick. When in doubt, do what Ludwigs2 did: request some comments. Read the comments, respond accordingly, proceed. WikiDao (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 suggested a sysop should look at the matter. Their wish was granted. Problem?
If you have a problem with what another editor is doing, then attempt effective communication with the editor before posting to a wider forum.
If you have a problem with wider governance (i.e. too much "fun" at the desks), then present your case in a neutral fashion. Don't coatrack it onto what one particular editor has been doing,
Did I miss any of the points I was trying to make? Oh yes, if you don't like a question, ignore it. Franamax (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
To Dolphin (and others): WP:RFC/U is thataway. If a specific users behavior needs to be discussed, and it cannot be handled via discussions at their user talk page, there are methods of remediation availible. Due process exists for a reason, and if someone wants to lodge a formal complaint against Jon Ascton, then there are processes in place designed to deal with that. He needs no defending here because this isn't the place to start a formal inquiry. Furthermore, what is wrong with the people who have stated he's don't nothing overtly wrong, or at least, not sanctionable. I stated as much above, as did Mr 98. But that doesn't change the fact that this isn't a formal inquest into Jon Ascton's behavior, so there isn't any reason for a_ him to defend himself ot b) anyone else to launch a formal defense of him. If you want to start an RFC, you are within your rights. Just don't set up a kangaroo court here and expect anyone to take it seriously. --71.200.75.37 (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
IP: this is not an RFC/U issue (grounds for wikiquette, maybe, but that's as far as I'd go with it). This is an issue about what the purpose of the ref desks should be. Dolphin's pretty much hit it on the head - though I might have liked some less extreme 'for the sake of the argument' assumptions - that we need to decide whether the Ref Desks are 'fun' places or 'serious' places. for instance, I usually try to imagine these questions being asked at a college library reference desk: I have a hard time imagining Jon walking up to a reference desk librarian, pushing some topless photos on the desk, and asking the librarian for a judgement about whether they are fakes (and if he did, I suspect he'd get an earful about the proper use of university resources, and possibly a visit to the dean). he could ask questions about ways to detect photoshopped images and get good answers, he could ask questions about whether a particular actor/actress has ever produced topless photos and get good answers as well (though a librarian might question why he would want such information and he'd need a decent scholarly rationale), but no serious librarian is going to tolerate someone who simply seems to be looking for an excuse to show people sketchy photos.
Don't get me wrong: I ran across a student once who was going through old playboy magazines from the archives because he had a paper for a feminism class about the sociological construction of female beauty - there are some really interesting things to notice about the changes in idealization over the decades that playboy was published. If Jon were doing something as intellectually stimulating as that then I would hardly complain. but he's not, or at least it's not the intellect that he's trying to stimulate here.
I like the idea of having these pages patrolled (or maybe having pending revisions applied to them, if it's adopted), though I don't think that would help in this case, since Jon is persistent. I think it might be better to just establish some rules and guidelines for what kind of questions are acceptable on the desk, and some fairly strict methods for dealing with those that aren't. --Ludwigs2 19:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Jon has started pruning his talk page: diff, in addition to the diff that Sluzzelin mentioned at the top of this section. Just a heads up for anyone who wants to discuss this further. Brammers (talk/c) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
well, everyone's entitled to prune their talk page. when I see editors do that, I usually take it to mean that they've read the thread and understand it well enough that they don't feel the need to comment. Jon seems to have mellowed a bit over the last few dys, at any rate - perhaps this is a sign that he's starting to get a good perspective on the problem. --Ludwigs2 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Why I asked the Aishwarya Rai Question ?

I have come across thousands of manipulated pictures where a woman-who-would-otherwise-never-pose-topless's head is fixed on another naked woman's headless body. This can be done with softwares like photoshop or GIMP or others. I have seen such fake pictures of all Indian top actresses like Madhuri Dixit, Kajol, Katrina Kaif, Kajol, Karishma Kapoor, Sridevi, Kareena Kapoor, Hema Malini and others. Usually it is possible to tell right way that such fake picture is fake. The Aishwarya Rai picture was the one and only such picture the forced a conviction in me that IT MAY BE REAL. Why ? Size ! It is not possible ( unless I am very much wrong ) to produce a fake of such size as more large the picture is, more difficult it is to diminish the "borders" that are bound to appear, the difference of texture in skin between face and body, the appropriation of position of hair (and their tone). Was I sure that picture is genuine ? Of course no, for then there was no question of turning it into a RD question. I was aware of the super-star status of the subject that made it difficult to believe that she should have posed topless. I felt that my knowledge of show-biz psychology, technology, cinema-superstarism is too small to reach a final verdict and it was the time to let the better minds ( I believe people who visit RD are far more resourceful in every sense of the word ) decide for once and all if it was real or fake. I had a quick glance at some internet discussion about this picture that was already there, but it sounded very childish and immature ( arguments like "No !!! Aishwarya can't do that for a trillion dollars " etc. ) What I wanted was unbiased answer, this I think is the place for it.

Though not sure, I had a conviction that it might be real afterall ( I forgot to tell before I posted the pic on imgur.com, I removed the wording :" Most people will say it is fake, it's not. Aishwarya took $ 2.4 million from Penthouse to pose nude in Feb 2004 ". I removed this wording from the picture because it may be hindrance to unbiased verdict. )

However, serious discussion from other users has now almost proved that it seems to be fake.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No Kings question

I did not take part in it myself, but I disagree that the section had deteriorated into "chit chat". The answers were still informative and interesting even if the section was long. I think the request or command to add no more is unwarranted. 92.28.241.246 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for someone really still interested in this topic I highly recommend to have a look at the replies WikiDao has given me here on his talk page. I was not aware of the books like Guns, Germs and Steel etc which he told me. A parallel case, which may interest you, is the history of India itself, a nation which has been historical victim to an exceptionally fierce persecution by outsiders (mostly muslims). But the history they teach in schools and colleges even universities is not what actually happened but what authorities want people to believe - that is necessary to maintain peace in India. You can start by Koenraad Elst book. I mean to say sometimes it's necessary for governments to suppress real history so status quo can be maintained.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Jayron32 gets credit for first recommending the excellent book Guns, Germs, and Steel and also recommended two other books probably worth reading in this context, though I have not yet done so myself. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I think I'm about done with it... but I don't have a preference either way really between archiving it or not right now. Here's the diff in question, anyway. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose questions being archived in this way because the replies went off-topic. Remove the off-topic replies if they're that much of a problem, don't penalize the OP for it by locking their thread and preventing further helpful answers. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could ask Jon (the OP) if he feels he's done with the question yet. And if so ask him to put up a "resolved" tag. Hold on, I'll go see. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jon says it's resolved. For further discussion, one could always ask another question... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You seemed to have missed the point. It's lovely in this case the OP didn't care, but locking a thread because the replies were slightly "chit chat" is still bad practice. It's the wiki equivalent of telling a person to shut up because people near them were talking. I've seen questions on desks with the first 10 or so replies just consisted of a series of jokes, sub-jokes, word puns or other nonsense; those threads were not "archived" because a few responders couldn't conduct themselves in an appropriate way. By all means remove or box up chit chat and off-topic replies, but leave the question itself open if it's a valid question which doesn't violate any guidelines. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
A good first step would be to directly ask the editor who placed the archive box, namely, User:Ludwigs2. Speaking for myself, I think there's the general case where 82.x has the right of it -- useful discussion needn't be archived, as the default RD archive system is based on the date of the first post rather than the last (contrast with archival at AN where this sort of long discussion threatens to never leave). In this specific case, though, concerns have been raised as to the good faith of the original poster (and on more than one occasion), and so I'm inclined towards more editorial leeway to encourage things to move along. — Lomn 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't you get enough of it ! Are you blind or something ? Can't you see the OP himself says he wants to get the thread closed. What more do you want as proof of good faith. Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
See WP:NOT#CHAT. The reference desk is a bit more casual than the encyclopedia proper, but there are still limits. --Ludwigs2 23:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a WP:SIG issue

Resolved
 – see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:WikiDao using images with signature WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Was this edit justified for the reason given? Roux seems to think so. Note that none of the images I have ever posted anywhere were actually included as part of my signature. If consensus is that Roux's edit was not justified for the reason given, I would appreciate it if he or she would undo that edit would not persist into an edit-war over this issue. Otherwise, I suppose I will have to consider discontinuing the practice of using emoticons for graphical expression in my comments. :( Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this here? It's on ANI. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I put it here about 10 minutes before you took it to AN/I, Roux. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding a few smileys to comments is not violating WP:SIG. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll express the opinion that I'd personally rather not see them, though. WikiDao's signature is probably the most aesthetically pleasing one I've seen on Wikipedia; it's a shame to mess it up with yellow blobs. Looie496 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'll make an effort to avoid the "blob" thing, if that is aesthetically undermining its own purpose. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of trolling question

I removed a questionable post, I am not usually one for deletions but in this case I hope other editors agree it was the right course of action. --Viennese Waltz 15:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I took it to the visitor's talk page (just so there's no "where did it go?" activity in response, and in case it is somehow a genuine but poorly formed question). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The user went on to self-identify as a returning troll at my talk page; he's been blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Question" removed

Here, I removed a "question" whose only content was a request that we go and improve a stub article. I've notified the poster that he or she may be able to solicit help somewhere in Portal:Music, but the RD isn't the place. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call; I think you handled it well. Matt Deres (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical nit-picking

In the interests of even-handed application of RD consensus, I've collapsed this bit of grammar policing from RD/H. Feedback on this action is welcome and requested. Given the recent drama over this issue, I currently feel that blanket discouragement is the best course. — Lomn 17:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In the present circumstance, this is a good move. We need to let feelings settle down a bit on this issue, even though normally such a correction would likely be OK in isolation. You don't seem to have informed the editor on their talk page though... Franamax (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Is this a recurring issue with this user, or was this a one-off? If the latter, then it's probably not necessary to box up the comment. A quiet, polite word on his talk page may be more effective, and is likely to be seen as less confrontational. (That said, there's nothing lost from the Desk by boxing up the comment — it didn't add anything which answered any part of the OP's question.) The 'recent drama' over Cuddlyable3 was because that user failed to heed numerous requests and escalating warnings, even persisting after he had been blocked once. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yay for "grammatical nit-picking". Let's all be retarded! --Belchman (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Mispellings etc do not indicate the writer is "retarded". I agree it is very often tempting to jump in and help a writer with their spelling and grammar; but in most cases they're not interested and won't get your message. Even if they do see it, in most cases it will have no effect. They come here to get questions answered, not for a lesson in spelling and grammar. You don't correct the word choices of the people you're talking with in the real world (unless they're a young child and you're their parent or teacher), so it's just as impolite to do it here. The consensus of the Ref Desk community is that we generally do not comment on these matters, unless it really does affect the meaning or comprehensibility of the question/answer, or if they ask for feedback. 'Generally not' does not mean 'never'; it's possible to make a subtle or humorous comment here and there. Michael Hardy's post was somewhat blunt; had he gone about it in a slightly different way, who knows, maybe it could have stayed without being boxed and hidden. Lead by example; do not expect others to follow. It's a tough call, but there it is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If you say "irregardless" I may feel compelled to correct you though, irrespective of the social situation. Franamax (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Jack, I respect the consensus of the RD, but that doesn't change the least my opinion on the topic. I still think that it is a very stupid stance, but as I've said I'll respect it and, therefore, won't correct relatively minor grammar/spelling errors of other users. That said, I'd appreciate if everyone made an exception with me and corrected my grammar and spelling if it is really wrong. You see the difference between the majority - or what appears to be the majority - of the RD users and me: I'm very thankful if someone teaches me something that I don't know, whereas most of you get offended by an unknown reason. --Belchman (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The unknown reason is pride. Too proud to admit they are wrong. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC).
And there's certainly some of that on both sides. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, since you ask for correction: You say you respect the consensus, yet you call it a "stupid stance". That doesn't sound much like respect to me. What I think you mean is that you have undertaken to abide by the consensus, even though you strongly disagree with it. I guess that's the thing with consensuses. They're not the same as unanimous agreements, and there will almost always be people who disagree. In some places it would be fine to do one's own thing, regardless of the majority opinion. But here, consensus is pretty binding (at least until such time as matters develop and cause a revised consensus to be the order of the day). But there's good news. After biting one's tongue a few hundred times, there's nothing left anymore and so there's no pain anymore. After a while, one even stops biting, and just notices errors and then moves on to the next thing. After all, you and I are not responsible for the lives of others, particularly anonymous others on the internet. If they want to go through life misspelling things, there's no law against that. If it stops them getting their ideal job or having the ideal partner or whatever, they'll soon do something about it. They may even come to the Language desk and ask for help. That's when it would be fine to provide a language lesson. Otherwise, it's not what they ask for and it should not be imposed on them. If you really cannot make sense out of what they've typed, you're completely at liberty to say so. But if their meaning gets through, then by definition they have communicated. But look, it's not black and white. There are times when nobody would object to some commentary being made about a grammar or spelling point. The trick is to pick your moment. When that is I could not possibly begin to advise you, because I'm still working it out myself. Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kudos, Jack, you've hit the nail on the head. "If their meaning gets through, then by definition they have communicated." Precisely so, but this is what the language mavens conspicuously fail to grasp. The primary purpose of language is to communicate, not to be stuffed and mounted in a museum to be nattered over by a bunch of pinky-raised, wine-sipping aficionados. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
den we kan komunicate leik dis as well. after all, u can understand wat i want to say. --Belchman (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
See User:Neptunerover for a user who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Also check his user page history and contributions. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Belchman: it's not worth discussing this with you, but is that the way you want to communicate? (If so, yes, be my guest.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That's PRECISELY HOW people used to write before we had dictionaries widely-available to standardize the language. And you know what? We did ok. So get over yourself. The Masked Booby (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
dats wai im gonna rite leik this nao. we do ko, dont we? --Belchman (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Be my guest, too. I'm understanding what you're saying, so it's no skin off my nose if you want to spell like that. Normally a point is made once, but if you want to keep on making it, that's up to you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, some of you poke fun (or used to) at poorly written questions - by non-native speakers, the only ones that, in my opinion, deserve some slack in the matter - making all this even more hilarious. --Belchman (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, of course we'd never condone that sort of poking fun (and we have criticized people for doing it), so I'm not so sure how that's interesting or hilarious, but anyway.
(And your resolve didn't last long, eh? :-) ) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hokay... coming back, and trying to avoid most of the above:
Yes, a one-off issue. I'd hoped that boxing would be less confrontational, as most of the talk page notifications I drafted mentally went to "we're discouraging this because it's led to blocks", and mentioning blocks, even in a case like this where blocks clearly aren't part of the picture, tends toward escalation. That said, I'll go drop a note now. — Lomn 13:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the above: I added "without advancing the conversation" to the box for a reason. I think most of us are prepared to be considerably more tolerant of responses that don't smack of mere technical one-upmanship. — Lomn 13:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

another question removed

I'm not going to AGF to the extent of believing that this was a real question. Looie496 (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I chuckled a bit. Does that make me evil? But yeah, probably a good removal. Understanding the ethnic slurs inherent in that joke is pretty rudimentary. I doubt that someone, in good faith, has never heard of the "N-word", even if they have never been to the U.S. --Jayron32 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I actually suspect there are quite a few people who have never heard of the N word, even those who have some knowledge of English. I do have doubts the poster hasn't though Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It's still appropriate to notify the poster that you have done so. I have notified him now [19]. Buddy431 (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_77&oldid=1143538031"