Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 789: Line 789:
::I'm trying to get a full PDF. It costs $38, (we don't have a subscription to the Journal of Documentation), but I'll see if I can get a physical copy at the reference library by library-loan or some other means. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::I'm trying to get a full PDF. It costs $38, (we don't have a subscription to the Journal of Documentation), but I'll see if I can get a physical copy at the reference library by library-loan or some other means. [[User:Nimur|Nimur]] ([[User talk:Nimur|talk]]) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::: I got a electronic copy of the paper (haven't read it completely yet). Can send it to the first 5 RD regulars who email me their email ID (since wikipedia email doesn't allow attachments). Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::: I got a electronic copy of the paper (haven't read it completely yet). Can send it to the first 5 RD regulars who email me their email ID (since wikipedia email doesn't allow attachments). Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Here's the full text of the article with no formatting, just copied & pasted from the HTML version of the document. It's hidden in a comment below (click the edit button to see it). It goes without saying that the article is copyrighted and shouldn't be reproduced anywhere; I'm just putting it here so people without database access can read it without paying. <!--
The Authors
Pnina Shachaf, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

Article Type:Research paper
Keyword(s):Reference services; Quality; Product reliability.
Journal:Journal of Documentation
Volume:65
Number:6
Year:2009
pp:977-996
Copyright ©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:0022-0418
1. Introduction

The social web challenges the way information is created, organized, and disseminated. One of the most known achievements of the social web is the success of Wikipedia in producing content that is as good as traditional authoritative encyclopedias (Emigh and Herring, 2005; Giles, 2005; Rosenzweig, 2006; Stvilia et al., 2005; Willinsky, 2007). It is perhaps the best example of how harnessing mass collaboration to create real value for participants works; in this environment individuals can participate in innovation, wealth creation, and social development more than ever before (Tapscott and Williams, 2007). The success of Wikipedia is attributed to the wisdom of the crowds; diversity, independence, and decentralization enable the Wikipedia crowd to be wise (Surowiecki, 2004). But the social web may also have a destructive impact on our economy, culture, and values (Keen, 2008); it creates a culture of mediocrity, where everything is miscellaneous (Weinberger, 2007). It is unclear if the participatory model of the social web and the mass collaborative knowledge creation sites are sustainable over time, or if they will collapse in the near future. Keen (2008, p. 2) in the cult of the amateur caution of “the consequences of a flattening of culture that is blurring the lines between traditional audience and author, creator and consumer, expert and amateur.” The social web challenges the need for traditional institutions in our society (Keen, 2008), including libraries. Further, the social web exemplifies and capitalizes on the paradox of expertise (Johnson, 1983) and challenges the role of professionals, as well as the role of librarians. At times, experts' ability to make a judgment is distorted (Tetlock, 2005), and a group of diverse non-experts can make a better judgment (Johnson, 2003). The impacts of the social web on processes of information creation, organization, and dissemination have implications for libraries and librarians. One specific area of the social web that should not be overlooked by libraries and librarians is the flourishing of Q&A sites, which may challenge the role of reference services.

Since the advent of Web 2.0, many online question and answer (Q&A) boards have formed around communities of volunteers. Under the assumption that “everyone knows something,” users answer requests made by visitors to these sites (Noguchi, 2006, p. A01). Examples of these Q&A sites include Yahoo! Answers (the largest question-answering service), Wiki Answers (a user-driven component of Answers.com), Askville (Amazon's question-answering service), and the Wikipedia Reference Desk (2008) (where Wikipedia volunteers answer questions). Yahoo! Answers, which is the largest Q&A service, has approximately 23 million resolved questions and over 100 million users[1] (Dom and Paranjpe, 2008). These Q&A sites capitalize on the wisdom of the crowd to handle thousands of questions per day and to provide amateur reference services.

These Q&A sites present a new model of collaborative reference service, social reference. The social reference is participatory and open to anyone; it differs from the traditional library reference interview. Social reference relies on amateur volunteers while libraries employ professional librarians to address their user's information needs. Because of these differences, answers on Q&A sites may differ in quality from those that librarians provide. Answers may be as good, or even better than those provided by librarians, but it is possible that they are mostly unreliable (inaccurate, incomplete, and biased). Research on the quality of Q&A boards is in its infancy and mostly focuses on. What is the quality of the answers on Q&A boards? Who asks and who answers? Which user behaviors enhance or hinder answer quality? How does social reference service compared with traditional library reference services?

Through an examination of reference transactions[2] from the Wikipedia Reference Desk and content analysis of 77 requests and 357 responses, this study extends the research on the quality of answers on Q&A sites. It compares the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk with conventional library reference services and explains the similarities in light of the paradox of expertise. The study informs researchers and librarians of the potential of the social reference model; it also emphasizes the need for theoretical and empirical research on the social reference.
2. Background

Although many researchers have focused attention on the quality of Wikipedia articles (Emigh and Herring, 2005; Giles, 2005; Korfiatis et al., 2006; Rosenzweig, 2006; Stvilia et al., 2005; Viégas et al., 2004; Viégas et al., 2007; Willinsky, 2007), no one has addressed the question of answer quality at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Research on answer quality of Q&A boards is still in its infancy. Most of the studies focus on Yahoo! Answers (Adamic et al., 2008; Agichtein et al., 2008; Bian et al., 2008; Dom and Paranjpe, 2008), a few focus on the Answerbag community (Gazan, 2006, 2008) or compare select Q&A sites (Cahill, 2007; O'Neill, 2007; Harper et al., 2008).

These studies are problematic because they work under the assumption that users ranking reflect answers' quality. On Yahoo! Answers, the best answer is determined by a community vote or by the user who posted the question. Voting and ranking systems can yield useful results if enough community members vote, but vested interest, armies of voters, or individual voters who vote many times are not easy to track and can skew the results (Richman, 2007). While user rankings of answer quality are useful, reference research has revealed that they are subjective, influenced by users' gratitude toward the responders, based on socio-emotional value (Kim et al., 2007), and do not correlate with answer accuracy (Saxton and Richardson, 2002). Users evaluate the quality of information received whether or not they are sufficiently knowledgeable about it.

One approach to evaluate answer quality is through user reputation (Chen et al., 2006), responder's credibility (based on the number of best answers the user had previously made (Dom and Paranjpe, 2008)), responder efforts (Harper et al., 2008), or ranking of authoritative responders (using link analysis (Jurczyk and Agichtein, 2007a, b)). Users who are active on specific topics provide better answers than those who participate on multiple categories (Adamic et al., 2008). These studies try to identify authoritative users, while there is a shift from authority to reliability in assessing credibility on the internet (Lankes, 2008).

Another method to identify high quality answers is based on analysis of the content (Agichtein et al., 2008; Gazan, 2006) and length of the answers (Adamic et al., 2008; Harper et al., 2008). Better answers are longer (Adamic et al., 2008; Harper et al., 2008) or include references to external sources (Gazan, 2006). In addition, responsiveness, percent of questions answered, and number of answers per question were used to compare the quality of services that various Q&A sites provide (Harper et al., 2008). The quality of Yahoo! Answers service was compared with similar Q&A sites (Harper et al., 2008; O'Neill, 2007; Shah et al., 2008). These include sites such as All Experts (Harper et al., 2008), Askville, (O'Neill, 2007), ChaCha (O'Neill, 2007), Google Answers (Harper et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2008), and live QnA (Harper et al., 2008). Harper et al. (2008) report that Google Answers[3] outperformed the others on all quality measures; Yahoo! Answers was second on most of their measures. O'Neill (2007) distinguishes between responses based on question difficulty and argues that Yahoo! Answers outperforms the others on easy and moderate questions. She claims that “Responders at Yahoo! Answers and Askville could find it difficult to handle questions that really require an old fashioned reference interview and/or some knowledge of resources not easily uncovered by simple search” (O'Neill, 2007, p. 10).

Existing research on the quality of Q&A sites ignores previous findings from reference research and does not use objective measures such as response accuracy and completeness to evaluate services' quality.
3. Procedure

This study evaluates transactions from the Wikipedia Reference Desk. The Wikipedia community maintains two help desks. One supports the creation and maintenance of the encyclopedia; the other is the reference desk, which works like a library virtual reference desk and uses wiki to process reference transactions. Users leave questions on the reference desk, and Wikipedia volunteers work to help them find the information they need. The reference desk is organized under seven topical categories:

1. Computing;
2. Entertainment;
3. Humanities;
4. Language;
5. Mathematics;
6. Miscellaneous; and
7. Science.

3.1 Data collection

The Wikipedia Reference Desk maintains an open archive of old transactions that are grouped by topics and organized chronologically. In September 2007, all the data from April 2007 in the Wikipedia Reference Desk archive was saved and examined. During April 2007, the Wikipedia Reference Desk received 2,095 requests and provided 9,637 responses (more than 11,000 messages) on the seven topical desks (Table I). On average, the Wikipedia Reference Desk received 70 requests per day and users provided an average of 4.6 responses for each request.

A sample that includes 210 transactions from all of the April 2007 archive was collected. The first transaction from each day of this month and from all seven desks was chosen, and content analysis of 11 days out of this data set was conducted. This included 434 messages, 77 requests and 357 responses (examples of queries are included in Appendix 1).

Data about each user who contributed by asking or responding to the 77 transactions were also collected. A total of 170 unique users sent responses; they posted between 1 and 17 messages each. Among them, there were 122 expert users and 48 novice users (expert users were defined as users who have modified their Wikipedia user page, and novice were not). Of these users, 70 (41 per cent) posted multiple messages on the Wikipedia Reference Desk during the 11 days that were analyzed and 34 (20 per cent) of them participated in more than one reference desk.

Table II shows that the majority of the users who provide information on their country of residency are from the USA (23), Canada (11), and Australia (8). The information about country of residency, gender, education, or occupation of Wikipedia volunteers is based on voluntary self-report data and may be biased. Most of these users are male (23) and only a few are female (3); this reflects the gender profile of the larger Wikipedia community. Almost half of the expert users have been active Wikipedia users for over two years (since 2007 – 16 users; since 2006 – 46 users; since 2005 – 33 users; since 2004 – 21 users; since 2003 – six users). Most of them hold a college degree (Figure 1) and work in the IT or publishing industries (Figure 2).

Experts were more active than novices at the reference desk; they mostly answered, while novice users mostly asked questions. Novices were more likely to ask questions (70 per cent) compared to experts (29 per cent) and they submitted most of the questions (57 per cent). Experts submitted most of the responses (85 per cent) and 92 per cent of them answered questions compared to only 54 per cent of the novice users. Experts asked a significant number of questions, and many of the experts answered multiple questions on multiple reference desks. Role separation between the few highly active users who only answer questions and do not ask is characteristic of Yahoo! Answers (Adamic et al., 2008) and of a Java forum (Zhang et al., 2007). About one-fifth (18 per cent) of the Wikipedia reference desk users asked and responded to questions; echoing the findings from Yahoo! Answers, where 22 per cent of the users served in dual roles (Adamic et al., 2008).
3.2 Data analysis

Once all the transactions were uploaded into Nvivo 7, data analysis began. Nvivo 7 is a QSR software that facilitates qualitative data analysis. Content analysis of 77 transactions was conducted, assigning codes to sections of each transaction. Content analysis of answers is used to evaluate quality of answers from Q&A sites (e.g. Harper et al., 2008) and virtual reference (e.g. Radford and Connaway, 2008). The coding scheme (Table III) was based mainly on SERVQUAL measures (Parasuraman et al., 1988), and focused on three measures:

1. Reliability – a response that is accurate, complete, and verifiable.
2. Responsiveness – promptness of response.
3. Assurance – a courteous signed response that uses information sources.

The SERVQUAL measures have been utilized in evaluation of the quality library services and digital reference services (O'Neill et al., 2001; Shachaf et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2008). These measures have been developed based on studies that identified the important dimensions of perceived service quality (e.g. Parasuraman, 1985) and e-services quality (e.g. Parasuraman et al., 1988; Yang et al., 2004). The SERVQUAL measures are the most widely used scales for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality (Voss, 2003); these measures include tangibles, reliability, responsiveness assurance, and empathy (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Other measures that have been used in reference research and which informed the development of the coding scheme include, for example, accuracy, responsiveness, completeness, assurance, reliability, adherence to guidelines, and usage of sources (e.g. Arnold and Kaske, 2005; Kaske and Arnold, 2002; Shachaf and Horowitz, 2008; Shachaf and Shaw, 2008; Ward, 2005). Specifically the development of the coding scheme was supported by the Wikipedia Reference Desk guidelines[4], and the types of sources used were elaborated based on sources used in library digital reference services (Shachaf and Shaw, 2008).

Content analysis of the 77 transactions involved 27 codes that were assigned to sections in the answers. Analysis was done at the transaction level, which include a request and an answer with 4.5 responses on average (examples of a requests with answers that are composed of multiple responses are available in Appendix 2). Frequencies of codes are reported for individual messages and transactions (aggregated answers). To assure the reliability, a second coder coded 10 per cent of the transactions; the inter-coder reliability was 92 per cent.
3.3 Limitations

The major limitation of this study has to do with the generalizability of the findings from the Wikipedia Reference Desk to similar sites. The study used three quality measures and it is possible that other measures, such as user satisfaction or user perception of answer usefulness, could yield different results. Further, the study did not differentiate quality based on query type and difficulty (examples of queries are available in Appendix 1).
4. Findings

Table IV provides the frequency of codes on the three SERVQUAL measures.
4.1 Reliability

Reliability of the answer is determined by whether it is complete, accurate, and verifiable. Most of the requests received a response message (96 per cent, n=77) and the vast majority of these messages included a partial or complete answer (92 per cent, n=77); 63 per cent of the transactions were answered completely (n=52). A little over half (55 per cent) of the answers[5] (n=27) were accurate, 26 per cent were not accurate, and in 18 per cent of the cases, there was no consensus among the responders. A total of 76 per cent of the transactions (n=77) linked to online sources that support the answer, but only 10 per cent of the answers made full reference to the sources they mentioned.
4.2 Responsiveness

For 77 transactions average response time per question was calculated as a measure of responsiveness. The first response was posed on average after four hours (M=4.004, SD=11.33, Mdn=1.192), and the last response after 35 hours (M=34.764, SD=60.96, Mdn=14.197).
4.3 Assurance

Assurance is operationalized as a courteous signed response that uses information sources. Users signed their Wikipedia user names on 75 of the 77 transactions (97 per cent), but only 136 messages out of the 434 messages were signed (31 per cent).

The sources that have been used by the responders in 210 transactions were listed and analyzed. Of the transactions, 88 per cent were answered using sources. Wikipedia was used most frequently; it accounted for 44 per cent of the references, in 93 per cent percent of the transactions. On average 4.5 sources were used per transaction, but at least nine out of ten messages in the responses did not mention any source. Traditional information sources were rarely used; journals, databases and indexes, and books were cited once each, and only 18 responders referred to books in 12 transactions (0.01 per cent of the sources cited in the replies were books, 0.001 per cent newspapers, 0.001 per cent databases and indexes, and 0.001 per cent journals).
5. Discussion

The quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk is examined in light of reference research because this virtual reference desk is modeled after library reference services[6], and because the body of knowledge about Q&A boards does not provide enough comparable data. This examination reveals that the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk is similar to library reference services; a few possible explanations for this similarity are discussed.
5.1 Comparison with library reference services

The Wikipedia Reference Desk provides answers that are as accurate as those that traditional (and digital) reference librarians provide. Both provide reference services at a 55 per cent accuracy level (for comparison see, for example, Hernon and McClure's (1986) classic study). In reference research, “The 55% rule was established after a series of reference accuracy studies consistently indicated that just over half of the test questions were answered correctly” (Saxton and Richardson, 2002, p. 35), and studies of digital reference services reported similar results (for example, Kaske and Arnold, 2002).

Answer completeness rate at the Wikipedia reference desk is better than library reference services' completeness rate. Wikipedia volunteers provide complete answers for 63 per cent of transactions and librarians completeness rate in virtual reference services is lower; for example, Ward (2005) report 47 per cent completeness rate and Arnold and Kaske (2005) report that only 38 per cent were complete, accurate, and verifiable.

Further, the Wikipedia reference desk and library reference services receive the same amount of unsolicited thank you messages. Thank you messages were submitted on 19 per cent of the transactions at the Wikipedia reference desk. In libraries (including the virtual reference desk), the percentage of unsolicited thank you e-mails ranged from 16 per cent to 20 per cent (Carter and Janes, 2000; Janes and Mon, 2006; Mon and Janes, 2008).

The Wikipedia Reference Desk is somewhat quicker to respond to user requests than library (asynchronous) reference services[7]. Response time at the Wikipedia Reference Desk is four hours on average for the first response. E-mail requests are likely to be answered by Association for Research Libraries (ARL) libraries within two business days (Stacy-Bates, 2004), by academic libraries in 21 hours, and by public libraries 18 hours (Shachaf et al., 2008). Answers at the Wikipedia Reference Desk are posted quicker than libraries respond to e-mail requests.

Assurance measures (signature patterns and source usage) by Wikipedia volunteers are similar to those found in library reference services. For example, Signatures appeared in one third of the Wikipedia reference desk messages and on one third of the librarians' responses to e-mail reference requests (Shachaf and Horowitz, 2008).

The use of sources by Wikipedia volunteers and librarians follows a skewed bibliometric distribution with a few sources that are heavily cited and a long tail of other little cited sources. However, the distribution of sources from the Wikipedia Reference Desk is more skewed; only one source (Wikipedia) is heavily used, followed by sources that are rarely used. Given the fact that the Wikipedia Reference Desk guidelines recommend using Wikipedia pages to answer requests (“Guidelines,” 2007), the high use of Wikipedia (44 per cent of the sources mentioned) is not surprising. The major difference between librarians and Wikipedia volunteers is that 53 per cent of the librarians' responses mentioned sources (Shachaf and Shaw, 2008), while Wikipedia volunteers mentioned them in only one out of ten messages.

As the comparison between library reference services and the Wikipedia Reference Desk shows, both provide the same level of answer quality with minor variations and except for use of sources, the Wikipedia Reference Desk outperforms librarians. The comparison between the two services is summarized in Table V. The similarity in outcome measures between the Wikipedia Reference Desk and libraries is striking, because unlike library reference services, the Wikipedia reference desk is run and staffed by volunteers who are amateur, do not hold a professional degree, and who are unremunerated for their work.
5.2 Four explanations

Four possible explanations are discussed here addressing the question: Why does the quality of the Wikipedia Reference Desk match that of library reference services? First, it is possible that the wiki, on which the Wikipedia Reference Desk is based, has advantages over other asynchronous technologies used for digital reference. Second, the experience that Wikipedia volunteers gain over time may equal that of professional librarians. Third, the results may reflect differences in type of questions that are being asked at the library and at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Finally, it is likely that the collaborative group effort in answering questions on Wikipedia is beneficial compared with the dyadic interactions at the library.

Because prior research did not focus on the use of wiki in reference services, the first explanation cannot be supported or rejected without further evidence. Prior reference research has not yet shown that levels of answer accuracy or completeness vary based on mode of interaction, nor that the level of user satisfaction does (e.g. Arnold and Kaske, 2005; Kaske and Arnold, 2002; Ward, 2005). Future studies may compare wiki based reference service with other modes of interactions to support or reject this possible explanation.

The second possible explanation is that the volunteers' experience of answering questions equals the skills, knowledge, and abilities of librarians. Saxton and Richardson (2002) argue that as experience at answering questions increases, the importance of formal education for achieving high performance in answering questions at the reference desk decreases. On the Wikipedia Reference Desk, seasoned users (expert) draw on their “amateur” experience and are able to provide quality answers even without formal library education. However, it is important to caution here that while the amalgamated (group) answer on the Wikipedia Reference Desk was as good as a librarian's answer, an amateur did not answer at the same level as an expert librarian. Answering requests in this amateur manner creates a forest of mediocrity, and, at times, the “wisdom” of the crowd, not of individuals, reaches a higher level. For a user whose request received more than four answers, sorting out the best answer becomes a time consuming task (see for example the reference transactions in Appendix 2). When people tend to exert the least amount of effort, and choose the first satisficing answer (Agosto, 2002; Mansourian and Ford, 2007; Zipf, 1949), they are provided with an answer at a lower quality than that provided by librarians. Keen (2008. p. 2), in the cult of amateur, cautions about “the consequences of a flattening of culture that is blurring the lines between traditional audience and author, creator and consumer, expert and amateur.” He argues that the participatory nature of Web 2.0 has a destructive impact on our economy, culture, and values. The explanation that Wikipedia amateurs are as good as librarians cannot be supported unless research that would compare responses of individuals to the same requests from each group is done.

Another possible explanation is that the similarity in the quality level of both modes of reference service is a result of a significant variation between the types of questions that are asked at each of them. Different queries may require different skills, knowledge, and abilities to answer; some queries are more difficult than others, take longer to answer, or may require the use of a wider range of sources (Saxton and Richardson, 2002). This study did not differentiate among types of queries, did not compare them with queries that librarians answer, and cannot support or reject this explanation (examples of queries are available in Appendix 1). Future research should examine the similarities and differences in type of queries asked at the Wikipedia reference desk, or other Q&A sites, and compare these with the type of questions asked at libraries.

It is more likely, however, that the high quality of the answers at the Wikipedia Reference Desk is due to its unique collaborative nature; this collaborative group effort is probably advantageous compared to the dyadic reference interview in libraries. The collaborative effort improved and enhanced the quality of the answer on the Wikipedia reference desk. In an amalgamated answer, responses can be improved, refined, verified, expanded, discussed, and challenged; in fact, many of the responses included elaborations on the first response. The quality of an individual message did not provide answers at the same level as individual librarians do, but an aggregated answer made it as accurate as a librarian's answer. This explanation of why Wikipedia volunteers and librarians perform at the same level is a reflection of the paradox of expertise. “As individuals master more and more knowledge in order to do a task efficiently as well as accurately, they also lose awareness of what they know” (Johnson, 1983, p. 79). As a result, experts are unable to articulate their knowledge in a way that a layman can understand; at times, their ability to make a judgment is distorted (Tetlock, 2005) and a group of non-experts is able to outperform the expert. Wikipedia volunteers may exemplify this paradox, and outperform the expert reference librarians. Future research should compare the traditional dyadic reference interview model with the collaborative social reference model.
6. Conclusion

The quality of answers on the Wikipedia Reference Desk is similar to that of traditional reference service. Wikipedia volunteers outperformed librarians or performed at the same level on most quality measures. The similarity in quality levels between the two services instantiates the paradox of expertise; the amateur crowds provide answers that are as good and even better than librarians do. Before concluding that libraries and librarians can be replaced, there is a dire need for further research on answer quality on Q&A sites. It is still unclear, whether the Wikipedia Reference Desk and other Q&A sites will be able to provide a reliable service over time. If not, we might still need to train librarians and maintain institutional library services. Perhaps social reference is one of the “Web 2.0 world [that] can and should appear as a part of formal library and information science courses” (Bawden, 2007, para. 11).
--> <b class="IPA">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:59, 17 February 2010

Shortcut

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?


These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 (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 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

209 IP

On the Misc desk, I've made a subtle edit to remove what I consider to be racial trolling, or perhaps just offensively irrelevant comment and a reasonable response to it. I'm thinking about hacking out more such comments from this IP, but wanted to run it past you lot. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diff links would be nice so we know what you're talking about.
Presumably, this diff [2]. Nothing good would have come from leaving it there, but no doubt people disagree as to the appropriateness of editing another's words in this way. Personally, I think the OP was almost certainly trolling, and the question was just an excuse for the comment which Dweller removed. They were probably hoping people would end up in a lengthy discussion of race, with some people claiming others were being over-sensitive, etc. 86.178.230.208 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually more clueless than most people here about being trolled. That said, the OP did post 4 questions involving race in a row; this last one was less explicitly about race than the others; I (naively, perhaps) don't think this is troll behavior. I think we should answer questions about race, including the offensive ones, and we should hedge and lecture as appropriate. Maybe the best response in this case would have been "don't remove his offtopic aside about race, but also don't rise to the bait and get drawn into a trollthread". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, I understand your distaste for this user's obsession with miscegenation - and I share it - but you're not supposed to alter someone's signed posts on the RefDesk and I think you know that. And of all the things to decide to censor, the word "white" seems like a truly bizarre place to start. I know I don't have to tell you that WP isn't censored either. Then on top of all that you altered Comet Tuttle's post, where he/she was trying to simply set the poster straight. Will you now censor my post due to my use of the forbidden "w" word? Frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed - and even more shocked that nobody else has called you on it. If you really thought the thread was unacceptable, you should have removed it completely and discussed the situation here, which has been policy for quite some time. Matt Deres (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an overreaction. However, keep in mind that wikipedia articles are not censored for content, but discussion pages operate under somewhat different rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get into this mess again and I'm guessing SB is going to leave a strongly worded response but I feel I have no choice. IMHO removing the white bit was acceptable if Dweller made it clearer he did it, which he apparently didn't. E.g. a simple, 'I've removed the speculation on subject's racial identity, please don't speculate on such details per WP:BLP signed' perhaps with a <removed per WP:BLP then a sig> where the wording occured and informing the people who's posts you've modified. Removing the posts would also have been okay but if people feel the post have merit removing the speculation would often still be preferred. It's a potential WP:BLP vio and while occuring in the RD isn't so bad, it should still be avoided. Speaking as a regular at WP:BLP/N and also few other articles with such problems, removing the problematic bits is sometimes the best option because it avoids people yelling when their posts are removed, and reinserting the same problematic posts without removing the unacceptable content. Note that this should only be done if the content is clearly bad enough to require immediete removal. I should add that I've never done it here from memory, I'm referring to experience in other talk pages. (In fact I haven't done it much at all more referring to what I've seen and discussed and tend to be me of the 'screw it, if they can't be bothered to obey simple rules, I'm not going to help them' kind of person and just remove the post). P.S. Looking into this some more, I doubt this is a particular controversial claim, so I personally don't think it really needed to be removed, but I will generally support any removal of speculation on LPs as a matter of principle if it comes down to it. One of the obvious points is that it shouldn't be necessary for me to find out if speculation on LP has any merit or may be controversial, people should simply avoid it on wikipedia. P.P.S. I recognise Dweller hasn't explained why he/she removed the comments. If it was simply because he/she found them offensive then I agree it was probably best to leave as is. P.P.P.S. Wikipedia:TALK:Editing comments#Editing comments is of relevance Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I do strongly disagree. Aside from fixing egregious formatting problems that either make the question hard to read - or screws up the page layout - then I don't think there is ever a case for editing someone elses' post. It's not just my opinion - it's quite clearly set out in our guidelines: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't edit others' questions or answers. If the post is so horrible that it's either contrary to our guidelines or worth 'being bold' about - then remove it and refer the poster here to discuss it. All or nothing - no removal or changing of words, paragraphs, punctuation - not even links. Either remove the whole thing and be prepared to justify your actions - or do nothing. It's grossly unfair to change someones' words and make it look like they said something other than they really did say. If they said something unbearably nasty - why should you make them look good by cleaning it up? That might cause respondants to spend a lot of time answering what appears to be a nice, friendly OP - when in fact they are the kind of evil bastard who you wouldn't help if they paid you to. So no! Don't clean up their questions - either delete them or leave them alone. But worst of all, this could become a slippery slope - how long would it be before people would start fixing wording - making it look like people said something completely different than what they actually said? The only safe rule is an absolute one...we don't edit the content of other people's posts...period. Don't even add links or correct spelling, etc. In an online community, all we have as individuals is our words - those at least should be sacrosanct. I made a stand about this in the past and will do so again if necessary. Editing other people's posts is quite utterly unacceptable to me - and that's what the WP:RD guidelines quite clearly say. SteveBaker (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are acceptable exceptions, such as vicious personal attacks or potential BLP violations or other gross rule-breaking. However, in those cases, it's best to make clear what's being done. Like what you could do if someone called you a [personal attack redacted]. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not even then. Remove the whole damn thing and be done with it. The rules for BLP are a little different because we're talking about signed statements of opinion (rather than encyclopedia articles), but even so, the options are to either leave it or remove it completely. There's no gain to anyone for bowdlerizing the text and plenty of reasons not to do it. Matt Deres (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take it up with other users, including admins, who sometimes do things as I have illustrated above, typically on BLP issues, personal attacks, and too much personal information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in "other users" elsewhere in Wikipedia - I'm concerned about people who violate the guidelines for the reference desk. They quite clearly state that you must not edit other people's posts (except, rarely, to fix formatting problems). If there is a vicious personal attack then delete the entire post and be prepared to justify doing so - or leave it alone. Why? Consider the scope for misinformation! You say something very mild indeed about me - I delete the mild words and stick in a [personal attack redacted] tag and everyone will assume you did something terrible! Anyway - we don't have to argue about this - it's a clearly stated, unambiguous refdesk guideline - and it would take a clear consensus of the group to change that. Trust me - you won't get a consensus, so that's not gonna happen. Please stick to the guidelines - thank you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that if you see someone do that, you could speak to them about it. My attitude in general is, let it stand, no matter what it is (unless it's a gross violation of wikipedia policy). Someone took an unexplained vicious shot at me the other day, and someone else removed it shortly before the attacker was blocked. I was tempted to put it back, to let everyone see the poster for what he is, as I would on my own talk page, but I decided not to. But what's your view on that kind of situation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography pop quiz

One example.

This is one of a dozen or so pop quiz geography questions we've been given along the same vein over the past few months. Does anyone know where the OP is getting these questions from? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to find out is for everyone to refuse to answer the question until the user explains where they are coming from. -- kainaw™ 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? If the questions are within guidelines and not overwhelming the desks, what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.83 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250 identified the source of the questions in the last posting in this thread. Deor (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. I never said it was a problem, IP, I just asked where it was coming from. Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the OP wins the hundred bucks, maybe he should split it with whoever gives him the right answer. Or donate it to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we just give our answers at the quiz site? Then we can decide whether to split the money with the OP. Franamax (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! A capital (as in "money") idea! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a circumstance that occurred to me quite some time ago. Key 103 has (or had, at least) a competition where, at a certain time of every day, a person is asked three questions. They return the next day if they get it right, leave without prizes if they get it wrong, and can choose to leave after any victorious Q&A session with a selection of prizes which increases based on how long they can go. Once one player leaves, another is plucked from the void to fill their shoes. The individual or group with the highest running total at the end of the year gets twelve tickets to go to some Christmas party thing. Would I (or anyone, in fact - I don't listen to the station any more) be allowed to ask the Ref Desk for help with these questions? Players are given the duration of one song to find out the answers themselves - group discussions and internet use are allowed. I wasn't sure if I should put this under a new heading, the subject matter is much the same... Vimescarrot (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a perfectly proper use of the desks to me. Editors can decide whether or not to engage, as they can with all questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in the past is that the questioner doesn't explain where the questions come from. Since they are purposely vague questions, there are many possible answers. If the editor would come clean and explain where the questions come from, we could examine the quiz and see if we could find the correct answer for the quiz, not just an answer that meets the requirements stated. It is a matter of getting context so a proper answer may be given. -- kainaw™ 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and if people asked clearer questions in general, we could give them more specific clearer answers. I don't think there's technically anything wrong with the OPs using the information in some unstated way, including commercial ventures or profit. If they wish to submit our answers verbatim, that is also fine as long as they follow the rules of our license. It's worthwhile to point out that Wikipedia content, including our responses on the Desks, are all licensed under GFDL and/or Creative Commons license. If the user wants to submit our answers verbatim, they must be sure that this is in compliance with the (very real, and enforceable) terms of the GFDL. Nimur (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but it's irrelevant to the contest questions that started this thread. Their answers are simple facts such as place names, and therefore not subject to copyright; hence the GFDL does not apply. --Anonymous, 06:03 UTC, January 27, 2010.
Also they can comply with either the GFDL or the CC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epic stuff. Since I'd have no use for twelve party tickets, I'd share them out among Ref Deskers, should this ever happen. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution/Chinese ramble

Wow, I just skimmed through this extremely long rambling story on the humanities desk and am wondering how we should handle it. There really doesn't seem to be a coherent question here... Any thoughts? [3] 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed it and posted a "thanks no thanks" explanation. It's not Ref Desk appropriate in any way. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with that. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. (!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She must have us confused with Dr. Phil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if she feels oppressed by her government, living situation, society, whatever, I certainly empathize and wish her better. But this isn't the right place for such posts, alas. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even bother to ask for questions like this. Once you see things that could be real names mentioned and accusations made, please remove with a passion. Although a regular at WP:BLP/N and strong supporter of WP:BLP I normally let things fly in the RD which wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere. But this sort of stuff most definitely crosses the line. Of course while I didn't read the whole thing, it sounded suspicious to me and reading the last two paragraphs doubly so, in other words, it may not even be a genuine request (and the names therefore made up), but that's just as good a reason to delete it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

religion & spirituality reference desk

Original poster closing what's turned out to be a very silly tangential discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've just had a brief conversation with a couple of other editors about why there isn't a separate reference desk for religious and spiritual matters. currently religion is lumped in under humanities, which seems a bit odd. is there any support for setting up a separate desk for these issues? --Ludwigs2 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed (and smacked down) some months ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
out of curiosity, why was it smacked down? (and yes, I am vying to be the patron saint of lost causes...) --Ludwigs2 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Smacked down" is hardly fair. It was fairly discussed, actual data was found and presented, we sought consensus and the result was a clear "No". That's hardly a 'smack down'. Anyway - don't take it on faith - you can actually research it properly by looking back through the archives and reading the debate for yourself. SteveBaker (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember that one specifically, but most new RefDesk proposals fizzle when their proponents cannot show that there is demonstrable harm in keeping it in the old desk, or that the new desk would get sufficient traffic. Being "a bit odd" isn't very convincing - why shouldn't religion questions be answered at Humanities? (That's where questions on other philosophy systems and non-governmental organizations go.) I'll also point you to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives - take a look at a representative month and estimate how many questions the new desk is likely to have. (There isn't a hard number, but 1-2 per day certainly isn't going to cut it.) - You're up against inertia and the status quo. The impetus is on the proposer to do the convincing. -- 174.21.224.109 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the main argument against it was that there weren't enough questions to justify a separate page. The counterargument was that a separate page might encourage more questions. They both have a point, I suppose. Anyway, the idea was defeated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'd personally think that religion and spirituality (and philosophy, for that matter) are a different domain than the humanities, both on subject matter and on the general interests of participants. it's a bit like lumping computers into the mathematics section on the grounds that (you know...) they both deal with numbers. it's not a big issue, and I don't see any pressing need to argue for it at the moment, it just struck me as an odd arrangement. if there's no consensus for a change, that's fine. --Ludwigs2 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out in the previous discussion: Universities and bookstores place religion (and spirituality and philosophy) under "Humanities". Also, see humanities. It includes religion. I understand the idea that some people are offended when their religion is placed under Humanities and not "The Absolute Truth About Everything". Wikipedia simply doesn't push one religion as religion and all others as humanities. -- kainaw™ 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
kainaw — I don't think anyone said anything about being "offended" about religion being under humanities. And a religion reference desk would be for all religions, not just one religion. I'm sorry but I don't see how you see it as "pushing" one religion. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could open some interesting doors of discussion. There's always a risk of constantly having to rein editors in, with potentially too many of them copping attitudes like, "My religion is better than yours", or "Religion is a humbug." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as physics is a part of the science desk, topology is a part of the math desk and music is handled on the entertainment desk - so religion comes under humanities. What's the problem with that? We really can't have a separate desk for every single part of the human experience. Anyway, this has been discussed to death a gazillion times before. It's simply not going to happen and that's that. SteveBaker (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a smackdown. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ah, yeah, but I can never resist an argument. people should really learn not to give me an excuse.
'Humanities' (as the name suggests) deals with human creations and human endeavors. that's why the arts, literature, history, pedagogy, and even the social sciences often have strong associations with the humanities. Religion, spirituality, and philosophy usually deal with metaphysical matters outside direct human control or ken. scholars in the latter group - as often as not - disagree with scholars in the former group (I've seen what happens when Lit Crit people get in conversations with buddhist monks - the most mild-mannered mess of confusion you'll ever see). and yeah, I recognize that category choices need to be made, but I hope you'll forgive me if I point out category choices that are a bit deficient in rationality. --Ludwigs2 23:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on SB's comparison between computers and math, I could imagine there could be a cadre of editors who would suggest that questions about religion be included with science fiction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, one of the distinguishing features of science fiction is that it's made clear that there's a rational explanation for everything going on (whether or not such an explanation is forthcoming). Most religion comes under fantasy. Algebraist 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in general. Backwards time travel is every bit the fantasy that religion allegedly is. And the rational explanation in religion is that God is in charge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
now, see, this is the kind of commentary that I find troubling. I have no problem with spirituality being categorized under humanities as a more-or-less random act of categorical confusion, but if it got tucked there because a few wikipedia editors have bugs up their collective ass about religion, that is... unfortunate. Nothing wrong with spirituality that a good dose of common sense can't fix.
I will say that I'm consistently fascinated by what I can only describe as 'skeptical entitlement', which seems to be a common feature of these types of debates. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than many of us just re-hashing the same arguments further, I recommend you read the previous debate, which was actually last August.[4] Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
eh, I already gave up the request. I'm just arguing for the fun of it now. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not. [To keep an argument going, someone must take a contrary position - refer to the Monty Python "argument sketch" for further details.] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ah geez, bugs, you done out-logicked me! --Ludwigs2 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. They don't. -- kainaw™ 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They do. (What was the question again?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He can sure try though, as many morons do. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2: If you like to argue for the sake of arguing, you might be interested in our WP:List of controversial issues. Pick a few disputes and try to resolve them. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quest: I've been trying to edit on Alternative medicine recently - you think I need more headaches? I'll take a look though... --Ludwigs2 04:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly with many of those controversial issues, an agreement is right around the corner. If only some smart person could take one of those issues under their wing and tell everybody where they're wrong... they could fix all the controversy! --Neptunerover (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now... you and I both know that sarcasm doesn't read well on text forums. honestly, I'm surprised this question has caused this much of a stir. I asked, the first couple of responses were sufficient; everything else is indulgent.
Best not to take me for a fool. I don't mind playing the role, but it is an act of generosity, and I don't have a lot of patience with people who abuse the privilege. --Ludwigs2 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm just having fun at the end here, regardless to what the initial question was, or who asked it, which I now notice was you. Paying attention to the entire overall theme of the question wasn't my interest here. I'm just making some funny observations about idiots in general, without trying to point out any particular idiot, since in casting stones at an idiot, one is likely to hit oneself. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no worries. I've been a little touchy the last couple of days; someone needs to sell me a chillpill. --Ludwigs2 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I said about 'fixing' a controversy was meant as extreme humor when considering that a controversy itself is basically two sides each trying to 'fix' the other, at which point the introduction of a third side trying to fix both of those is the very definition of slapstick. --Neptunerover (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm in favor of a separate reference desk for religion only. I disagree with the suggestion that it should handle spirituality and philosophy also. In my conception such a desk would only address questions relating to the established, so-called "organized" religions. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you see, there's where the argument begins. All with the question, "what do we want to include and exclude in our world?" Attempts like that are ultimately futile, because people will do what people will do, and all we can do is deal with whatever comes up. Attempts to confine the human spirit are not worthwhile. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone attempt to "confine the human spirit?" Where do you see that? Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to see what one problem would be with such a ref desk - trying to find the right sized fence to put around it. Even with organized religion, individuals have their own "constructs" of what that religion is and how it relates to them. I know Catholics who believe in reincarnation. That's certainly not a Christian doctrine. Yet they identify as Catholics. Also, is "New Age" a religion, or is it just pop culture nonsense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't know what "New Age" is, but the existence of entities that challenge the definitions we set for such a desk is not a conclusive reason for not having such a desk. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The setting of definitions like you mention is what I think would cause trouble. The human spirit has within it a likelihood toward certain activities. Whenever there's a fence, human spirit wants to jump the fence. Religion is a personal thing to humans, and limiting it on such a desk is asking for trouble. It signifies exclusion, it is finger pointing; it really goes against religion to have an exclusive desk. And I mean it goes against religious ideals, not organized religions, which are exclusive, I think, although they should not be excluded from the desk just for that. People would be banished from the desk if they tried introducing exclusion. We want our desk to be exclusive of all exclusiveness! --Neptunerover (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The desks are for providing references for facts. How many people will be using this new desk for factual questions, like bible references or dates for historical religious events? Not many I'd imagine, and certainly not enough to require an entire new desk for it. A religion desk will quickly deteriorate into heated debate, opinions and pov pushing, something the reference desk and wikipedia as a whole are not for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct — such a desk would be for facts only. Deterioration into "heated debate" would seem highly unlikely, to me anyway. Heated debate as to whether such a desk should exist or not does seem a possibility.
I think what you misunderstand is this has nothing to do with debate. This has to do with information. That is the purpose of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't misunderstand, I'm just being realistic; it will turn into debate very quickly, regardless of what the intended purpose is. You will have a huge influx of people going to that board to push their religious views, get angry over others "disrespecting" their religion etc etc etc etc. But, as long as it would be strictly monitored to keep it to factual questions only, then I have no objections. However, are there really that many questions being asked on religion that we need another desk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82.43.89.14 — Its intended purpose has nothing to do with "religious views." There can be disagreement over factuality. Doesn't that happen on such desks as the science desk or the math desk? Such a desk would not even be concerned (primarily) with "comparative religion." The aim, as I envision it, is to have a place where inquiries can be made about a given religion. I don't think it would matter if the person inquiring were of that religion or not, though I will admit that I think the core use for such a desk would be for members of that religious group. The various groups would merely share that desk by dint of their all being, loosely speaking — religions. I think such a desk would, or should, find it unimportant whether or not a person were a member of the religion he/she were inquiring about, and a general introductory statement to such a desk should even discourage participants from disclosing their religious identity, but on the other hand it would be no big deal if they did reveal any such feelings of membership in any religious group. My hunch is that most postings would be from people with no religious affinities, certainly none of a particularly strong nature. I say that because I think that reflects the general population of wikipedia. But I can't really claim to know the religious/nonreligious composition of wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Yes, I know its intended purpose has nothing to do with religious views, but I guarantee you that's what it will become and it'll be a constant battle to remove that crap every singe day. You are inviting that sort of thing by making a desk called "religion reference desk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If people were inclined to do that, they'd have already done it on the humanities ref desk. Honestly, this conversation has taken a relatively minor question and blown it way out of proportion, mostly because of some (apparently deep-seated) reactions to organized religion. When I originally thought about this I imagined that people would want to ask questions about Buddhist meditation, HIndu wedding practices, Christian mysticism, Islamic prayer practices, the religious influences on architecture, western or eastern philosophical ontologies, facts about relatively under-covered faiths like Zoroastrianism or Sikhism, ancient or primitive practices such as tribal shamanism or saturnalias, the epistemological concerns of people like Sartre or Kierkegaard or.... when you guys think about this ref desk, you apparently envision hordes of torch-bearing, pitchfork-wielding villagers screaming up the hill after the misbegotten, unholy monster that is wikipedia. There's just nothing to say to that that would be meaningful, so I'll refrain, except to say that I think it's a sad perspective on faith. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly think no one will go to that desk looking to make their viewpoints known and treat it like a battle ground, then good luck. Go for it. And I'll be laughing in two months time when the desk is removed because it's become a giant troll honeypot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you double over backwards, cackling with glee? --Neptunerover (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions suggesting a Religion Ref Desk

I ran back through the archives as far as late 2007 (archive number 40) searching for the keyword 'religion'. In general, the consensus seems to be that there isn't an excess of traffic at Humanities which would require that Desk to be divided, and that the number of questions received on religion-related topics (about 20% of Humanities' traffic, or roughly two questions per day) would be insufficient to sustain a new Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for "traffic" reasons, it is for "incompatibility" reasons that a religion desk is needed. The humanities are hostile to religion. This very discussion is strongly flavored by the hostility of not only the humanities to religion, but everything else to religion. It is the nature of religion to stand all alone (my original research). Religion stands apart from most things. Entertainment, for instance, is overwhelmingly anti-religious. Science is anti-religious, by and large. And the humanities — literature, visual arts, theater — all oppose piety. (You may disagree that piety is the essence of religion, but I think you will have to admit it is related.) Upshot: a person who might have a sincere, factual question pertaining to religion, is not going to pose that question in an environment that general frowns on the presuppositions that accompany such a question. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The incompatibility is only a perception though, for there are religious connotations to many things entertainment. In fact, from one religious perspective, God is everything, so everything written was written by God (including all movie scripts). God wants for us to have fun here, and it all depends on our perspective. --Neptunerover (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neptunerover, you make a reference above to "one religious perspective." I was wondering — which "religious perspective" would that be? Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me, check out this (I got the link from below) Words, words, words --Neptunerover (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point - that maybe readers get discouraged from asking religion-related questions on other desks since they know the first thing they're going to be told is, "Religion is humbug." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of hoping that this section would serve as a useful reference to previous discussions, and would discourage people from bringing up the same points they brought up last time around. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, unfortunately, the discussion (here and previously) is largely unsatisfactory. the arguments against seem to boil down to:
  • It will attract trouble
  • There's not enough traffic/demand for it
  • it will boil down to opinion mongering
none of which actually addresses the point. basically it's: 'we don't want a religious reference desk because it is too much trouble to deal with people who are interested in religion.'
This discussion is useless. If I decide (sometime in the distant future) that I think this is a good idea, I will skip the conversation and make a religious reference desk outright, per wp:BOLD. then we'll see whether these idle fears actually have any sense behind them. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I haven't noticed too much trouble with religion questions on the Humanities board. It's when questions involving religious concepts are asked on the Science board that the responses can become rather insulting. Deor (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't notice "too much trouble with religion questions on the Humanities board" because people are not going to ask a question of a religious nature on the Humanities board. They are too inhibited by a basically ridiculing environment from posing even a simple and straightforward question of a religious nature. Where you have ridiculing (of anything) you can never have seriousness. Ridiculing always wins out. Were science mocked there would be no place for the discussion of science. But religion is not just mocked, it is widely mocked. Wikipedia clearly contains a systemic bias against religion. It is no big deal. I don't hate Wikipedia. I still like Wikipedia. But it is a simple fact. Sometimes you can't see the obvious. Were a person to ask a straight and simple and straightforward question relating to religion, the guffaws would almost be audible. A religion reference desk would be a step in the right direction in addressing this systemic bias. I'm sorry to have to say it, but the argument to not have a religion reference desk is an effort to preserve a systemic bias. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make myself clearer. I myself am a (Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States) believer. I've noticed that on the Science desk, questions involving rather outré science fictional concepts tend to get responses on the order of "According to the current understanding of the way the universe works, that is impossible", whereas questions involving, for instance, the divine creation of the universe tend to get responses that append or consist of statements equivalent to "... and you're a moron if you think that it could be so". I've rarely seen responses of the latter sort on the Humanities desk; and when they have appeared, they've been easily discounted as idiosyncratic or tendentious. You may have noticed other posts that I've missed or ignored, but my perception is that religion questions on the Humanities desk are not met with "guffaws". Deor (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Questioners often do themselves a disservice by asking religion questions on the Science desk, because they're usually told things to the effect of "There is no God" (as if there were scientific proof of that assertion). That there is no scientific proof of it is never mentioned. It's like asking the head chef of a posh restaurant about the merits of McDonalds. Of course you'll be told there are none. (There may not be any anyway, but the head chef's opinion is hardly an unbiased opinion). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol - that's just weird. Might even be proof that there's a genetic component to common sense, because I can't imagine how else anyone could lack it to that extent, except by missing a gene. --Ludwigs2 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an attempt at a humorous aside from an editor who has already acknowledged his recent touchiness, and not as an actual insult. Feel free to correct the record if you feel it necessary. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how separating religious questions from the rest of rational discourse does anyone any good. If people come here expecting to get answers of a spiritually enlightening nature - then they won't get that. That's not because we're biassed or we hate religion - it's because we're required to answer questions with verifiable facts. Sure, I'm an atheist and I think religion is all bullshit - but if someone asked whether John wrote his gospel in order to refute Cerinthus - we could look that up in Gospel of John and find a reference to an answer in "Cerinthus." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Questions like that are answered on the humanities desk in a cool "reference librarian" style - which is great. I don't see any evidence that their questioners are set upon unreasonably. Take a look at the Humanities desk right now - I see half a dozen questions about various religious issues that were able to be answered with fact and references. But if someone goes to the science desk and asks a question that's clearly a sneaky effort to get creationism introduced into the conversation - or why science refuses to prove that god exists - they are absolutely guaranteed to get a solid run through the issues of evolution, falsifiability, occams' razor, Russell's teapot and all of that stuff. Sure, that's not the answer the questioner wanted - but we're bound by the rules to provide only the truth. That's how it should be. We deal with the facts. Questions that relate to 'faith' are simply not things that a library reference desk can - or should - answer. SteveBaker (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"separating religious questions from the rest of rational discourse"? does the Mathematics board separate Math from the rest of rational discourse? or is this an indication that you think all religious discussion is inherently irrational?
look, I'm not religious; I don't believe in dualisms at all, so I personally think that atheists are just as mistaken as religious zealots. I'm not arguing that that religion should be 'separated' from the rest of rational discourse - I thought it was an naturally separate domain of information; that's it and that's all. The more I listen to opinions like this, however, the more I think it should have a separate board, just to separate it from mind-bogglingly irrational discourse like this.
but whatever! can we close this discussion, please, before I exercise my option to take everyone here to task for prejudice? --Ludwigs2 06:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked two questions of me - here are the answers:
"does the Mathematics board separate Math from the rest of rational discourse?" - yes, it does. But math gets an average of 6 questions per day and the answers often have to be long and complex. Religious questions trickle in at one or two per day and the legitimate, fact-based ones are usually answered very simply with one or two paragraphs.
"is this an indication that you think all religious discussion is inherently irrational?" - No. Questions of fact (Does this religion require that of it's followers? Does this religious book say that?) are perfectly sane and rational and can (and MUST) be answered rationally with cold facts.
SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what part of "can we close this discussion" do you have trouble understanding? never mind, I'll do it myself. --Ludwigs2 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking the OP

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Going ahead and WP:BOLDly archiving this, people have been warned and there doesn't seem to be any more constructive use for continuing this discussion here. If anyone wants to continue, they can do it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two comments from a thread here that mocked an OP for his lack of perfect English grammar. Come on, guys — we're supposed to be here to help. The OP obviously doesn't speak English as his first language and he's new to Wikipedia; there's no need to taunt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good call. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous tangential discussion with awful indenting.
I'm not disagreeing here, but I do have a question. Do you think the OP would go easy on us if we tried speaking their language? From what I can tell, people are merciless everywhere when it comes to mispronunciations. Stuff like that is very funny to people, and one thing it is not, is a reflection on the person speaking in the foreign tongue, making it a good humor, as long as nobody gets their feeling hurt by misinterpreting the situation for more than it is. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Mockery can be hurtful, or at least counterproductive. We don't do it. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a questioner says "I want an perfect answer", he appears to be making a demand. However, since he doesn't know the usage of "a" vs. "an", it's also possible he doesn't realize he appears to be making a demand. For all we know, he might think he's asking politely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He must be new to WP; otherwise he'd know we're not going to give him a perfect answer :P FWIW, I agree with both ToaT and Bugs on this. While it does seem like a demand to our anglophone ears, it may be a perfectly reasonable phrase in the OP's native language (some Indian language, I suppose). Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who's taken first-year French knows that demander can simply mean "to ask", "to request" or "to enquire" without the insistent or compulsory connotation of "demand" in English. One example in Le Petit Larousse Illustré, 2004, is demander une jeune fille en mariage (to ask a girl to marry you), which does not normally involve compulsion today. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go heaping (or drizzling) any praise on me, I did say something there about "an perfect question". Hard telling if the OP got the joke or not. But hopefully, sending him to the article might help, as unless we have an expert on the subject handy, the article is about the most "perfect" answer we can give. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the OP wanted was a good argument in favor of making a state, not a perfect answer to a question. That's the way I tried to answer it, anyway. you have to read through ESL issues sometimes to get at the meat. --Ludwigs2 04:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal, not only was it mocking the OP, it was a totally pointless comment anyway with no attempt to answer the question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always enjoy hearing from the drive-bys. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is a "drive-by"?
BaseballBugs' shorthand for a post (or its poster) that is rushed, opportunistic and unconstructive is a Drive-by. "Drive-by" has by analogy to Drive-by shooting the meaning of someone recklessly delivering something undesireable, an example being a Drive-by download. A theme of dissension is reflected in a mention of a "drive-by argument" that has subsequently been adopted as the name of a band "Drive-by Argument" and their eponymous début album. The term "Drive-by Post" has currency in the Internet blogspace to mean a rushed post[6][7] [8], or negatively as in "Drive-By comment spammers". The wise and beautiful Diana Kroll has cool advice on how to treat a Drive-by.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought it was Bugs' way of describing users (almost always IP's) that have few, if any, contributions to their name, and their first, or almost-first, edit, is an attack on a Wikipedian. I never did any research to back this up, but that's the impression I got from the descriptions he's always had to provide. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for the explanation. To Bugs; I edit the reference desk the same as yourself, post and answer questions etc etc. If I am a "drive-by" then so are you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I see a (different? who can tell?) drive-by leveled a direct insult at the questioner, yet I don't see anyone here deleting it. Apparently the IP's are supposed to get special treatment, while the registered users get yelled at. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm going to take a stand here. Can you please stop calling ip users "drive-bys". It's very negative, doesn't assume good faith and ip users have as much right to be here as those with accounts, and your attitude is verging on a personal attack. As for "IP's are supposed to get special treatment", where have you gotten that from? All users are equal, no one gets special treatment over anyone else; an admin, a normal user and an ip user are all treated the same, with the only different between them being the level of access granted to perform wiki actions. So please, stop this. With regards to "who can tell?" part of your comment about different ips, go to the contribution page of the ip you're looking at and click "Geolocate" at the bottom of the page. That'll give you a rough guide to if it's the same person or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocate only tells you where the ISP theoretically is. We've had notorious vandals that have figured out ways to jump to IP's thousands of miles apart. So geolocate is not fully reliable. And if it were, most of the IP's on the ref desks geolocate from the UK. Yeh, that narrows it down. As far as "drive-by" being a negative, I only use it when it fits. P.S. In future, sign your posts by using 4 tildes. That will at least make you look somewhat experienced and a little less like a one-time, single-purpose "drive-by". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will sign all my posts in the future if you promise to stop using the term "drive-by". Deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, as you didn't sign this one either - the bot had to do it yet again. See, the problem is that a number is just a number. You yourself could have many IP addresses, and one IP address could have many users. So each individual IP who shows up to harp and criticize, can only be assumed to be a one-shot user, i.e. committing a "drive-by" shooting of a registered user, because there's no way to know otherwise. And if someone doesn't know they're supposed to sign their posts, that reinforces the appearance that they are one-shots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't sign it; I said I'd start signing my posts when you promise to stop calling ips drive-bys. Look, this has nothing to do with how many people may or may not be behind an ip address, it's simply rude to call ips drive-bys. I could start calling registered users "squatters", that wouldn't be helpful either. So I'll ask again, will you please consider rephrasing to something less negative like "ip user with few edits" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.
I don't care what you or anyone else calls me. It's not important. But by continually refusing to sign your posts, you dis all the editors here, not just the ones that get your Irish up by calling it like it is. The fact is, every IP appearance could be a single-purpose, one-time entry, there's no way to know. Note the SPA tag above. There is no way to know for sure that you're the same guy that entered the previous post. You could be one of those vandals I was mentioning (there were several just this past week) who turn up out of the blue to try to fan the flames. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might not care, but others do. It's a very simple request, all I'm asking you is to rephrase "drive-bys" to something less negative, something which assumes good faith and doesn't imply the ip in question is a gun-toting maniac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Others care what you call me? I wouldn't think so. I have no evidence that a given IP is anything other than a one-shot, an SPA, so when they come here and criticize, they have nullified my assumption of good faith. And when they continue to dis all the wikipedia editors by refusing to sign their posts, that further erodes their credibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand; others care what they are called. You said you didn't care what people called you, I said that attitude of not caring doesn't apply to everyone. Regardless of what evidence there is, even if the ip in question is guilty of being a SPA, I'm asking that you refrain from using the term "drive-by", for the reasons I outlined above. Please use SPA or "ip with few edits" or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, others care about impoliteness, for sure. Continually refusing to sign your posts is impolite to all users, so saying you'll start signing if some particular editor starts or stops doing something is a bogus argument. Fix your own impoliteness before you go criticizing others for their impoliteness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So will you stop calling ips "drive bys" now? 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I even know that you're the same guy that posted previously? How do I know it's not 10 different postings by 10 different editors? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you not to use the term "drive-by". Whether I'm one person or 10 different people is irrelevant. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is relevant. If an IP user makes one negative edit and makes no other edits, that's a "drive-by", whether you like the term or not. And by definition, any IP entry could be the lone entry of someone who just feels like taking a shot at other users (be they registered or unregistered, actually). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are complicating matters. I have no problem with you saying an ip has made few edits, I have no problem with you being extremely paranoid and assuming every edit an ip makes is a different person. What I am asking you to do is not to use the term "drive-by" because it has extremely negative connotations. Please use SPA or "ip with few edits to other areas of wikipedia" instead. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paranoid. I just don't trust editors who turn up from out of nowhere and start criticizing others. I only use the term "drive-by" when they act like one. And there are plenty of registered users that are also drive-bys. Many times they're redlinks, although that by itself is not necessarily an indication. And I do not intend to waste my time putting "SPA" tags after every IP posting that turns up. Don't act like a drive-by, and I won't call you one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your reasons are, will you please consider using a different term, one that doesn't have such negative connotations? As I've said three times now, SPA or "ip with few edits to other areas of wikipedia" conveys the same meaning as "drive-by" without the negative aspect. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who turn up, make one negative edit, and disappear are drive-bys, by definition, which I've also told you several times. Lots of things that are true have "negative connotations". I'm not interested in bending to political correctness. If it were up to me, that bot would tag every IP entry as an SPA, since there's no way to prove otherwise. And by the way, SPA is also argued to have "negative connotations" (at least it's argued by the SPA itself). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you'd rather insult people by using a term that is clearly derogatory, than spend an extra 3 seconds typing "ip or account with few edits" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd rather the IP's treat registered users with the same level of courtesy that they expect for themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you might have had a few bad experiences with ips doesn't give you the right to assume all ips are by default out to get you. By continuing to use that derogatory term, you disrespect every editor here. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disrespect that ones that act like drive-bys. When they do that, they forfeit the right to assumption of good faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be disrespecting anyone, regardless of how they act. By your own admission the term "drive-by" is disrespectful, so please discontinue using it in favor of SPA or "ip or account with few edits". 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting like a drive-by, and I'll stop calling you one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop calling people "drive-bys", it is disrespectful. 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When they act like a drive-by, I call them what they are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why do you insist on using a clearly pejorative term when there are far less offensive terms available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I gave up on you at least an hour ago. What I'm trying to do now is observe the behavior of text with over 30 indentions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That translates to me as "I lost the argument so I'll act like a child and pretend I don't care." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you intend to continue dissing every editor by returning to not signing your posts. In other words, you intend to continue acting like a drive-by. Good for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that good with words, so perhaps my overall point has been lost though language difficulties. Comet Tuttle has said exactly what I have been trying to convey to you here, so I'll leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a drive-by, nor does he act like one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Who's not a "drive-by"? What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comet Tuttle is not a drive-by, nor does he act like one. P.S. That's 39 indents now. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Comet Tuttle was a "drive-by", please re-read what I wrote. I said that Comet Tuttle put into words what I have been trying to say to you throughout this entire discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must interfere here, for in labeling such comments as mockery, you introduce something which is not evidenced by the comment. You insinuate there being a negative tone to the comments made, and I disagree. 'Making fun' doesn't mean 'making mean' --Neptunerover (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it would be better to call it removal of that which has the potential to be misunderstood from the way it was originally intended when stated. Calling someone a Mocker is like calling them a bad name. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much unnecessary wordsmithing. — Lomn 14:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Words, words, words - is that all you blighters can do? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very neat. =) I've never seen that. Thanks for showing me --Neptunerover (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades, good removal. Neptunerover, making fun of a questioner, especially one with poor English, is grounds for removal of a comment. Bugs, stop calling IPs drive-bys. There are surely thousands of lurkers here and they have as much right to comment, in any way and about anything, as you do; and just because it's their first comment doesn't mean that they haven't read hundreds of Refdesk threads, or their criticisms are unjustified. Dismissing the statements of IPs by calling them "drive-bys" is like making an argument from authority. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only call them drive-bys occasionally, when they act like one. How about if they afford registered users the same level of courtesy that they expect us to afford them? Like telling us who they are, signing their posts, etc. By the way, I actually answered the OP's question, or tried to. All the IP did was come here and fire shots. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, without regard to the IP editor, your conduct in this thread has been distinctly and unambiguously unhelpful. Is that not clear to you? Dropping the use of a pejorative name is a reasonable request, no matter who makes it. — Lomn 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see User:Nimur has helpfully rolled up the long off-topic discussion above. As it's about Bugs and not about the reference desk really, could further discussion be moved somewhere else, such as Bugs' talk page (if it's really that important to discuss at all, which it doesn't seem to be)? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion with that IP was a total waste of everyone's time. 'Nuff sed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, it's petty to try to claim the 'last word' here, especially when your own conduct was so poor in that part of the discussion. It would be equally accurate to say that The discussion with Bugs was a total waste of everyone's time. Don't use insulting names to refer to other editors — logged in or not. Don't assume bad faith — that's something that has to be earned on an individual basis. Don't go looking for fights on this talk page. And remember that this whole thread started because you – Bugs – and HalfShadow couldn't resist making fun of someone for not being able to write perfect English. If you don't have something to say that will improve the Ref Desk, please don't say it here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question removal: 19 Kids and Counting

I've removed this q. Comes close enough to a personal attack and is far enough away from being anything like well posed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, except there is a possible reasonable response, which could be, "Read the article on 19 Kids and Counting and see what it has to say, if anything, about their future plans." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, it's kind of borderline, but AFAIK, WP:BLP applies to the ref desk, too. Although it's missing from the guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the fine line here?

In this question, is it appropriate to start predicting doomsday scenarios on a reference desk? If the person asking the question were to panic, and, for example, invest all their money in gold, because the idea was brought up, it could very conceivably wreck them, which seems to be just as bad as legal advice to me. I'm not sure what's appropriate here, which is why I haven't removed the question. Falconusp t c 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question does not breach any of our core guidelines (medical or legal advice). Even so, your concerns may be legitimate, anyway. In such "gray areas" I think the safest thing is to remember the core reference desk principle: direct the user to a reference about the topic. This is the purpose of the reference desk. We have insights about Wikipedia articles and reliable off-site resources that the OP may not be aware of. Nimur (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as a rule, you can never lead someone away from a belief, you can only lead them to information. The OP's question reeks of someone looking for a disaster to avoid so that he can feel like he's ahead of the game. If we could provide him with clear unassailable proof that nothing bad was ever going to happen again, he just simply wouldn't believe it. and that is entirely his right. we certainly have an obligation not to mislead him, but we have neither the right nor the ability to keep him from doing whatever he thinks is best, no matter how bizarre that might be to our eyes. I'm just saying... --Ludwigs2 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we cross the line into telling the poster's what stocks to invest in, we've probably gone over our mandate. But barring that, we can give information, poster's can act or not act on it depending on what they think is going to happen. The poster's question was pretty straightforward—if one thought/knew impending catastrophic economic collapse was coming, what would be the wisest investment strategy? That's pretty answerable in a factual way. How the poster acts on that will depend on other factors well outside our consideration. There's a difference between saying, "if this is going to happen, this would be a sensible strategy" and saying "GO BUY GOLD NOW OH MY GOD." MarcoPolo's response was definitely in the former category. I think if we start badgering, fearmongering, or doing any other kind of "hard sell" on a poster, we've crossed the line. But I haven't seen that. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks guys. I'll keep this in mind. Falconusp t c 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

repetitive question

209.129.85.4 (talk) has an obsession with interracial (white/asian) marriage, and has asked variations on the same question at least four separate times in the last couple of days. would it be appropriate to leave a talk page warning for behavior like that? it's not really a problem, just a bit of an irritating time-waste. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the entries on 209's talk page are addressed to User:Freewayguy - who has been banned for exactly this kind of thing - I believe therefore that 209 is a sock of Freewayguy. I think it would be OK to delete further posts of this nature on sight. However, this is a shared IP address and I don't think we should be deleting non-controversial/non-trollish messages from there. SteveBaker (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
S/he's been doing this for years. I agree with Steve that enough is enough and they should be deleted on sight. --Sean 18:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our patient answering of 209's questions has been rewarded today with his announcement that he is an Asian male who plans to marry a white woman. At last is laid bare the rationale of all of his questions about interracial marriage. I have congratulated him in advance, accordingly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the most recent comments, it sounds like it's a fairly long term goal so I'm not sure if the questions are going to stop. And considering that and perhaps I'm going to get yelled at for saying this but given his history on the RD he's liable to have far bigger problems fulfilling this goal then getting a job and finishing college, whatever her race. Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God! I would have been a little less civil, but in my case it's lack of sleep, which I was going to do about 6+ hours ago (4am local), plus THIS and here I am still! Do you think they'll want advice planning the wedding? ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whatever. that just means more asian women for us white guys. joke... --Ludwigs2 00:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new reference desk

Friends, I've just spent a couple of hours on this: Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk. I hope that it will provide a summary of the consensus view and brief history of past gnashings which we can point to when new desk proposals come along, and help bring pro-status-quo and pro-new-desk editors towards mutual understanding.

Because I am a veteran of both sides of the debate -- having both argued against unnecessary new desks and having created an unnecessary new desk of my own -- I am now firmly in the status quo camp. Therefore, I would particularly enjoy the input of anyone who has recently proposed a new desk. Preferably after they've slogged through all the archives for their pet proposal. ;) --Sean 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. Hopefully it will be effective. Our policy should be to direct proponents of new desks to that page first, and stem the flow of debate until the OP demonstrates that they are informed about the issue. I have made a minor clarification to your article regarding the fundamental purpose of the Ref Desk. Nimur (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! --Sean 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing one or two proposed desks, but a very good guide :) Also it's lovely to have the history of the desks all in one place like that for easy navigating.

Which did I miss? --Sean 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely written; well done. It's good to have the history all in one place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - good work! This is a great contribution. SteveBaker (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Out of curiosity, what was the created desk that was unneccessary? Perhaps a history tree of Reference Desks (when they were created and from what) would be interesting to have on that page. It would satisfy my (and hopefully someone else's) curiosity, show that things are stable, that the desks have been around in this format for some time, but that changes occasionally happen. Jørgen (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to keep my message concise; there's clearly a need for a Seagull desk, but I was trying to keep things catholic. --Sean 04:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humor on the reference desk, or How to avoid confusion and not be too distracting

What does everyone else think of my suggestion that to avoid confusion and attenuate distraction from the original question that jokes be put small text, a smiley face, and an edit summary mentioning that it's a joke? Since I've started doing this, nobody has mistaken any of my jokes as something serious. Perhaps we can adopt this convention as a best practice for ref desk regulars? Obviously, newbies and editors who don't frequent the ref desks won't know to do this (and that's fine), but how about we adopt this a best practice for ref desk regulars? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would stop me from doing any humourous commenting just because there would way too much coding to do, By the time I finished typing, we would be three comments past the joke point. (That may be a good "unintended consequence".) You might also want to note that in my browser (IE7), "small" doesn't show up as small at all; "small small", works, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs)
That's not a bad suggestion. Another notion that's a good idea would be to avoid laying in with the jokes until after the original poster has received a substantive answer to his or her question. It's just not nice for us to treat a question as a source of fun before we get core business of being helpful out of the way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes sometimes rely on the subtle distinction between humor and seriousness. Jokes that rely on the distinction between a comment that is not intended to be humorous and one that is said in jest would suffer terribly by smiley face that you suggest. I think the suggestion is too formulaic. If such measures are necessary, I think it is just better to not make the "joke." Exceptions to my analysis and counter-suggestions are to be expected. But this is my response. Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that so soon after other users were chastised and threatened with being blocked for making jokes, other users are trying to formalize a format for making jokes. I believe that Ten's suggestion would be better summarized as, "A good idea would be to avoid jokes." Please remember that this is a Reference Desk, not a Message Board. If you go with the "absolutely no jokes" rule and break it now and then, I don't see a problem. If you go with the "I can add a joke to every question as long as I make it small" rule, you will likely get the same treatment that other users have had to endure. -- kainaw™ 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. --LarryMac | Talk 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thirding.
This is pretty much the exact technique I have always used, except I also double-indent my comment to make clear it's not part of the response stream. And I try to never let the "joke" get in the way of real answers or end up as a comment on the original poster. The nice thing about using a <small> tag is that I have to preview to be sure I did it right and I get one more chance to think about whether I'm really being all that funny. At least half of my delightful humour is lost to the world this way as it becomes apparent that closing the window is the better option. Franamax (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
common sense trumps a formal rule, every time. no accounting for people who lack common sense, though... (the preceding is intended in a humorous light; any resemblance to serious conversation is entirely coincidental). --Ludwigs2 18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that putting jokes, etc., in small text so as they are not confused for serious answers is a great idea (I do it myself most of the time, and have been doing so for years, like most other people), but why this is suddenly being brought up now after we've been doing this for absolutely ages is completely beyond me. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 19:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of specifically targetting humor, which can have its place and can be good &ndash if used sensibly – for the atmophere of the refdesk, we focus on "wildly off-topic or thread-derailing" comments, which seem to be the real issue? – ClockworkSoul 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

someone got in trouble for it. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? That doesn't mean we have to address humor specifically. If the purpose of the proposal is to "avoid confusion and attenuate distraction from the original question", then wouldn't it make sense to focus on, you know, confusing and distracting (that is wildly off-topic and/or thread-derailing) comments rather than focusing on humor? – ClockworkSoul 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. General derailing of threads is a big problem. I suggest more active use of the collapsible hide boxes; scrolling down the page and seeing a thread with loads of replies might make you scroll past it because you assume it's been sufficiently answered. It's only on closer inspection that you see it's just a load of jokes and sub-jokes or people debating something vaguely related to the original question but of no help to the OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like jokes being smalled, but I don't want a policy to exist that encourages the volume of jokes to increase. Sort of like abstinence-only sex education. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think ideally jokes would not be in small font, nor would smileys be included, nor would an edit summary indicate that it's a joke. Ideally humor should simply be used in good taste and probably sparingly. Humor is a natural part of discourse. The reference desks are form of discourse. Therefore it would be artificial to ban humor. It would be formulaic and a forcing into an unnatural form to require the user of jokes and humor to somehow indicate that their post is funny. You can't legislate these things. All we can do is try as individuals to uphold the basic purposes of the reference desks. We are trying to provide useful responses for questions posed here. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kainaw: "I find it strange that so soon after other users were chastised and threatened with being blocked for making jokes, other users are trying to formalize a format for making jokes." I guess I'm not enough of a ref desk regular to know about users being chastised other than a certain rabbit and I don't know if anything ever came of it.

Comet: "don't want a policy to exist that encourages the volume of jokes to increase" Humor is already part of the ref desk guidelines.[9]

Anyway, if there isn't enough support for my suggestion, that's fine. Just thought it might be helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some humor is OK, but as I was trying to say, I think the amount currently here is OK but I don't really want to encourage it to increase beyond the current level. For what it's worth, another reason to encourage a smalling of the jokes is to prevent more inevitable misunderstandings (by non-native-English-speakers) of Bugs, who simply cannot restrain himself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-native-English-speakers of Bugs?" I'm not sure if I comprehend that. But I wouldn't underestimate the ability of "non-native-English-speakers" to follow a conversation here without encountering misunderstandings. But I think it is the responsibility of those of us who speak English fluently to speak in a way that is comprehensible. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parentheses added above to clarify my difficult-to-understand sentence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find yourself speaking in Bugs, oh man, seek thee some medical advice! :) Franamax (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what "What's up, doc?" was about? DMacks (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls? Competition?

On the Science desk, first we get question, "Putting a very small satellite into orbit in space", here then, 5 hours and 5 questions later "Really small space probes", here. Basically the same question, first IP Germany, second IP London. The German IP also asked about "Stopping nuclear reactions with a jamming field" only 15 minutes before (In fact 3 questions in 15 minutes). Is there another 'quiz' or something going on? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:Not exactly the same question, the second "Really small space probes", is the last of a 4 part question asked by the first IP. I spent too long giving a detailed answer, finding, and checking, relevant internal links etc. which is why I am more than a bit miffed at the second IP asking what was already covered. Online Quiz?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely there was some scientific program or documentary or discussion somewhere else and two people wanted to know more about it. I don't see a problem. And I think you should rephrase your response to the second question to be more friendly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, no excuse but I am really tired and was about to sleep (4am local !) when the second question appeared and I was silly enough to try to answer it. I still haven't got to bed 8 hours later! Wikiholism!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I bet it's people thinking up questions after reading today's front-page Slashdot article about trying to propel "picosatellites". Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but the first questions were wider ranging, ie asking about guns to put a bullet into orbit (spaceguns), whether "modern artillery shells have electronics in them" etc. May just be a fluke. Slashdot post time was 06:22PM vs 16:37 UTC, does that add up? And to 'IP 82' I have made my reply less bitey. I have to sleep. Bye!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an article about a massive gun that would launch a payload into orbit in Popular Science last month. It would pull 5000 G's, so it can't transport humans (well it can, but...). The purpose is supposedly to resupply the ISS with various not living things, though I was baffled at how any fuel or food could still be useful after undergoing 5000 G's. That could be where that came from. Falconusp t c 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
220.101.28.25, no one is forcing you to answer questions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I find myself giving an unduly frustrated or irritated reply, I try to just close the browser window and go do something else... let someone else sort it out, if it needs to be sorted out at all! Only answer the things you really want to. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your civil comment Mr.98. I appreciate your opinion. Looking back, I have been spending too much time on the Ref Desk. And staying up too late!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoned

Falconus just answered a question from someone who thought they were being poisoned via gases and via their prescriptions being tampered with; and then removed the question. I think I'm going to undo the removal and second the recommendation to call the doctor. Hopefully the doctor will immediately recognize that further types of help are required. In any case I don't think this is a medical advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit (Comet Tuttle beat me to it, so I'm merging sections)] I removed a request for what I interpreted as medical (and maybe legal) advice [10]. The best I can tell, the individual thinks that she is being poisoned by a gas /or prescription meds, and wants to know what she can do to prove it. Falconusp t c 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, maybe I was wrong, but it definitely rings of medical and legal advice to me. Falconusp t c 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kainaw's pseudoephedrinexcellence says that it's not a medical advice question if we're not being asked to diagnose a condition, which in this case we're not. I'm uneasy with questions from people who are obviously disturbed, but I think trying to get such people to a doctor is probably the best line of answers we can give. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense. I'll keep an eye out, and make sure that no inappropriate advice is given. Falconusp t c 19:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed advice from an IP which told the OP that he was going to die. I've never done anything like that before, so I thought I'd best mention it. <.< Vimescarrot (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. In the future, you could leave a little note that you removed an inappropriate comment in its place, but since it was so ridiculous, I don't think it much matters in this case. You can also post a vandalism warning on the person's page if you want. I think I'm going to go ahead and do that, because he has vandalised at least two things today. Falconusp t c 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That IPs reply to you was rather less than civil wasn't it? And from a University too! As a fixed IP I 'apologise' on behalf of the many responsible IP editors, we aren't all like that. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was rather less than civil. I left another vandalism warning on the second guy's page, but if I catch either of them doing that again, I think I'll recommend them for a block, as for being colleges and businesses, they don't seem to have had a lot of contributions. Ah well... Falconusp t c 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And no need to apologize for other IP's; you don't seem to have caused too much trouble :-). Falconusp t c 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I was being slightly... frivolous? And it was 'apologise ' . :-) Just have to watch my ' tongue' when it's late.
As per my previous 'Trolls ? Competition ? ' post! E pluribus unum!

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Apologize" isn't wrong. It's just the American spelling. Falconusp t c 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't "apolog-ice" for how you spell "apolog-eyes." Two great countries divided by a common language. Edison (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is Great but what's the other one? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland, Brittany, or possibly both. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again (more medical advice stuff)...

In this question, an individual is seeking advice to whether an accident with UV exposure is something he should worry about. I hesitated to remove the question, as I've already been too quick to do that once today, but I stated that he should see a medical professional. Falconusp t c 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's too close to a diagnosis he is looking for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more medical advice stuff

I've been seeing a lot of questions where the automatic answer is, "we can't answer that, please see a doctor". For the majority of them, in my opinion, seeing a doctor would be a waste of time or money, and the questioners could probably figure out the answers themselves by doing a little work. (For obvious reasons I don't want to give specific examples.) Can I suggest that we simply say "we can't answer that" and leave out the reflexive mention of doctors, at least unless there is some justification for it? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my mind, if someone comes to us with medical advice, we should always say that they should see a medical professional, because we are not qualified and don't have the means to decide via the internet what is worth looking more into. Since this is a reference desk, we are supposed to refer people to sources. The only appropriate source we can give to people for personal medical questions is the medical doctor (or pharmacist, etc). Also, if someone does come to us, a group of very loosely associated anonymous people, with medical questions, it's probably best to tell them to go to a doctor, because they have already shown a lack of judgement just by asking us. Falconusp t c 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted some random garbage that my web browser threw in here. Sorry about that. Falconusp t c 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt at a compromise position is to go with "if you are concerned, consult a doctor." I'd be fine with "we can't answer that", but I think it's important that whatever is used be applied consistently. The problem with "at least unless there is some justification" is that you are, de facto, making a diagnosis -- at least on the broad spectrum of "serious enough to need a doctor." — Lomn 14:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. If we make a determination between the two possible responses then we are making a judgement about what we think the problem is in order that we can decide which answers to give. I would be OK with "We're not allowed to answer that" - but what I'm not OK with is mixing that with "Go see a doctor". We should pick one or the other and stick with it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Question

I moved this from Science to Computer desk, Okay?

"is steam (game) working right now for u guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) "[reply]

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on the Entertainment desk, is there a policy on multiple postings? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "please don't cross-post" is in the guidelines in some fashion. A link to the relevant location is preferable to removing the extra posts outright. — Lomn 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lomn! I did put a link in when I moved the RD/Science post, the other I left unsure of the protocol. Both have been answered now, so all seems good! :-) — 220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Lc's Latest

I've deleted this and this Lc's latest intrusions. hydnjo (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr hursday (talk · contribs)

In case no one's noticed, Dr hursday is having a bit o' fun on ref desk pages asking largely idiotic questions. answer if you like (it mostly seems inoffensive), but don't give the questions a whole lot of credibility. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and noticed. First edit was to tag the article Thursday as a "Current Event". Which was true, as it was Thursday when tagged. Then they tagged Friday, then Saturday! (NOT Sunday, so far) px10 —220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging each day as a "current event" then asking nonsensical questions on Ref Desk with the "accidental" humorous misspellings are behaviors typical of a vandal/troll. When would warning/blocking be appropriate, as is readily done for posting by LC? Edison (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Let's be careful not to over-generalise here. Some of his questions are odd, but his Science Desk questions - have scientists created life in the lab [11] and does sleep have an evolutionary advantage [12] - are intelligent questions. His questions should be approached on a case-by-case basis. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also "what would happen if Obabma was discovered to have been born outside the US?" Is a good question. (Hursday makes it clear that he's not a birther but just wondering what the constitutional mandates are for that situation.) Staecker (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that he's not a dumbshit (which I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear), but he might be a poster boy for DENY. The problem I see is that questions of this sort are clearly not serious, and that has potential for being a low-grade irritant. even the 'sleep' and 'life' problems noted above fall into that category: they are semi-philosophical questions that he tries to warp into full-fledged philosophical debates (note his clarification of the 'life' question when he gets a simple, factual, scientific answer [13]) . I'm all for helping people out, but he seems to be intent on being an overt time waster - asking unanswerable questions for no other reason than to spur people into protracted debates. I mean, if we think he's cute and funny we could keep him around as a pet troll, but I'm not sure how wise that is. baby trolls are cute, yes, but they're not so cute when they grow up a bit. --Ludwigs2 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2 - no, I still don't see how he is a troll - he has just asked some slightly odd questions. If his questions irritate you then best policy is to ignore them. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. A light-hearted, care-free attitude does not equal trolling. With regards to Ludwigs2 suggestion of keeping a low grade troll as a "pet"; I think this is a good idea but even if everyone agrees some dumb upstart admin (and I really do mean thick as a post because this is exactly how one certain "troll" started out) will block them anyway so it's rather pointless to even consider that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure he's not just a very poor speller with an odd sense of curiosity. The questions asked at the science desk were pretty reasonable. The question at the math desk was crazy - but only because it was on the math desk. Had he asked it on the Misc desk, it would have seemed pretty reasonable. People post to the wrong desk all the time. I don't see any evidence of a problem here. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of something that demands action. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe he is such a really poor speller, when he can spell hypothetical, and requirement, or "correlation" and "politician" or "components" but serves up springboards to humor such "viture (for virtue), repeated so not just a mistyping, and "shellfish" for selfish. or "prophet margin," again repeated so not just a mistyping. I hope that he sticks to the part about asking meaningful questions and avoids the possibly intentionally "funny" misspellings" and the asking of math desk questions for the difference between a cupcake and a muffin. I liked that in the grand tradition that even a silly question can generate an encyclopedic response, they noted that a donut would be different from either a cupcake or a muffin, topologically speaking.Edison (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he / she a uses a spellchecker for really complicated words, or already has their articles open and just copy pastes the word. It's not inconceivable that someone can spell long complicated words while failing at others. Hell, half the time I get confused with "which" "witch" and "weather" "whether". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he is actually an astronaut on the Space station and a test monkey with one of those helmets that lets the monkey select pictures on a screen. They take turns adding words together to form a sentence that seems legible. There are many many many maybes. It is a monstrous waste of time to discuss them all. Instead, focus on the simplest explanation - someone is so self-absorbed that he or she feels it is proper to waste everyone else's time with stupid questions. Ha ha - so funny. Everyone will read that question and think it is stupid. Ha ha. Nothing could ever be funnier. I place the age at around 13 (or 30 with the heavy influence of drugs to create a functioning age of 13). -- kainaw™ 22:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming everyone who doesn't fit the pattern of "good wiki editor" is deliberately tying to troll you is a bad attitude, and frankly one I'm utterly sick of seeing at every turn on this website. "He asked an odd question. HE'S TROLLING!!" "He made some spelling mistakes. HE'S TROLLING!!!111" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't know, "an" is used to refer to "one". He didn't ask "one" odd question. He asked many odd questions. Further, "some" is used to refer to "a small quantity". He didn't make "a small quantity" of spelling mistakes. He made many - and the discussion above indicates that some users do not believe them to be "mistakes". He many many spelling "on-purposes". What you are attempting to do is painfully obvious. Instead of posing an argument about the facts, you are attempting to make anyone reading this believe that the user made a couple spelling errors in one odd question. Nobody is ganging up on anyone else for making a couple spelling errors in one question. Implying that anyone is doing so is nothing short of a blatant lie. -- kainaw™ 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
look, no one with any common sense believes that any of his questions are driven by a sincere desire to know something. it's just tooooo painfully obvious that he's fucking around. the real question here is whether or not that's a problem. Personally I have no objection to it except that (1) it's a waste of time an resources, and (2) if we encourage him at it he may move on to fucking around in bigger, better ways. the first is iffy, the second is speculative - what do we make of it? --Ludwigs2 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say you ignore him. Some will answer him because there are always some people who are drawn in by trollish practices (otherwise, we wouldn't have trolls). There will also be those who defend them because there are always some people who refuse to believe that trolls exist. In the end, those that waste their time do so by either being innocent enough to be taken in by trolls or deluded enough to believe that they don't exist. Either way, they come away from the experience one step closer to learning to completely ignore the trolls. -- kainaw™ 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2 - may I suggest that if your only response to reasoned and polite disagreement is to swear at and insult those who do not agree with you, then it would be better if you kept your opinions to yourself. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you may certainly suggest anything you like. whether it has any basis in reality is a different matter. 'fucking around' is not a particularly bad form of swearing (though I'll change it to 'goofing around' if you like), and if you are insulted by my claim that you are not using common sense... sorry, that's the way I see it. I don't mind you supporting him, but trying to make the claim that his questions are earnest clearly lacks common sense. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I have abundant supplies of common sense, although my common sense is obviously a different brand from yours. And you might want to think about changing your brand, because the good doctor's latest questions on the Science and Humanities desks look fine to me. I see a curious and enquiring mind, but no sign of trolling. But perhaps you read hidden Freudian meanings into any and every question about black holes ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 Trolls

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.

Closing this discussion, because the argument not going anywhere and is not exactly on topic anyway. —Akrabbimtalk 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)Congratulations to Kainaw for handling a troll post about kangaroo pockets by giving a correct "No" response plus a note on the Editing page. Well done, a barnstar is on its way.
2)I have deleted the troll (racist) post about "foul smelling malenic[sic] stools". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post the diff links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could but I won't. I deny the trolls publicity. They are dead to me. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on the WP:DENY, making this whole thread and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk • contribs)
Given that C3 just removed the post, it's easy to find in his contribs anyway Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just easier if people link to what they are talking about than everyone having to go looking at their contributions page and guess which edits they mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk • contribs)
Just as it is easier if people sign their posts instead of filling up the page with tons of "Preceding unsigned comment added by..." messages. I know, everyone else needs to change to make Wikipedia better. -- kainaw™ 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The unnecessary length of the autosigned messages is indeed annoying. Perhaps that's an issue you should raise with SineBots owner. However, my point still stands; people should provide diff links when talking about specific edits or removal of content, so that others may easily assess the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my point still stands. Demanding that others put more effort into Wikipedia just for you while you lazily refuse to type four ~'s is outright rude. -- kainaw™ 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just for me; providing diff links is helpful for everyone here and is standard wiki practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And not cluttering the page with a bunch of unsigned messages because you are too lazy, too stupid, or too stubborn to type four ~'s is a benefit for everyone here, not just me. Your argument is relegated to trollish pointlessness because you are either too lazy, too stupid, or too stubborn to comprehend that you are berating someone else for doing exactly the same thing you are doing. -- kainaw™ 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People should provide diff links when discussing removal of content. That has been well established for a long time here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On redacting or striking through one's own comments

On User:Cuddlyable3's talkpage, I asked that editor to considering striking through a refdesk comment. Instead, the comment was redacted. This means that further comments from the OP ("This is not me trying to make a statement. <snip> I don't care about your opinion. If you don't wish to try to answer the question, don't disrupt it.") and myself ("I don't see your statement above as soapboxing.") sort of hang in mid-air. With reference to the talkpage guidelines, I suggested that Cuddlyable3 replace the empty space with a placeholder, to make it clear that there had been something there. The response to that was that no "relevant discussion flow needs mending". What are the refdesk volunteers' interpretations of the guidelines? Is it acceptable or helpful to remove one's comments entirely, when they have already been responded to? What would best serve our readers? BrainyBabe (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered polite to never remove your own comments when others have responded to them. Those that do so are rarely (and I believe "never") acting in good faith. Sometimes, an editor will remove someone else's comments, but should also remove all responses at the same time. -- kainaw™ 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A responder could add the following comment.
User:Example has [__________ added] and later [__________ removed] the following comment.
__________
I am showing [his/her] comment to explain my response(s).
Each of the first two blanks represents a differential link, and the third blank represents the comment that was removed.
-- Wavelength (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable, or desirable, for me to insert those example comments above? Or would it be more appropriate for me to leave it to someone else to do? I appreciate guidance on these matters. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I commented here at 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC), I had not yet followed the link to where "the comment was redacted". Now I have followed it, and I realize that this instance involves another editor responding to a comment which was later removed. Therefore, the comment which I suggested can be revised so that "my response(s)" is changed to "another editors's response" or "User:Example2's response", substituting that editor's Wikipedia username for "User:Example2". (I read that editor's Wikipedia identity, but I have chosen not to be the one to publicize it here.) According to my understanding, it would be both acceptable and desirable (though not mandatory) for you to insert the comment as revised. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Brainy, if someone completely removes their comment from a thread where it has already been replied to, it is appropriate for you to insert a note with a diff link to the removal so that other readers can make sense of the thread. As kainaw said, it's not polite to remove a comment when striking through it indicates just as well that you no longer stand behind your words (unless you realize you made a mistake and get rid of it before anyone has a chance to respond). I would suggest a <small> "Post removed from thread ([link])". Franamax (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I have taken the "post removed from thread" option. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to provide the initial relevant diffs Feb. 7 to 10, 2010.

Two previous discussions

I have just closed the above discussion because people were becoming uncivil. I have warned 82.43.89.90 on their talk page, because this is the second time that they have been involved in a dispute like this (the first can be found in the collapsed content in #Mocking the OP). —Akrabbimtalk 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page in response to the message you left on mine (though not on kainaws, despite the fact that he was as much a part of that discussion as I was), every comment I have posted was civil and on topic. Kainaw was the one who called me "lazy" and "stupid". I was just making a valid point that people should supply diff links when talking about removed content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued refusal to sign your posts has become disruptive. The fact that there was an arugment at all didn't merit a user talk message (hence why I didn't leave one for Kainaw), but your persistent refusal to conform to WP:SIGN does, since it has become a point of contention on more than one occasion. —Akrabbimtalk 13:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed comments by troll/vandal. The user has replaced comments 3 times. Suggesting to block. -- kainaw™ 13:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep re-posting my comment because you keep deleting it. My comment is civil and does not deserve to be removed. You keep removing it because of some meta-issue about teaching me behavior or something, that is not grounds for removal. You have removed it 4 times now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was not civil because it was not signed. ANY post you make that is not signed is not civil because you are abusing WP:SIGN to try and use it as a weapon to argue with other users. -- kainaw™ 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec while writing below) Civility has nothing to do with signing posts. You're letting yourself get worked up over a very minor issue. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. 82 raised a valid point that the purpose of this page is to discuss the RD, and that discussion is facilitated by including diffs to the deleted material. I agree with this position. Repeatedly ignoring his argument in favor of complaining about his signature strikes me as immature (akin to fingers in ears, singing "I can't hear you!" or "You didn't use the magic word!"), and I'm not surprised that this approach has failed to modify his signing behavior. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that diffs should be supplied, but I do not agree that refusing to sign posts should be considered an asset, something to aspire to, something to defend. This is not the first time this has come up. It will not be the last. This is a user who is refusing to sign posts in order to start an argument. -- kainaw™ 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're constructing a straw man. I didn't indicate that failing to sign posts was something to aspire to. Of course all participants should sign their posts. However, writing line after line about the signing issue, while utterly ignoring his point, and then archiving the discussion as if it had been resolved, strikes me as far more argumentative than what he's doing. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not archive the post. It was not resolved. I still believe that demanding another user to do something that should be done that will take 2-3 minutes to do is acceptable if and only if you are not refusing to do something that takes less than 1 second to do. -- kainaw™ 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you didn't do the archiving, you just derailed the discussion in the first place. This seems to me to be just like what's happened in the past with Bugs and some others here. Person A doesn't like something Person B does, so every time Person B opens his mouth, Person A has to steer the discussion to Person B's undesired behavior, regardless of the merits of Person B's current point. This pattern is not conducive to having fruitful discussions on the talk page, nor do I believe it's an effective way to improve Person B's behavior. Since you agree that posting diffs is good, would it have killed you to say so in the above discussion? Did it have to be entirely about the signing issue? -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the first time that I told the user that he should sign his posts. The entire thing would have ended quickly if he repeated his complaint with a signed post. Comparing this to users who have always had it out for Bugs is, as you said, a straw man argument. This particular user has been told by other users to sign his posts. He refuses to do so because he knows it makes others upset. So, he uses it as an implicit FUCK YOU to everyone here. The way I read it, ending your posts with a big FUCK YOU makes them uncivil. -- kainaw™ 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got me there. If you're going to get that bent out of shape over people not signing their posts, I'm not sure what else I can say. There's a guy at work who never holds the door for people, violating a social norm of our office. I wish he would hold the door. But, you know, at the end of the day we just have to work together, so I listen to what he says, and go off and grumble to myself about him not holding the door. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be equivalent, compare it to that guy raising a stink because someone else doesn't refill the coffee. You say that his complaint is tainted by his refusal to hold the door and he then decides to make it a point to make sure he is always there to not hold the door for you. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Kainaw: I wanted to address this issue without it being mixed up with an actual argument that 82.43 had with someone, so that we could explain that it was incredibly rude for them to persistently post unsigned comments, so there was no way to read the criticism as an ad hominem rebuttal to their point. Since we were discussing their actions, they still have the right to respond (even if they were continuing to leave their response unsigned). Then, after we isolate the issue, if they were still unrepentant, we could take action. Now this discussion is has also been sidetracked. WP:3RR states that more than three edits constitutes edit warring, so it was actually you who violated WP:3RR ([20], [21], [22], [23]).

To 82.43.89: Kainaw's actions aside, your refusal to sign any of your comments is still rude, and your arguments with Bugs and Kainaw are simply indications of this. It is a pain for everyone to have SineBot continually update your posts because you are simply unwilling to type an extra four characters. Please read WP:CIV and WP:EQ. WP:SIGN should be understood in light of those two policies. —Akrabbimtalk 16:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - failure to sign because you don't know how - or because you forget - that's forgivable. Perhaps failing to sign even after you know you should is forgivable if you happen to do so someplace where nobody gives a damn. However, failing to do it every single time despite being told how and in a place where people find a failure to sign to be an inconvenience - that's just plain rude - and when it becomes a big issue with people, and you outright refuse to do so after being asked several times, that is downright disruptive. Disruptive people should not be allowed to get away with it - so I'd support a block of this user if it came to that. Kainaw perhaps overreacted by deleting those unsigned posts - but you can only push a person just so far - I place no blame there. SteveBaker (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the solution is. To use rather current examples, the GM guy has created a barely accepted policy that his posts should be deleted on sight. Some users disagree with that and argue that he may have some real posts mixed in with all the anti-GM posts. So, there is no real consensus. With Bugs, there was a suggestion to block him. That was shot down. There was a suggestion to delete his posts. That caused a huge argument. Eventually, for reasons I do not know, he stopped cracking silly jokes in every thread he could find. We know the GM guy is nowhere close to stopping his anti-GM rants and nothing done so far is slowing them down. So, what was different? What did Bugs become a normal user and the anti-GM guy continue to be a pest? Can that difference make the nosign pest turn into a normal user? I think that Bugs is an anomaly. The pests like the anti-GM guy and the nosign guy are the worst kind of vandals/trolls. They stay right at the border of being an official troll or vandal so they won't be blocked. In that position, they can create all the trouble they want without suffering any retribution of any kind. In my classes (I teach by the way) I do not allow this. I have one student this semester who has to be in class 5 minutes before class starts or he is marked as absent. That is the result of a month of working with him to get him to arrive on time. Now, he is usually 5-10 minutes late (instead of 30 minutes late). So, he is improving. I mention this to explain that I find punishment to be a case-by-case thing. If someone pushes the line over and over and over, I move the line. I don't care if it is unfair to the person. I don't care how others are treated. It is unfair to be right at the line over and over. I know that the consensus of Wikipedia is not with me in this opinion, but I hope it explains how I feel about it. -- kainaw™ 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gasp! He's not signing his posts! What are we going to do about this affront to our grand personal domain reference desk? Let's block him! That'll teach him to conform to our complex and often arbitrary standards. Never mind that his questions are valid and his concerns legitimate; he's not formating them right! It's bad enough when people like Dr Hursday don't use impeccable English here, but when they don't sign their posts, why, that's just unacceptable! Buddy431 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to obey WP:SIG is not by itself blockable since any other editor is free to add an {{unsigned}} template to unsigned comments. Repeated failure to sign after reasonable reuests is cause for concern. Making requests of others to provide complex data while omittng to provide simpler information oneself is cause for concern, especially when one has already shown skill and ability in signing. Making a WP:POINT of not signing whilst arguing about the topic may be seen as disruptive and warranting a block if it continues. Edits such as this one which defeat the automatic signature mechanism and add material to another editor's comments (regardless of the indentation level) cause damage to the encyclopedia and are grounds for blocking if they are repeated after a warning (and this is the warning). Franamax (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. It's pretty obvious that 82.43 was deliberately tweaking Kainaw, and his approach to this talk page has been decidedly unconstructive. I endorse Franamax's warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Am I reading the posts near the top of this thread correctly? It sounds as if Kainaw removed a series of posts by a user in this thread because they were unsigned. Since talk-page posts are signed by Sinebot anyway I can't imagine anyone would care, let alone take the drastic step of removing someone's posts. I'm at work now and don't really have time to go through the history diff by diff, especially as it seems so unlikely to me. Was this regarding actions somewhere else? And did anyone ever answer the guy's very valid point about providing diffs regarding the removal of posts, etc. Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would care/notice that someone's sign/time stamp was in small text and yet not care about being provided diffs for a potentially contentious action. I can read a signature, even if it's small text, but I can't just guess about which edits someone's referring to if they don't provide diffs. How are they even remotely similar? What am I missing? Matt Deres (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through the edits, diff by painful diff. The IP editor was being POINTy by refusing to sign their posts, and by restoring only their unsigned original, which SineBot was then expected to sign again. Kainaw was also being pointy by not changing to a different mode of response to the reversions and by using "troll/vandal" as a characterization. Yes diffs are good, but someone who refuses to observe even the simplest of community norms (signing) has no special right to make requests of others. The willingness to engage in endless argument, as in the thread with Bugs above where I had to go into the kitchen to read the indented text, indicates a problem that can be corrected (with blocking if necessary to avoid disruption). Yes, Kainaw and Bugs were willing participants and this is where the difference between named and anonymous editors comes into play, named editors can be contacted directly to discuss problems with their editing. And Matt, you can use contrib and page history to find out exactly what edits someone is referring to. We just ask for diffs as a convenience here, same as we ask editors to sign their posts as a convenience, the two are identical. The difference is when disruption or damage occurs. Franamax (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs for Kainaw's reversions have already been posted if that helps you find your way through the page history. —Akrabbimtalk 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I am baffled by anyone becoming (apparently) enraged over a failure to sign Refdesk posts. It's not even annoying unless they're attempting sockpuppetry. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you see it as just a user failing to sign, then you are missing the point and understandably should be baffled. If you are seeing it as a user who refuses to sign while ridiculing others for not doing things that are not required, then you should see why the user is being a bit of a pain. -- kainaw™ 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Coneslayer above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the user is IP or new enough the sinebot hits him, it does seem like a strange thing to get upset over. But on the other hand, the user is (now) clearly doing it intentionally to piss people off. It's not too strange to be upset that someone is intentionally trying to piss you off. APL (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.100.8.16's use of Ref Desk for anti GM-foods grandstanding.

I removed this remark from Science ref desk thread ""beanie" or "paint" taste of soy flour" following a warning to this user by Nil Einne that we would do so: SteveBaker (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I recall reading that the soy NOW adopted was not bread by conventional means to remove the "beany" flavor but a GM version developed at the University of Illinois specifically for that purpose. But even the article on the main ingredient of Roundup states that one company that did testing ended up being criminally charged and convicted for falsifying records. Cross contamination is the big issue with me since the plants we eat are also used to grow strains for plastics and pharmaceuticals and other non-food products as well as herbicides and herbicide resistance their genes carry to reduce their cost to grow. Take a look at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center and you will quickly see that making money is the primary objective of science when placed in the wrong hands. By calling my reaction to what I read a rant suggests you care neither about spreading false information or giving excess money making priority over morals. What else do you expect me to conclude except that if you have no morals when you dismiss my legitimate concerns as rant? History has proven the failure to uphold morals will result in holocaust. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]
Of course we have morals - and I'm actually fairly concerned about the issues with GM foods too - but the Reference Desk is a place to ask questions, to legitimately seek answers to questions. What you are doing is promoting your own point of view and that's not allowed here. Only last week, a user who persisted in doing exactly what you're doing wound up with a lifetime ban from editing Wikipedia. You (just barely) asked a question with your first post to that thread - that question was answered (quite well, I thought) - and now you're upset that we didn't let it develop into a big debate about the horrors (or otherwise) of GM foods. Well, bad luck. That's what we do here - it's written into our guiding principles. If you don't like it - may I suggest you take your so-called "questions" to Yahoo Answers. SteveBaker (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This removal seems compliant with our WP:SOAPBOX policy, I agree with the removal. Nimur (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this became a discussion per your threat your true motives are suspect for this suppression of my response. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those who reach for hitler analogies so quickly, as you did in your first post in this thread, 71.100, are generally considered to have lost the argument (as you clearly have). See Godwin's law. In other news, you can suspect motive until you choke and die, for all I care. If you are unwilling to understand the literal reasons Steve and others have taken against your rants, then more fool you. Still. You wouldn't want reality to intrude on your paranoid thinking, would you? So everyone's happy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a response

User:Cuddlyable3 made this highly dubious edit to a question about standard timetabling in British schools. I reverted it, they put it back, I reverted it again. I fail to see its relevance, especially since corporal punishment is now banned in British schools. --Richardrj talk email 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School discipline by detention is in regular use in Britain and occurs by definition outside the regular timetable (usually after it). Detentions need supervision so they may be arranged on particular day(s) of the week, possibly shown on a formal timetable. Corporal punishment has a long tradition in British schools and, as the post Richardrj considers dubious stated, is supported by 22% of teachers. It is impolite to delete another editor's post on the subject of school timetables, especially when it correctly points out that school punishments may occur either ad hoc or at assigned periods. That is the relevance to the OP, not the legal status. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The OP's question was about the regular timetable. You're now moving onto detention, which by your own admission falls outside the regular timetable and is therefore irrelevant to the question. And corporal punishment is also irrelevant, since it no longer occurs[citation needed]. I find your intervention pretty distasteful, to tell you the truth. --Richardrj talk email 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure I see the relevance of C3's post, a great many ref desk discussions are improved by side comments that are (1) only tangentially related to the original question and/or (2) not universally understood. On the other hand, I see no reason in this case to remove a post that isn't harmful, much less to edit war over it. If it's harmlessly irrelevant, particularly from a good contributor, then let it be. — Lomn 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make no comment on this particular case, but I would say that it is also true that some ref desk discussions are derailed by side comments that are only tangentially related to the original question, and that responses which are not universally understood (e.g. acronyms & jargon) can prove off-putting for the very people we are supposed to be here to serve. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I was posing a question and it got such an unrelated answered, I'd be disheartened by the thought that someone hadn't understood the intention of my question. I don't know if I support a removal, but I don't see how it was of any benefit to the question. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disciplinary detentions are imposed at the convenience of school authorities and intentionally at the inconvenience of the student. School personell are normally paid for their time at school and supervising detentions is one of those dull tasks that is very likely to be assigned by rota and a timetable. Of course detentions can not occupy a regular part of a single student's timetable for long; the school will conclude that the offender is incorrigible and choose a different reaction. School policies at that point vary greatly and will not follow a regular timetable. This reaches the limit of the scope of the OP's question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's been mentioned recently that Template:hide (or other templates with similar effects) should see more use on the Ref Desk, in lieu of reverts/deletions. -- 174.21.247.23 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses which are not universally understood

BrainyBabe commented[24] that acronyms & jargon can prove off-putting for the very people we serve. I see two examples that are challenging for different reasons.

  • A frequent questioner to the Science Ref. Desk is John Riemann Soong[25] who clearly has a high-level comprehension of chemistry. I think we do right to respond to such questioners at the same level of nomenclature, acronyms & jargon as used in each question. If our response links to relevant article(s) then so much the better because that is the mission of the Ref. Desk. Wikipedia articles often provide links for further study. I do not think responders need to write tutorial material material in an effort to help an outsider who does not understand the question. The priority is to help the OP whom we shall assume does understand their question.
  • Sometimes (no diffs!) we see a questioner who is clearly out of their depth submitting an ill-posed question. It would be unacceptable and rude to respond "Learn about XXXXX properly first!" though we may perceive that as necessary. We cannot respond "Wikipedia is not for children" even when the question looks like it came from a child. In these situations our responses have seemed to pretend that the question was a sensible one on the subject. Having liberated ourselves from any real expectation of helping the questioner, a thread of interesting dialog between regulars ensues. These dialogs need not be a waste if people can be persuaded to use the archive, both (hopefully) before asking a question and (where possible to save duplication) in answering questions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the first example, editors often help out by appending a note with links, saying "Cuddlyable3 is referring to lipids and progesterone", or whatever — maybe we should encourage linking jargon words, and other editors' appended links if the jargon-user forgets. (I would have suggested just editing other editors' posts to change the jargon words into wikilinks, but I know some editors hate that because of a possible change of emphasis that might hypothetically result.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67.246.254.35

The user 67.246.254.35 has been asking a lot of questions again on the science desk recently. I believe that the user signed up as Killspammers after some anonymous editing but was subsequently blocked as being a vandalism-only account. If it's the same person (same editing style and kind of questions) then do we need to take any special action with regards to his questions, to which we never seem to provide an answer he's satisfied with? Ones I'm thinking of are his diethyl ether question, and the more odd ones about urine going stale and lethal injections, or the link to a shock video he posted. I've tried greeting him, both as Killspammers and through the IP talk page, but he does not respond (or blanks his talk page). Brammers (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm pretty sure the IP also has another account, User:Thekiller35789. The IP participated in questions by thekiller Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 4#jap heating seemingly continuing the same discussion. (As has killspammers Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 19#Woman sentenced to 4 years for torching boyfriend's penis although in this [26] they made it sound like they were someone else.) Both the IP and Thekiller have or had (don't seem to have done it since I warned them) the habit of deleting (often referenced) stuff they don't like in the encylopaedia with summaries that are misleading. Both seem to have somewhat of an interest in MMA or UFC fighters [27] [28] [29]. Both also seem to have a problem with ants. (There are other similarities, check out the contribs.) Perhaps the most significant factor for the RD is at least to me their question style can come across as rather demanding, particularly if they feel people haven't answered their question (which as you say seems to be quite often). I'm not really sure why Killspammers was banned, the limited contrib history doesn't seem that bad compared to what would normally be required for a ban, perhaps there are deleted contribs or perhaps it's the username. In any case, to answer the question, personally I'm sick of trying to deal with problematic users on the RD so can't be bothered to pursue this further provided they toe the line on not removing stuff from the mainspace they don't like I'll let them be but anyone else is free to look into this further Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the full reply. Last month, I contacted the admin who had blocked Killspammers and said that the ban was a bit heavy-handed, and he agreed with me. I know what you mean about problematic RD users; for every one that's dealt with there'll be one to replace them. I guess so long as the mainspace isn't damaged then it's all fairly minor. Thanks again. Brammers (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed complaint

I was answering a poorly worded question about removing soda machines from schools, and in doing so I removed a response from ColinFine that was 100% complaint about the poster's incoherence, since it didn't add any light to the thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, I didn't think it was "complaint". I thought I was helpfully telling the poster that I couldn't make sense of the question, and inviting them to make it clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin's response looked okay; it was on-topic and seems to be worded courteously. I don't think the removal was necessary. Nimur (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that Colin's response was necessarily rude, though there was a kind of "come back when you can ask a coherent question" feel to it, which I'm sure was unintended. At worst, I'd say there was a bit of ambiguity in the question about whether the OP wanted details about the removal of vending machines or why some particular machine couldn't be removed yet; there was no hint of requesting legal advice. I don't know what the situation is like elsewhere, but in Canada and the US there are a variety of measures being put in place (both legally mandatory and otherwise) to remove junk food from schools as a response to the various alarms raised regarding childhood obesity. As someone sitting on an elementary school parent council, perhaps the thrust of the question was simply more clear to me. In general, I'm not in favour of removing responses unless they're particularly egregious, but since CT was answering the question anyway, Colin's post no longer served any purpose. Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page length

Why do different desks go back different amounts? Right now, WP:RD/C, WP:RD/M, and WP:RD/H go back 5 days, WP:RD/S goes back 4, and WP:RD/Math, WP:RD/L, and WP:RD/E go back 6. —Akrabbimtalk 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk archives here, this was changed a month or two ago to trim the load time for some pages. Franamax (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the likely answer is almost surely correlated with activity. Very active desks need to be trimmed faster than less active ones. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it had something to do with that, but I didn't remember it ever being spelled out like that. I guess it's probably simply Ummit making a reasonable decision with regards to Scsbot's operation. —Akrabbimtalk 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We came down very firmly in favour of "this is something to talk about for a day or two". :) IMO Steve correctly interpreted the consensus in that discussion, which revolved around HTML page load times, especially at RD/S. We still need to watch the page load and nuke old day links if it gets too large. A 500K page takes 100 seconds to load on dialup if I've got my math right. Also, noting a SBaker comment from a while ago, any image usage should be put into "|thumb" format, which gets the byte-size to 10-15K. One alternative is to switch over to MuszaBot-style archiving, which would totally destroy our archiving system. Franamax (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is amusing, since a 500K science desk is probably 250K of SteveBaker... Matt Deres (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous discussion on Page length (same title, even!). It looks like I never formally announced what I did (probably because I wanted to present it in a nice little table, but it always ends up being a terrible nuisance for me to rediscover what the wikimarkup table syntax is). Anyway, here's the current archiving scheme:
desk days to keep also transclude average length
Computing 2 3 5.5
Science 2 2 4.5
Mathematics 3 3 6.5
Humanities 2 3 5.5
Language 3 3 6.5
Entertainment 3 3 6.5
Miscellaneous 2 3 5.5
Help 2 1 3.5
This was a bit of a compromise between what the consensus seemed to be, and what I and the bot could reasonably do (given the bot in its current form). (Thanks for the endorsement, Franamax.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm completely unrepentant about stealing someone else's work in creating a table for me to modify. :) Here are some numbers from Scsbot's latest run at 03:00 15 Feb and interesting current figures, since the bot is probably busy watching the snowboarding matches right now. (It's actually curling right ATM but that's a sport people either appreciate or don't. Shown below are wiki-text and generated HTML sizes, pre-bot, post-bot, and current, measured in thousand of bytes. The HTML sizes don't include the size of various other linked files, most of which will be cached locally after first use and will not have cache invalidated quickly. The notable exception is that images on first load can be onerous, hence my suggestion that "|thumb" should always be used.
Desk Avg Days WML-pre WML-post WML-cur HTML-pre HTML-post HTML-cur
Computing 5.5 94 62 77 316 259 292
Science 4.5 140 62 219 441 317 569
Mathematics 6.5 39 24 62 148 135 201
Humanities 5.5 98 54 142 327 286 434
Language 6.5 64 52 87 250 240 299
Entertainment 6.5 45 36 70 157 150 207
Miscellaneous 5.5 77 57 132 306 254 380
Help 3.5 120 91 145 269 208 314
Linear analysis would be interesting here, or perhaps just a look at what each empty desk looks like for size, to get the baseload of all the "stuff no-one ever reads". Franamax (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a back-burner task slowly collecting page size trends going back about a year; some day I may have some pretty graphs to show for that.
(And yes, the stats today will be off, because the bot didn't run last night, not because it or I were distracted by the Olympics, but because the WMF volunteer sysop started unilaterally requiring the User-Agent string last night, and my bot infrastructure, for various reasons which I won't bother you all with, hadn't been supplying it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that discussion (a bit) yesterday and was confused because when I started writing raw sockets in late 2007, User-agent was mandatory, so I've never questioned its' obvious utility. All my own stuff still works fine using <beans>, though I don't edit back, it's query-only. And I wasn't implying there's something wrong with the bot not running, as I'm sure you know stuff happens. :) It was a good chance though to get a peek at what happens on a day-to-day basis and how quickly things could get pear-shaped on various desks. And I am watching Olympic sports, I can look out the window and see the fog and rain on the north shore mountains where the Cypress venue is. :) Franamax (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight Gain Question

I don't see any way to answer this question that is not providing medical advice. Somebody already removed it, but the OP restored it. I think it falls firmly in the medical advice category. Comments? Nimur (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could probably squeeze some kind of partial answer that didn't include medical advice; y'know, something regarding possible levels of "water weight" gain. Unfortunately, the guy comes off as a completely shallow, self-centered prick and I'm about as apt to provide him with information of the type he's requesting as I am to take up stabbing myself with knitting needles as a hobby. So, I'm just as glad to see it removed. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you all are talking about my question without even inviting me to contribute my thoughts on the subject. I cannot see how this question can be considered asking for medical advice anymore than asking about what medical issue Alexander the Great died of. Surely you should understand that questions that relate to medical issues are not necessarily asking for medical ADVICE. What if the girl told me she were 25 but she looks like she is 90 and blames it on a rare medical condition...would it be medical advice if I asked if that were possible (i think it is)? Also, I take offense at you calling me a shallow self-centered prick. Since when does having standards make someone a self-centered prick? If I am going to spend time with someone romantically, I want to know that I can trust them, and I want them to be at physically attractive to me. People make these type of decisions all the time and dont date people they find unattractive all the time, so what makes me a self-centered prick for having the same widely-held standards in dating?
I suppose someone could argue that withholding information that someone is honestly seeking just because you don't like their personality to be a bit condescending myself. On the few cases I have known the answer to a RD question, Ive tried my best to answer it even if I didn't like the person, but thats just me. Perhaps I should be more like you and only provide people with information they request if they have personality traits I deem acceptable. But seriously, calling me a shallow self-centered prick behind my back is way over the line. XM (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to contribute your thoughts on the subject. That's what the talk page is for. As you've no doubt noticed, since you're using it as such. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a medical question - the guy is looking for an excuse to be pissed off without feeling bad about himself. He has the basic facts he needs; he'll work it out. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed ludicrous pencil troll

I've removed a question about the horrors of sharpening a pencil made of glass. It could only be a troll. No one with the skills and or resources to fabricate such an expensive pencil would be mad enough to put one into a sharpener.

Even if he wasn't insane, Question 1 would be a liability/legal question, Question 3 would be marketing research/discussion, and question 2 could be answered with a link to mechanical pencil. APL (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APL, you might want to fix the first word in your second sentence ... --LarryMac | Talk 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
trolls are odd beasts... --Ludwigs2 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Said troll apparently created a now deleted article on this pencil and is pushing it into other articles along with a few apparently constructive edits in between I guess to try and throw people off the scent. I've given them a final warning Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported him to ANI; we'll see what happens. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now (surprise,surprise) they're asking about "what methods are used to remove the glass" re pieces of glass in their feet, how to know it's all gone etc. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked indef. He's been playing silly buggers with the Ref Desk and in article space; this isn't a playground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Homework" Questions

I don't think people should be so quick to call out "homework" questions. I mean some questions may be written a unique style that suggest it is an assignment. But for the most part is is virtually impossible to tell the difference between a homework question and someone genuinely interested in a topic especially if it is esoteric or academic.

The rules state "If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point."

So people should only be called out if they have obviously done no research. But that is the case whether it is "homework" or not.

--Gary123 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think helping with homework questions is necessarily outside of the ways in which the reference desks should be used. I don't think the work should be done for them. But if in lesser ways we can serve to direct the person to be able to do the work themselves, that should be acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, the disclaimer is there because we don't simply do other people's work for them when they have access to all the information they need. This almost always relates to it being a homework question. Certainly, I've seen plenty of people ask for, and receive, help with homework questions when they've demonstrated a lack of knowledge or understanding with which we can help. We just don't do the work. I can't say I've ever noticed people being called out just because it's homework - if someone's done the research and has perhaps missed a point, or doesn't get it, they'll normally be helped, from what I've seen. Perhaps you could provide examples?
I would also disagree with the statement "for the most part is is virtually impossible to tell the difference between a homework question and someone genuinely interested in a topic". If someone poses a question in short question format, outside of any clear context (as would normally be provided by having had lessons on the subject previously), it's a reliable bet that it's a homework question; why else would a questioner pose a question so inefficiently? Vimescarrot (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's potentially a source of great satisfaction to those of us who respond to questions on the Reference desks to field questions from students. I think it holds all the potential for satisfaction that being a teacher in a classroom has. I almost think we should welcome and encourage "homework questions."
The key is of course what sort of help we provide. As in so many other teaching involvements, the key is in stimulating interest in the subject at hand. And we should hope to instill confidence in the person we are relating to. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think about homework questions in this way. I begin by stating what we do not do. We do not answer multiple-choice questions by simply stating "The answer is 'C'". We do not answer arithmetic questions by simply stating "The answer is 42." We do not answer history questions by simply stating "The answer is Thomas Jefferson." We don't answer such questions, because knowing those answers is entirely independent from having learned the material. What we do is provide references - we provide contextual information, guided by our experience with the subject matter and aided by our ability to find relevant links (both inside Wikipedia and in off-site reference material). This helps the student learn the material - possibly from an angle that their closed-form textbook education cannot - and whether they answer the multiple-choice questions correctly is irrelevant from our perspective. It's not that we want people to fail their quizzes - it's that here on Wikipedia, we have a much more open-ended definition of "learning." The burden is, and always will be, on the student to both learn the material and to demonstrate that learning to their own teacher in whatever way necessary to make their own grades - that part really isn't our problem - but we can help them by providing free access to knowledge and subject-matter experts. Nimur (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I do think it's okay to tell people who have just copied out questions from their book that we don't really consider that acceptable. We are not computers and should not be treated as such. If someone cannot bother to say, "oh, I'm having trouble with this" or "here's what I'm thinking, what do you think?", then I don't think we should bother to answer. I find it rather offensive and (in my experience as a teacher) do not see much reason to give such questions a benefit of the doubt. The student in most cases is almost surely not looking for an enriched learning experience—they are being lazy. The non-lazy student knows a bit better about how to ask a question, how to do some preliminary work themselves, and so forth, and I am more than happy to work with them. But the lazy student deserves nothing. And if the Ref Desk ever earns a reputation as being useful to the lazy student, things will get pretty unpleasant around here! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is necessary to read into these questions somewhat, and to sometimes require feedback in the form of clarification or some other type of dialogue. There is no formula for teaching, but students asking for help with homework questions seems to me to be the quintessential teaching situation. Teaching is of course not about providing "answers." Engagement in some kind of dialogue would seem to be an important key. But just showing a way of thinking can be helpful even if dialogue fails to materialize. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
-- Wavelength (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a Reference Desk, not a Teaching Desk. We are in the business of giving answers, not giving tutoring. There are, indeed, other sites for that. We are, indeed, a fish market. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References are categorically not the same as answers. In fact, if we were only about giving references, our answers would be much shorter than they usually are... "See article." Search engines can do that better than we can. So, we provide references along with a value-add - we assist the OP in evaluating context, relevance, and pre-requisite knowledge. Nimur (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there can be "teachable moments" here and is part of our mission. But if someone comes here and copies the question right off their assignment sheet and expects someone else to answer for them, then I think the teachable item is "that's not how the world works". Franamax (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.homeworkhelp.com/. It says "At Homeworkhelp.com, we don't feed students the answers to homework questions. Instead, we show them how to learn." -- Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindented since this is a general comment) I think we all pretty much agree that we don't ever say "the answer is C", I think we all do agree that if we can help someone over a conceptual barrier to their understanding of a topic, that's a good day on the desks. Where we may disagree is how to respond to questions along the scale of tjhinking you copied this right off the sheet didn't you? and the Q being I've read six different things on this and I'm getting nowhere, plz help!!. One note I'll make is that I avoid templated or template-style responses wherever I can on Wikipedia. In the few times I've used a no-homework response, I've tried to use the standard phrasing followed by some hints on what to look at or how to come back with a followup question addressing the specific barrier to understanding. When it's a "I searched Google for this and got nothing" and I try the exact same bloody words and get dozens of hits, I'm less sympathetic. But schoolkids, I would prefer to help them in the process of learning. When they come back with "just answer the question" - I think we have a fairly unified response for that. :) Franamax (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical advice removed

Diff —Akrabbimtalk 06:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was clearly a medical advice request. I agree with your removal. Nimur (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over Medicalizing?

Does the first response to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#about_the_wounds needlessly bring up the medical disclaimer? I think the question, as worded, is clearly a request for medical information, not medical advice, and thus fully appropriate to answer, without having to jump to "see a doctor". Am I mistaken in this impression? -- 174.21.247.23 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one might have been a "gray area". I think the responses were both appropriate. The question was not removed. If it had been more explicit, we would have removed it (see above talk-section). But since the wound color question was ambiguous, we gave helpful links and made no attempt to diagnose any specific circumstances. Nimur (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nimur's response "Another cause for wound discoloration is..." would be better worded "Some possible causes for wound discoloration are..." because up to that point no cause had been posted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP address seems to originate from Cuba, has a recent interest in Pakistani topics, and is currently blocked for one month. I interpret their question as being pure curiosity and I thought the answer had something to do with oxidization of hemoglobin. I don't see that as being a "medical advice" question. If they'd included in the question "and it smells bad" - that would be a whole different story. I'd say this is a case of excessive but not heavy-handed caution. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of answers

Pnina Shachaf studied the quality of answers on the Reference Desk, and reported that "on all three SERVQUAL measures quality of answers produced by the Wikipedia Reference Desk is comparable with that of library reference services." You can read an abstract about it on this page. I have edited Academic studies about Wikipedia by adding an external link to the same page. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've bee looking and waiting for something like this for a long time (proof). Excellent find! Thank you, Wavelength! I'd love to read the results of her study in detail. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does "The generalizability of the findings to other similar sites is questionable." mean we're better than Yahoo Answers? ;o Vimescarrot (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! Recompense for all our collective efforts, in the form of anonymous recognition in an academic publication! The Reference Desk has made it to the big-leagues - we're playing by normal academia rules now! Nimur (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to see the actual article. Claiming to be just as good as a library reference desk is good, but I'd like to see where the RD didn't do well to see where improvements may be made. -- kainaw™ 14:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get a full PDF. It costs $38, (we don't have a subscription to the Journal of Documentation), but I'll see if I can get a physical copy at the reference library by library-loan or some other means. Nimur (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got a electronic copy of the paper (haven't read it completely yet). Can send it to the first 5 RD regulars who email me their email ID (since wikipedia email doesn't allow attachments). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full text of the article with no formatting, just copied & pasted from the HTML version of the document. It's hidden in a comment below (click the edit button to see it). It goes without saying that the article is copyrighted and shouldn't be reproduced anywhere; I'm just putting it here so people without database access can read it without paying. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&oldid=344631500"