::::Clearly people on here don't know (and can't be bothered to look) what was said, then stop commenting with half a story! Those who have actually looked clearly can see it was merely about guidance, as Richardj has had to point out once again.
::::Clearly people on here don't know (and can't be bothered to look) what was said, then stop commenting with half a story! Those who have actually looked clearly can see it was merely about guidance, as Richardj has had to point out once again.
::::[[User:Threewords,eightletters...|Threewords,eightletters...]] ([[User talk:Threewords,eightletters...|talk]]) 13:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
::::[[User:Threewords,eightletters...|Threewords,eightletters...]] ([[User talk:Threewords,eightletters...|talk]]) 13:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&action=historysubmit&diff=336200349&oldid=336199575 restored] the question, see edit summary for details
{{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)
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)
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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]
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]
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. --Lambiam07:36, 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. --Lambiam07:49, 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]
I haven't noticed any decrease in the number in posts, at least from what I can tell from my watchlist. If there is though, maybe it is because we are trying to have unnecessary discussion less often. —Akrabbimtalk21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not have another round of discussion about BB's editing! BB has received a lot of flak, and his contributions at the refdesks have improved a lot, and are now mostly quite to-the-point and helpful. My impression is, however, that there is an increase in the number of questions that ask for opinion (to which many regulars happily reply with their opinions), and also an increasing tendency in factual questions being answered with unsourced statements or opinion. This is just a personal impression after reading the refdesks since 2006. I don't think giving concrete examples will move the discussion in a constructive direction. --NorwegianBluetalk22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that the latest crop of students in the September term are realizing that we really honestly don't answer homework questions? If so, we should see an uptick in activity in January... Franamax (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well - let's look at the last 5 days on the Science desk (no particular reason - but it's my favorite). The number of questions each day were: 12,11,13,17,15. Now, we look back into the archives for the same 5 days in 2008 and we find 13,12,9,12,14 - which means that we got 8 more questions this year than last. This isn't much of a scientific sample - but I think it's very typical. Looking back at December 3rd 2007, there were 12 questions - and you have to go back to December 3rd 2006 to see a significant difference - that week, we had 25 questions per day on the average - but in 2005, we were down at 15. Reading through the questions from December 3rd 2005 to 2008 - they don't seem noticably different than the typical ones we're seeing today - and I don't see any particular evidence for either better or poorer quality answers. So on the science desk at least - I think this is a case of "Things were so much better in the good old days." I also quickly looked at the numbers for the Misc desk too - and without going to the touble of counting them - it's really obvious that there has been no significant variation over the years. The only noticable drops were when we split the entertainment desk off to a separate page and dropped the popularity of the misc desk as a result.
Conclusion: There is zero solid evidence for any kind of decline over the past 5 years - you can now stop worrying.
What I think this does show is that people aren't checking the archives before posting questions - you'd expect a drop in the number of questions over the years as the body of answers grows to encompass all of the common questions...and as the body of information in Wikipedia grows to allow more questions to be answered with a simple search of the general encyclopedia. But I can see no sign of that happening...and to use regulars - that comes as zero surprise!
I suspect that the questions continue to come for the same reason there are still new books published. Many people, as a general rule, do not know how to find information in an archived data system. It does not matter how well organized or intuitive that archived data system is - many people do not know how (and are unwilling or unable to learn) how to use it. This is why the reference desk in a real library, as well as on Wikipedia, will always fulfill a useful role - matching people who know how to quickly find information with others who need help. Nimur (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, we don't really know how many of them search and use the archives. By definition, anyone asking a question on here generally hasn't found or hasn't tried to find their answer elsewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) If two or more questioners pose similar questions in close succession or at the same time of year in different years, is that an indication of similar homework assignments? (2) If so, then it might be possible to find those assignments online. (3) Maybe the professor is watching the Reference Desk pages. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, it's more likely that similar questions are due to things on mass-media, like news, internet memes, popular television documentaries, and quiz-shows. Millions of viewers see these various contents and then a few are inspired to ask similar-themed questions on the desks. It's plausible that school schedules could also be involved, but it seems less common and less likely. Nimur (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here for many years, on and off, and it does seem to be less active than say six months ago, but not drastically inactive that I'd categorize it as "dying". The ref desks have been a lot slower in the past, and they generally pick up after a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's simply untrue! Look back to the archives for the beginning of July. The number of questions and responses is almost exactly what it is today. It's really not hard to verify this for yourself. Why keep putting up all of this negativity when it's so easy to demonstrate that it's not true? SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm well I've not looked at the figures (and I'm not going to, I suck at math) but it certainly seems less active. Perhaps my time frame was wrong, the whole of 2009 seems less active than 2008 imo, but that's just a feeling on my part and isn't based on any facts, so it could very well be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need any math beyond the ability to count. Count the number of questions asked today - go to the archives, pick a day 6 months ago (preferably on the same day of the week because traffic does change over the weekends) - count the number of articles. Are there vastly fewer now than then? Do this for half a dozen days just to be sure - what overall impression do you get? Go back a year - two years - four years. The impression I get from doing that is that there is no discernable difference whatever since we started archiving the ref desks. Of course, you could calculate averages and draw graphs - but that's really not necessary. Just count the number of articles...no math required. "Feelings" are all well and good - but when they conflict with the facts - the facts win! I gave you facts - and you came back with wishy-washy 'feelings'. So please stop spreading doom and gloom - the ref desks are doing just fine. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I still feel their less active, and no figures can change that, but I accept my feelings are wrong (as I stated above). No need to belittle me by describing it as "wishy-washy 'feelings'" and I'm not trying to "spread doom and gloom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.54 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is less inducement to contribute when Steve Baker calls others contributions "ridiculous" or "f**ing stupid and totally blows off a polite request on his talk page to remove the inflammatory language, responding instead with angry repetitions. We can disagree and provide different perspectives without the inflammatory language. Edison (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually believe the best place to discuss such things is the appropriate user talk page. However, that's precisely what I have done over a year ago, and it seems the user has learned nothing from it. So it may be a good thing to have this brought up here. — Sebastian01:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I have some sympathy for Steve's reaction in the discussion here. The IP editor's statement did fly in the face of simple facts that can be counted on two hands and the toes of your feet; such statements can make me angry, too. But the IP editor admitted right away that his statement "isn't based on any facts, so it could very well be wrong". That was a retreat clearer than any I have seen from Steve. What's gained by beating a dead horse? — Sebastian03:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The possible improvement would be to get Steve, who is a highly knowledgeable and very helpful Ref Desk contributor, to abandon the abusive language he sometimes directs toward other contributors. An appeal on his talk page only resulted in more of the same abuse. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the OP said. (No dead horse was beaten in this thread.) Edison (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I kind of disagree. Reference desk is a bit different from the rest of Wikipedia in that people are in evidence discussing the answers to "users", and thinking it through as we go. So there is a degree of talking things through and disagreeing which is part of the package. Generally Steve is within WP:SPADE and having a level of aggressive disagreement certainly improves the experience for onlookers. Sure occasionally we all get frustrated with other people but I'd rather he called me completely stupid when I was being completely stupid rather than used parliamentary language. Of course I am sorry you feel offended and abused but in general I would not want him to change pitch. --BozMotalk17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't think so
Just after reading this section I came across this gem. I'll always wonder how many folks just read the RD and are inspired by it all (no, I'm not soliciting donations and no, we'll never know). I'm inspired to keep those folks in mind with all of my edits. hydnjo (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord is what I think, and I'm an atheist! Some of what I write is their window to whatever. What a responsibility :) Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bowei Huang
I just noticed that User:Bowei Huang has returned. I was a bit surprised because I thought he was a banned user. I looked at his talk page and saw nothing out of the ordinary, and then I remembered that he deletes anything that looks terribly bad from his talk page. So, since he is obviously not banned, I thought I'd just give a heads up. Simply by looking at his recent edit history, you can clearly see that he is not working in good faith. In my opinion, his questions on the RD should be read as coming from someone with intent to vandalize articles. -- kainaw™13:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a vandal, per se, he is someone who likes to start debates and effectively soapbox. Anyway his current questions seem fine, but I think if he starts back into "why are all humanists evil?" territory we should feel free to derail that as soon as it starts. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, an additional problem is he likes to ask the same (or very similar) question over again and seems to ignore answers already given. While not to a large extent, we do seem to be seeing signs of that already albeit a case of different desks rather then a few days or weeks later. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion a community ban may be warranted. I've looked briefly at his edits outside the RD before and while some of them are helpful, quite a few are problematic. You can see a sign of this on his talk page but bear in mind he does have a tendency to remove warnings (which he is entilted to do) so look at the history too. Obviously this discussion will need to be taken somewhere else to do something like that. Failing that, at the very least a firm reminder from the community that the problematic behaviour has to stop Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I would tend to agree, and there are precedents: I can think of two recent cases off the top of my head of editors who have been pretty severely sanctioned, not for vandalism or outright policy violations, but for excessively, persistently, annoying and tendentious editing. (Which of course does end up violating a couple of side policies.)
On the other hand, though, it's a difficult, sad, and unfortunate thing to have to do if it came to that, and the sanctionee can always drum up tons of sympathy for the way he's being unjustly censored by the mean, cruel, cabalistic admins... —Steve Summit (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [edited 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Following up to myself: there would be precedents, if it came to that. But I don't see anything actionable in his recent questions on the misc desk. (Annoyingly detailed, yes, but not tendentious or anything.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly difficult. When someone is totally obsessive about a subject, they can find it very hard to let even the smallest detail slip by - resulting in a ton of seemingly annoying follow-up questions. We've had similar problems many times before (Planet-colors-guy being the one I recall most recently). The problem is that in many cases, these people are acting in good faith - they can be intensely annoying - but that's just their nature - and no nastiness is intended. But the more patient you are with them - the more annoying nit-picky questions you get in return - and responding rapidly becomes a completely thankless task! But I'd find it tough to sanction someone for just that.
Most people with that kind of personality (and I come close to being one of them) tend to understand when you gently point out that this is a bit too much and please stop with this line of questioning...and that (perhaps) is the acid test that distinguishes a truly evil troll (who doesn't care what the answers to these questions are and is only spurred on to greater lengths when criticised) from a mere obsessive personality (who genuinely does care about the answers - even to the n'th degree). I feel that not-feeding is a reasonable response to both kinds of behavior.
However, it's clear from this user's talk page history (and yes - there is a LOT more going on than you see from the current state of that page) that in this case that this user is more troublesome than your average run-of-the-mill obsessive personality. He doesn't seem to operate the Wiki with enough technical finesse - so content gets blanked, redirects go wrong and he doesn't sign his posts. He also doesn't communicate with other editors - so talk pages are ignored, he doesn't respond to requests for clarification and he easily falls into revert wars, he creates a lot of stub articles that subsequently get deleted...but you kinda get the feeling that this is not a deliberate/malicious thing - but rather a failure to communicate or to understand communication.
Everything you say is true, but: I think it's pretty clear that this is not a refdesk problem. It's not ours to resolve, and it's not clear there's anything to be gained by talking about the guy here, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere I was told that Humanities includes Geography questions. If so, can someone who is privileged to do the change add "Geography" to the list of topics under Humanities? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "elsewhere" you are referring to. Have you checked our article Humanities? It doesn't seem to mention geography. If you feel that is in error, please bring it up a that article's talk page. — Sebastian03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is Dthomsen was told that he/she should ask geography questions under humanities because humanities covers geography (which is true) but is confused because WP:RD doesn't mention geography under humanities and thinks it should be added. Whether or not it should be added I don't know, this brings up the perpetual issue of how detailed we have to be Actually on further thought, while some questions are suited for the humanities desk, some would be better suited for the science desk so I don't think it would be wise to include geography in humanities. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since in many countries "geography" is the equivalent of American "geology" rather than just cartography. Definitely a science. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And some questions that might be classified as geographical customarily end up on WP:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, e.g. the shortest route from A to B, planning a trip down the Pan American Highway, or questions about air, rail and transit systems. Some questions that might otherwise go to a separate, stand-alone Geography Ref. Desk, did one exist, are now answered on WP:Reference desk/Language. But I still think it would be a good idea to add Geography in some way to the description of topics covered by "Humanities" (a title I rather dislike because I think of "humanities" as separate from the social sciences and history, instead relating to art, music, literature, philosophy, etc.) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, just ask the question at Misc. if you don't know where to put it. That's why there's a Misc. If it ends up being something that would be better answered at Science or Humanities (which depends on what variety of "Geography" one means), we might recommend moving it. Or just ask at Humanities or Sciences and if it seems really out of place, we'll fix it. But it's not worth stressing out over or changing the front page over. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As it happens, I think we've had more questions in the "wrong" desk lately than we usually do. I think the number of fatalities linked to this blasphemy is probably zero, but that number could of course skyrocket at any time. Matt Deres (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Reference required" idea
I wanted to float the idea of implementing a Reference Desk policy that every answerer of a question here is supposed to supply at least one relevant reference, whether it's to a Wikipedia article or to an external link (or even, gasp, a book). This is supposed to be a reference desk in which we refer the questioners to fuller explanations than can be given here. This policy would improve the experience of visitors who ask questions, and, more importantly, will get regulars to stop and think twice before posting mere opinions or jokes. (I have thought about this as a policy for a while, and Baseball Bugs finally just goaded me into posting it because he has veered again into making the Reference Desk into a chat room.) I realize this policy would take a heavy toll on SteveBaker, but I trust him enough to think he can provide a link in each response to at least one of his relevant nouns. I have not thought much about the penalty for violating this proposed policy; I'll float the idea of "amputation of a random digit" as a starting point. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea to have this as a guideline but I disagree that penalties should be imposed for the odd breach. I usually try to give some sort of link or reference to every answer, but there has been the occassional obscure question to which I definitely know the answer from past experience but have no idea where to find a reference. Penalties should only be for persistent and deliberate breaches, and only then if the answers have elements of chat, OR or POV in them. I don't think we should be penalising anybody who gives qood quality answers, even if they don't reference them. As for penalties, amputating fingers is too extreme and will prevent the offender from becoming a reformed editor. The first response should be a friendly warning from another editor on the users talk page. If that doesn't work a thread should be opened here and a more formal warning given. Ultimately, editors could be banned from the refdesk either temporarily or permanently, but it would have to involve some pretty severe disruption taking place before I would support that. SpinningSpark12:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with Spinningspark (and disagree with having a new policy on this). Answering without a reference is not disruptive, and is sometimes appropriate. Similarly, a disruptive edit can contain a reference to a reliable source - making it no less disruptive. Thus, a relevant reference is neither necessary nor sufficient for a RefDesk reply to be constructive. -- Scray (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your criterion. For example, shutting down WP would satisfy your criterion but would be an unwelcome change. -- Scray (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does this address the issue you're raising? Do you honestly think Bugs couldn't add a Wikilink to this post?[3] This won't stop anyone from making these types of posts. The only difference will be the post will be the post will have a wikilink. Big deal. Anyway, I need some legal advice about my medical problem.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase myself: If this suggestion would stop people posting idiotic comments, I'd welcome it. Otherwise, maybe something else should be considered. 87.113.128.40 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical information is not medical advice
I experienced x what ailment do I have?
and
I experienced x what is known about this effect?
are, with respect to guidlines, fundamentally different questions. One is a request for meidcal advice, the other is an anecdote followed by a request for any scholarly medical information. One is allowed by guidlines, one is not.
Just a quick reminder as occassionaly the refdeskers who wank themselves off by telling people we can't answer their questions get a bit draconian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
92.23.58.199 (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that if someone simply asks "what is known about x" then that is not a request for medical advice. The more personal their question becomes, the more it becomes a request for advice. There would be no disagreements about this if there were a bright line.
It seems likely that this exchange on RD/S prompted your message, if I'm wrong about that please say so. It helps to have a specific example, and in this instance the person described some symptoms, and asked for a diagnosis/mechanism. I agree with SteveBaker's insertion of the medadvice template because (as nicely illustrated by Kainaw's criterion) a response required making the jump from symptoms to diagnosis; however, I disagree with Steve's provision of a diagnosis. His actions in this instance are quite puzzling because they are so discordant - he says it's a request for medical advice and yet he offers a guess at a diagnosis. -- Scray (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might a hypotheticalize your medical questions guideline be good? Posters who manage to conceal their personal reasons for asking the question can successfully obtain our unprofessional medical ideas at their own risk and at no liability to wikipedia. Why not say so at the top of the ref desk? 213.122.7.102 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about legal liability, at all. It's about good ethics. We shouldn't encourage people to find fancy ways of asking queries for medical advice. While I agree that there is some "medical advice" that we are qualified enough to give (e.g. "can you get STDs by doing X?" is pretty straightforward), for most we are not. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange example... the only answer we can give to that is "yes", for any X. We can give links to pages discussing the relative risks of different activities, of course (we can provide reliable references for any question as long as the reference explicitly answers the question and doesn't require us to diagnose a medical condition, or whatever, before we can tell that the reference is useful). --Tango (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if the poster claims to be asking out of curiosity rather than for advice to act on, who are we to contradict the poster and deny access to knowledge? It's not up to us to protect people against their will. Words of caution should be sufficient. 213.122.38.184 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a strange example—it can be answered pretty straightforwardly, even if the answer itself is going to be weighted in probabilities. But those probabilities are very easy to come up with, in part because the question is one that is of basic public health and not individual diagnosis. It's not the kind of question where somebody is going to answer, "oh, I did that a million times with syphilitic prostitutes and never had anything bad happen, so it must be safe, go ahead!" which is really the kind of thing we are worried about provoking. What we are really worried about happening is NOT a legal problem, but somebody saying, "I have a pain in my chest, is it a problem?" and we say, "oh no, that's just gas", and then, because of our answer, they don't go to the hospital and die the next morning from what turned out to be a heart attack. Any question that gets us into that territory should be rigorously avoided—not because it is legally dangerous but because we have an ethical responsibility. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think about borderline medical questions by comparing the benefits of getting advice here versus being told to consult a doctor.
If there's really something wrong with you and we diagnose it, you still have to see a doctor.
If there's really something wrong with you and we botch the diagnosis, you might die.
If there's nothing wrong with you and we tell you you're fine, you're reassured.
If there's nothing wrong with you and we tell you there is, you worry unnecessarily.
So, best case scenario, we ease someone's mind; worst case scenario, they die. The bottom line is that there's no great benefit to getting your advice from here and possibly a huge negative looming on the horizon; it's a shitty gamble made all the shittier because of the natural desire people have to be reassured when they're worried. If you ask ten people whether the lump on your arm could be cancer and get nine positives and one negative, it's very human to place undue weight on the lone negative because of the psychological difficulty of facing cancer. This, in spite of the fact that you have no reason not to get it checked out and an enormously good reason to get professional advice.
I agree that the basic problem is with medical advice answers rather than medical advice question, but I still support the removal of medical advice questions because the well-meaning respondents here seemingly can't help themselves. The risk of possibly offending the OP by removing their question or at least slapping a big template on it is nothing compared to the benefits of them getting advice here (such benefits, as mentioned, ranging from ill-informed reassurances to painful death). Matt Deres (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be working from the assumption that anybody who professes to desire knowledge about a medical topic really wants "advice" instead, and is either trying to cheat us or deluding themselves. This assumption would seem to imply that we should delete all our articles about medical topics, for fear of somebody wanting "advice" accidentally reading them. Is that really the Wikipedia spirit? –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The OP said "I was simply interested" and "I was simply curious" - why can't we take these statements seriously, and say that the question doesn't fall into the verboten realm of advice, since the OP asserts motivation from scientific curiosity? 213.122.60.32 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because their curiosity is in regards to a real-life medical condition they might have. We're in no position to diagnose it and shouldn't try. Matt Deres (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asserting that the OP "might have a medical condition". Why? That is certainly not something he told us in his question; on the contrary he explicit says that he "was fine". Who's doing diagnoses now? –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A physician's job is to know the human body and its functions in terms of normality (homeostasis). The four cornerstones of diagnostic medicine, each essential for understanding homeostasis, are: anatomy (the structure of the human body), physiology (how the body works), pathology (what can go wrong with the anatomy and physiology) and psychology (thought and behavior). Once the doctor knows what is normal and can measure the patient's current condition against those norms, she or he can then determine the patient's particular departure from homeostasis and the degree of departure. This is called the diagnosis.
Because the OP reported non-normal vision, and disorders of vision are the province of medicine, responding would require diagnosis. -- Scray (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A diagnosis would be about something that is wrong with the OP's body now, which is not what he was asking about. He described how his body had temporarily responded to some unusual temperature conditions, assured us that is was temporary and he is fine now, and asked -- out of curiosity and based on a tacit assumption that this is how everyone's healthy body might react to these conditions -- what the mechanism behind his observations might he. Specifically he did not ask "what is wrong with me?" or "am I sick?". If he had asked that I would agree that he asked for diagnosis. But he didn't: he asked for information about a presumably normal phenomenon that he happened to have observed firsthand.
I concede that there is a theoretical possibility that what I, and the OP, and any reasonable reader of the question, would assume to be the normal reaction of a healthy body to some unusual conditions, is in fact something a doctor would recognize as a symptom of some grievous underlying ailment. But if we want to let that remote possibility control, then I cannot see that how we could distribute any physiological knowledge to anybody (at least, without being inconsistent and arbitrary).
When there is no reason for an asker to consider his experience a potential indicator of medical trouble, it is counterproductive for us to condemn his question based on that remote possibility. The alternative to getting an answer to his question here is to shrug and forget the matter, not to formally consult a doctor for the sake of his idle curiosity. Which helps nobody. –Henning Makholm (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be working from the assumption that a strawman argument is more meaningful than a proper dialogue. I didn't say that we couldn't or shouldn't provide information about anything related to medicine, I simply stated that being overly cautious results in really not much loss at all whereas providing unwarranted diagnoses could result in serious harm, even death. I would also like to point out that I was only talking in generalities rather than specifics. If want to talk specifics, then yes, I think they were requesting the diagnosis of a condition. They experienced strange visual effects (condition) and requested an explanation (diagnosis). Asking about how the eye works is an anatomy question; asking what treatments are routinely used for astigmatism is a medical question; asking us "why my vision was affected like that" is a request for a diagnosis and hence medical advice. Do I think they're suffering from a serious medical problem? What you need to understand is that what I (or you) think is completely irrelevant; we're not qualified to reply. Matt Deres (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You claim you didn't say we shouldn't provide information about anything related to medicine. Yet your only reason for denying an answer to the OP is that he asked about information about something related to medicine. The notion that he was "requesting the diagnosis of a condition" is entirely in your head. He simply described a curious phenomenon he had experienced, and asked for more information to satisfy his own curiosity. It is way overbroad in considering all questions that are based in self-experienced phenomena as "requests for diagnosis". That amounts to denying that it is possible simply to be curious about how the human body works without wanting a white-coated "diagnosis" about it. –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the very post you just replied to, I spelled out in simple terms where the line has been drawn. We can answer all sorts of questions about anatomy and physiology and diseases and ailments and a whole bunch else, but we can't answer the question, "What's wrong with me?" We're not allowed; it's in the guidelines. To be honest, I think a lot of the medical advice questions we get here are probably not due to serious medical ailments. If the OPs choose to not see anyone about what's concerning them, statistics say that virtually all of them will get better anyway. What I'm trying to get across here is that I'm not trying medicalize anything or promoting "white-coated" diagnoses; I don't care whether the OP sees a doctor, a voodoo priest, or asks his uncle Gus to rub snake oil into his scalp. What he does outside of the RefDesk isn't my concern, though I will continue to promote the use of medical doctors because I've heard they're good people to see when you're sick. The OP experienced a problem. A transitory one, but a problem. He wants us to tell him what caused it. What definition of diagnosis do you work from that doesn't include some form of "determining the cause of a problem"? Matt Deres (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poster did NOT ask "What's wrong with me?" He did not describe anything that he considered a "problem". He had a non-problematic experience which made him curious. The fact that the experience was transitory does not make it a "problem". He was or is not sick (as far as we know anything about) and therefore has no reason to see a doctor. I agree that "determining the cause of a problem" probably involves diagnosis, but this is irrelevant because there was no problem here.
What I'm objecting to is not your rule of not telling people what is wrong with them, but your mischaracterization of an honestly curious question as a request to be told that something is wrong with him. –Henning Makholm (talk)
I added a link to nystagmus, which is a symptomsign that results in symptoms that resemble what the OP described. I offered no attempt at diagnosis. If someone feels that even this is over the line, feel free to revert. --NorwegianBluetalk23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nystagmus is a sign, not a symptom, and thus it's something that a health-care provider would record when examining a patient. I'm really puzzled by your removal of Steve's link to orthostasis followed by your addition of nystagmus. Since you said you wouldn't mind if someone removed, I will. Going from someone's description of their symptoms to (meaningful) signs is well down the road toward diagnosis - it's also one of the most error-prone steps and in this case I also think it's likely that you got it wrong. -- Scray (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so terse. My point was that, when bathing, one can easily introduce water into one auditory channel, and not the other. The OP may therefore inadvertently have performed a caloric reflex test on himself. The ampullae of the three semicircular canals are located close to the middle ear, and therefore subject to heating or cooling by water in the auditory channel. Heated endolymph will rise, cooled endolymph will sink. If the position of the head is standardised (subject supine with head at 30 degrees elevation), as when doing the caloric reflex test, only the lateral semicircular canal will be affected, and horizontal nystagmus will result. The subject (if conscious) may then experience a sensation of "the world spinning". If the position of the head is different, and in addition the temperatures as extreme as in the "experiment" reported by the OP, I would assume that the other canals could be affected, resulting in nystagmus in other directions, and, for example, by the feeling that everything was spinning upwards. --NorwegianBluetalk12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah guys, I am definitely getting deja vu with this one. Can't you write it up as an essay and then just link to it every time you want to run the debate again. SpinningSpark02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is a template that tells new users "You are not the first person to be for/against the medical advice policy. You are not the first person to argue for/against the medical advice policy. Before attempting to start an argument, please see (list 100-200 of the most recent debates)." -- kainaw™03:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I support the medical advice policy, but am a bit ambivalent on whether this question is a request for medical advice (and hence the inconsistency in my edits, that Scray pointed out). There has been no edit warring, just a discussion about where to draw the line. Curiosity about normal, physiological phenomena will often result from personal experiences, and it's a pity we can't answer such queries. --NorwegianBluetalk09:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the above discussion has been constructive and civil. I also find physiology fascinating, and like to discuss it. The challenge is how to decide what is "normal physiology" and what is a marker of disease. Making that decision in responding to RD/S would be diagnosis (as I described above). If someone asks in the abstract about physiology, I see no problem in responding. -- Scray (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably anybody who said "this is not a medical condition" could then proceed to answer the question (continuing with "and this is not a diagnosis"), they same as we are currently doing (implicitly) with the "snoring while awake" question (and, implicitly, with all other questions). When I first saw that one I thought "woah, maybe you've got a brain tumour or Alzheimer's or some form of schizophrenia and are having short term amnesia or delusions", and if a bunch of us were as silly as me we might have slapped "no medical advice" on it and all agreed with one another. Felis cheshiri (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine we all agreed where the boundaries between medical and non-medical belong.
Will those questions which get answered be questions about things we agree are non-medical?
Not necessarily, because we could also disagree about what the thing is that the poster is describing.
That is to say, we could agree that thing A is medical and thing B isn't, but disagree about which of the things is the subject of the post in question. Those who think the poster is describing thing B cannot be giving a diagnosis (or prognosis, or treatment advice), because from their point of view they are answering a non-medical question, the same as if it was a question about rocket engines or something. Therefore they must be free to give an answer. Felis cheshiri (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the reasons the debate keeps happening over and over again is that, over time, the application of the policy keeps getting stricter. The impression an outsider would get is that we are more interested in applying this rule, and in twisting any vaguely medical-sounding question into a "request for diagnosis" so that we can disallow it under this rule, than we are in actually answering people's questions. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Separate archive search boxes
It has been mentioned here that the reference desk archives are not being used as much as they could be. I have had the experience of using the one search box provided, and I had to sift through many links in other reference desk categories to find links to archived discussions in the language category. Therefore, I propose that the comprehensive archive search box be retained on each subsidiary page, but that each subsidiary desk also have its own specific archive search box. The specific one can be placed immediately below the general one.
Makes sense to me. It's a shame it's not possible to bookmark particular comments (before they reach the archives), otherwise I'd bookmark this post for convenience. (Perhaps the top page could be made to count as a kind of archive from its inception, with its archive number already attached, allowing permanent links to comments on it?) Felis cheshiri (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one, because so many questions can land on one of several desks. I only watch the Miscellaneous, Humanities and Language ref desks, but all kinds of questions that end up on one of those desks could easily have appeared on one or both of the others. So a query that only searches one desk might miss the very answer lurking somewhere else. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at the desks again, perhaps you could use just two extra search boxes, since the topics bifurcate pretty cleanly (except for miscellaneous and some geography), although you'd need more sophisticated linkage:
"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool..."
...than to sludge the Ref Desks with gratuitous me-too-cum-last-word platitutes, tangential trivia, and wanna-be witticisms à la Baseball Bugs' usual and especially the latest. This one shows zero awareness, let alone respect, for human brutality's innumerable victims with nothing to hide and plenty to fear. I consider BB's behavior tediously self-centered and an abuse and detriment to the posting/response RD interactions. This is my statement in protest and a call for restraint where the exercise of good judgment (and good taste) is evidently lacking. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both the general and specific complaint. I made a similar complaint above, but it wasn't well received. I wrote it generally, because I didn't want to pick on a particular editor, so I only criticized “statements like "The right way [...]", which were given repeatedly with no reference.” But guess who had made those statements? I had thought of replying to the latest senseless platitude with a reference to “First they came...”, but that might have been again too subtle to sink in. So, despite my preference for nonviolent communication, I think it may be a good thing that this has been brought openly on the table. — Sebastian09:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Bugs, he was just commenting on another editor's equally vague generality that also didn't answer the question. Of course the question is hardly one we're equipped to answer, since the Reference Desk hasn't yet acquired its own counter-intelligence service (to the best of my knowledge and belief, or as much of it as I'm allowed to divulge...) How on earth could we either confirm or deny that Howard Schmidt was appointed because of his asserted eavesdropping prowess? It looks like more of a question to be hashed over at a blog about politics, Palestine or spying. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ¶ And, without wanting to sink any deeper into the substance of the question, I think that Bugs' comment could easily be taken either way, for example, that there'd be nothing to eavesdrop on if Islamic culture had nothing to hide. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having found out who Howard Schmidt is (I thought he'd been appointed an ambassador), he was obviously appointed Cyber-Security Coordinator because of his technical prowess (at least I very much hope so). But we're just as unequipped to answer whether "the real motive behind the appointment was to enhance computer eaves dropping capability on Islamic culture." And the poster's title for his or her question is certainly strange if not telling: WP:Reference desk/Humanities#Pharaoh Obama and Semite Schmidt—— Shakescene (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These so-called subtleties seem to me a distortion of the RDs' information-based purpose, which I understand as a directive. Functionally I find them a harmful sort of clutter, especially for contributors like myself whose WP time is necessarily limited (e.g. in using the research library at my workplace, a world-class Holocaust archives). When a query is impressionistic or speculative in essence, the RD Regulars would suggest the OP rephrase or seek elsewhere rather than engage on the issue. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Me, I was dismayed by this question, demonstrating (a) a questioner's perplexity at one of Bug's "jokes", and (b) Bugs's unrepentance, as usual. In my book, if someone has to ask you to explain a joke, it was misplaced. And if you say "No one forces you to read what I have written", it demonstrates that you're posting for your own benefit, not your reader's. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your last sentence - it can mean you are writing for a subset of your potential readers. The difference is that there may be some readers that does appreciate what you say. The question we need to answer is: does anyone (other than Bugs) actually get anything out of Bugs' comments? I suspect not. --Tango (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. And while I agree with what you say, I'm going to stand by my last sentence.
If you say something intended for a subset of the audience, and someone not in that subset objects or misunderstands, you will probably say something like "I'm sorry, what I meant was...". But if you get confrontational instead of apologetic, if you say "No one forces you to read what I have written", then I say again, it demonstrates that you care more about yourself than your audience. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No one forces you to read what I have written" can be a reasonable response to "You shouldn't have written that." It is not a reasonable response to someone simply not understanding you. In this case, Bugs said it in response to a general statement about people not finding his jokes funny, rather than directly to the user that had not understood him, so I think it falls into the former category. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this discussion belongs here. If an editor has a problem with Bugs' behaviour on Wikipedia then they should raise these concerns in the first instance on Bugs' talk page (as Deborahjay has already done). If that does not produce a satisfactory result then there are other appropriate places to escalate the issue. Protesting about Bugs' posts on this talk page will not achieve anything. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This isn't the first instance, so the user's talk page is not the right place. The only other places I can think of are for getting admin intervention, and I see nobody calling for Bugs to be blocked. This is a discussion about whether certain conduct is acceptable on the ref desk, so the ref desk talk page seems like the perfect place. If we reach a consensus that is isn't acceptable (which seems to be what is happening, but I wouldn't be comfortable calling this a consensus yet) then we can inform Bugs of that. If Bugs doesn't change his ways, we can then look into other avenues of dispute resolution, but hopefully that won't be necessary. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between the discussion here and the many past discussions here on the same subject, I have a hard time seeing how there isn't a consensus. As for RFC, we don't need acronyms for the sake of acronyms. The relevant comments are occurring, and are occurring with the relevant subset of users. What about the RFC process are we missing apart from location and formatting? — Lomn15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing is community wide input. A lot of editors watch and comment on RFC's. This talk page is a Wikipedia backwater. Protesting here and establishing some notional consensus of folks who read this page is a waste of time and won't achieve any more than those "many past discussions" did. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we want community wide input? This is an issue that only affects the ref desks and there seems to be a consensus of the interested parties (excluding Bugs). RFC is for issues that either affect the larger community or where the relevant group hasn't been able to reach a consensus. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry, I assumed you all wanted to take some practical steps towards some sort of resolution here. If you just want to grumble about how cross Bugs makes you feel, then I guess here is as good a place as any. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think achieving a consensus of ref desk regulars about what is acceptable conduct on the ref desk and then asking Bugs to comply with it is a very practical step towards resolution. I don't think the drama of an RFC would be at all productive - RFC's rarely are. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is the right venue. It would only be necessary to go to a venue outside the ref desk if Bugs will not accept that consensus is against him here. SpinningSpark16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like Baseball Bug's input. I think he injects a note of reality into what gets kind of surreal sometimes, with reference desk regulars trying to seriously answer questions that I suspect are not being asked in all seriousness. I think what is called for are some appropriate followup questions. Not to turn this into a chat room, but to establish some focus.
This called for discussion. There was no way to provide an answer. Until a proper groundwork is established it is impossible to provide a useful response. I think Baseball Bug's input served to make it obvious that the current state of inquiry at that particular question was futile and unlikely to result in anything productive and was an example of the reference desk being put to poor use. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bugs comment there does that at all. I agree the question was a call for discussion and there wasn't much we could do with it, so Bugs didn't really do any harm, but he didn't help. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been absurd, but whether or not it was absurdist depends on the intent of the writer. I see no evidence that it was intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the question and if that was the intent then I don't think it did a good job. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly is is but my interpretation that finds Baseball Bugs' statement here to be absurdist. But I didn't have in mind that he was necessarily commenting on the question itself as posed by the OP, but rather on the predictable way in which the reference desk allows itself to be drawn down a path of entanglement in ultimately unanswerable questions. I think Jayron32's comment in response to the OP was a good one. And I also think Baseball Bugs' comment was a good one. The worst sort of response to this sort of question is the attempt to objectively answer it. The question is carefully constructed to elicit an emotion charged response. Both of the above editors deflected the question by addressing only tangentially related issues. The only criticism I have of the techniques employed by Jayron32 and Baseball Bugs is that they failed to pose a question of clarification for the OP. I think a question requesting the source of the information presented by the OP would have been a great rejoinder. In the OP's question is stated that he "heard" the "characterization" that he goes on to describe. In my opinion the best response would have been to stop it right there and ask where that was "heard." Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to proceed formally, the reason you need RfC is because the Ref Desks do not exist for the Ref Desk regulars. Community-wide participation is needed because the views of people who don't routinely patrol these pages is actually more relevant than the views of we who have them watchlisted.
That said, I must add that this is a tremendously tricky area, because for the most part, the comments are not truly disruptive. Some jokes are not understood ("Ribbit"), or poorly received by us, but I'm not sure that's real disruption.
I myself am <ahem> occasionally partial to a jokey response on these pages and I enjoy some of the humour I've seen from others. I'd personally hate for us to go down the 'serious answers only' route that was posited about 3 years ago (from memory), as it briefly sapped the life and soul from these pages.
What seems to irritate the regulars is a) the frequency and b) a perceived absence of humour from BB's comments. However, both of these things are highly subjective. How many jokes a day or week is inappropriate? How funny is a joke? Are three funny jokes and two unfunny better or worse than six funny ones? Or two hilarious ones and two clunkers? Or one impenetrable one? And who decides if they're unfunny, passable, hilarious or sidesplitting? The answers are difficult to find and this is perhaps why, if people wish to formalise things, they'll hit trouble even if they do use RfC.
I'd suggest Deborahjay's option of asking BB to restrain himself is not only the appropriate one, but the one most likely to succeed. It may be it's been tried before and failed, but asking nicely is always the best way, especially when the person is reasonable. I'll add my voice on BB's talk page now. --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation has gone on long enough and Bugs has been asked, told, begged, and suggested to change his behaviour nicely, tersely, flippantly, and obliquely. We've done those appropriate steps again and again because nobody wants to start something on RFC. Given his past inability to control himself, it seems likely to me (and perhaps others) that once the formal stuff gets started, it will be a short but unpleasant ride to getting Bugs blocked. That's not something I would wish on any user, particularly one who can and does post well-intentioned and useful replies. At this point however, I think that the people who feel strongly about this should stop griping here (which serves to purpose) and either escalate this to RFC or learn to live with it. Personally, I can live with it, but I don't follow the RD as closely as many do (or as I used to). Matt Deres (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets compare the situation with a more common one of a disagreement over whether a certain comment should be included in an article. We only resort to RFCs if a consensus cannot be reached on the article talk page. I don't see why the ref desk should be any different. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%, except that consensus has already been reached - we've hashed this out on this very page before - and Bugs continues to operate in breach of that consensus. RFC could serve the purpose of allowing uninvolved editors to comment on whether our guidelines are appropriate and sufficiently clear, whether BB is in violation of said guidelines, and what deterrent measures (if any) should be pursued as a next step. Ipso facto, it may be that an RFC would determine that BB is operating according to wider community standards and that it's we that need to adjust. Someone up-thread referred to RD as a backwater; I tend to agree and think disinterested parties might provide new thoughts on the matter. Matt Deres (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to BB "appealing" to RFC or elsewhere if he feels our standards are wrong and thinks the wider community would agree with him, but I don't see any reason for us to go to RFC if we have a consensus here. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Baseball Bugs was an ip editor he would have been blocked a long time ago. I haven't looked though his contributions to articles or other areas of Wikipedia, but his edits on the Reference Desk are more detrimental than good. The problem is, he means well and there's no deliberate attempt on his part to cause trouble; it just happens. I agree that a (forced) absence from the Ref Desks would be better solution than blocking him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
We seem to have reached a consensus here, so I'm going to try and summarise what it is so we can move on. This is not a straw poll so there is no need to express your support for it, just express your opposition if you are opposed (since that would mean I was wrong about there being a consensus). If there are no objections after a couple of days then I will copy it to Baseball Bugs' talk page. If there is no change in behaviour, we can have another discussion about what to do about it. I intend to inform Bugs that:
In a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk the Reference Desk regulars have reached a consensus that your [BB's] contributions have largely had a negative impact on the desks. We recognise that you do make some constructive contributions on the Reference Desks and elsewhere and encourage you to continue doing so. We do, however, ask that you significantly reduce the amount of jokes you post to the desks. Some humour is perfectly acceptable but your jokes are too many in number and often too difficult to understand (meaning people don't find them funny). As long as you comply with this request then you are most welcome on the desks, but we will not allow things to continue as they are. Thank you.
I disagree. I think that some of Baseball Bugs' input serves to deflate the sense of self-importance some reference desk regulars are possessed of. That is a good thing. I respect everyone at the reference desks. I really do. I'm not just saying that. I think the ingredient which is Baseball Bugs' input is a necessary and healthful one. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't disagree with that, but I'd add that some of that input serves to increase the sense of hostility of the desks. He often phrases things in a way that seems like he's trying to goad a reaction out of people, and the sarcastic comments are entirely unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-participant in the preceding discussion, but an interested observer, I'm not at all sure this is appropriate. Is this just about the frequency of BB's jokes or the fact that some people don't understand his humour? DeborahJay didn't use the word here, but in her approach to BB directly, she said his contribution was "offensive". To gloss over that here seems to miss the point entirely. To ask someone to only make jokes that others find funny, and then only as many as does not exceed some undefined limit, is bureacracy at its most absurd. Just exactly what is the measure of how these requirements are to be met? Is there to be a poll after each BB joke to see whether they pass the "funny" test? I don't like the authoritarian tone of "We will not allow things to continue as they are". -- -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea that Baseball's positive contributions are outweighed by his asides. Like many of us (including me), he can sometimes come up with a flip or general response where something more detailed or specialized is needed, and like many (rarely including me) he sometimes has difficulty resisting the temptation to put his irritation at a dumb question on the Ref. Desk page; but there are many questions where his knowledge of a wide range of topics (from language to politics to pop culture to religion to baseball) contributes substantially to the overall collective answer. Sometimes he does overdo it, and crack jokes that aren't relevant to anything, but this discussion is way overblown.
What all editors have to realize is the wide diversity of both questioners and responders. Some come with a great deal of seriousness and treat the Reference Desk as if it were a branch of the Britannica or the OED; their time is short and their patience naturally limited. Others come from idle curiosity (witness the fanciful or quiz-type stump-the-editors questions we get). And most of us fall somewhere in between. We spend a lot of time and care on our answers, and sometimes go way out of our way to do research in an unfamiliar field, but we're also here (rather than editing articles in our fields of specialty) because we still have that childhood curiosity about things in general and a desire to share our knowledge; there's nothing wrong in having a little fun in the process. Happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with any action to force BB off the desks. I find his remarks largely unuseful, unfunny, tedious, and childish, but there are plenty of unuseful, unfunny, tedious, and childish people in the world we must all endure simply because there's no way to formulate a law for their imprisonment/execution without also catching up a lot of good people. We can not come up with a rule that will both prevent Bugs' behavior and still leave the RefDesks a decent place, so we must endure it. --Sean21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say the same if he was an anon ip user? Because I've seen ips blocked for less. Anyway, as I see it, the problem here isn't his jokes or unhelpful remarks themselves, it's his utter disregard for his fellow ref deskers who have asked him many, many times, very politely, to at least tone down on this stuff. He has totally ignored all of it, argued over it and continues the same behavior that has wasted many editors time discussing in these talk page threads. That strikes me as disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree with Tango's suggested statement, except for the sentence "As long as you comply with this request then you are most welcome on the desks, but we will not allow things to continue as they are". I don't think that's the way to go, because I see no reasonable way to enforce the threat. In addition, I feel there are more problems with BB's editing than just the jokes. There was a similar discussion a while ago, and my impression was that the signal-to-noise ratio in BB's contributions improved a lot. Regretfully, the S/N ratio is now, in my opinion, lower than ever. Here is a snapshot of a thread that went horribly wrong. A question is asked about lethal injection, and the OP makes it clear that s/he thinks it is a cruel punishment. Two factual answers are given. Then the thread devolves into a debate, with statements from BB such as "and we could always go back to hanging", along with unsourced suppositions. Finally, it turns into a discussion, on the RD itself, about BB's editing. I hereby apologise for my contribution to that part of the thread, and thank User:HalfShadow for removing the junk. The thread illustrates that this is not only about BB's making jokes, it is about his answering questions with statements that are based on guesswork, his quarrelsome editing pattern, and his desire to always have the last word.
I believe our only option is to somehow get the message through to BB via his talk page. Dweller made a superb attempt. I didn't find BB's response encouraging. Deborahjay's complaint got an interesting response, "Your complaint has been noted and logged.". Since BB apparently logs complaints, I suggest that, whenever BB makes an inappropriate remark on the RD, the first editor who gets sufficiently annoyed replies with "I have notified BB on this talk page that I ..." (consider the above remark offensive/completely off topic/an invitation to debate/tasteless etc), along with a wikilink to the relevant section on User_talk:Baseball_Bugs, to make it easy for others to either second the comment or argue that they consider the statement constructive. That strategy, would keep the discussion there, where it belongs, and reduce the noise on the RD. Unfunny jokes on the RD that are not disruptive, should be ignored, IMO. --NorwegianBluetalk23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB, your first paragraph, last sentence sums it up well. Lame attempts at humour are not horrible per se. The concern is when the supposedly professional milieu of the desks gets overwhelmed by frivolity and non-helpful comments. Maybe it's a backwater (RD/S and RD/M get an awful lot of edits though) - but for many people in the world at large the desks are where they interact directly with "we, the editors". If people read these pages and see well thought-out and referenced answers interspersed with a few (hopefully double-indented and <small>) funny comments and kibitzing, they will know that we are both good at what we do and human. If they come to these pages and see strings of non-sequiturs and jokes about the poster or the inane question itself, they may either 1) not see us as a credible resource or 2) decide that maybe they'll participate in the sport. That is disruptive to the very existence of the desks. They don't exist for idle amusement, not as a means to prove "you can't stop me".
A concern which I haven't seen raised yet (likely because most of you are too sane to read the page) is that this same sort of thing happened at the WP:ANI noticeboard. Bugs was criticized for his habit of popping up everywhere with comments ranging from lame humour to apparent baiting, as I recall I went after him once myself for making fun of the way an OP framed a complaint. This culminated in some rather pointed and ominous "stop or else"-type comments and was featured heavily in Bug's failed RFA. That RFA contains Bugs saying "There are plenty of other places to work here" and it appears that not long after that BB took an interest in the refdesks.[4] I'm troubled by this apparent continuation of borderline-disruptive behaviour and by Bugs apparent complete refusal to contemplate the possibility that anything is wrong at all.
The refdesks have to be run for the purpose of satisfying the mission if the desks, not for the satisfaction of any one editor. We are not an amusement park. Procedurally, I'm fine with Tango's proposed note to Bugs, although minus the "threat" bit. Beyond that, if any restrictions might be contemplated, I think a user RFC would definitely be required. It would be messy, but won't lack for certifiers. I would far rather see Bugs pull back a little, he can be very knowledgable and helpful, he has a great point-of-view and often decent sense of humour. But not always. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are, of course, other options besides RFC's and blocks. Another is arbitration.
If I were an arbitrator overseeing this dispute, I would suggest this resolution:
Recognizing that Bug's editing pattern on the Reference Desks has been disruptive [and there's really no argument about this, as the talk page record shows] and that change is needed, Bugs is directed that for a period of one month, he is to post only factual answers to questions on the Reference Desks. No jokes, no flip remarks, no attempts to spark debate, no participation in debates.
If I was an arbitrator, I would be looking at the "Previous steps to resolve the dispute" section and asking why it's not filled in. Continuous wanking on this page will not be sufficient IMO. Bugs is currently being engaged at his talk page. The next step is RFC/U, like it or not, where more than the usual suspects can have a look; then AN/I if the RFC result is clear and things don't get resolved. This is community-resolvable and the community might just say we have to live with it. Arbcom is the absolute last step (and at the rate they resign, only the janitor will be left by the time we get there :). Franamax (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't proposing formal, Arbcom arbitration; I was speaking hypothetically. But we could try some little-a, informal arbitration, all by ourselves (if Bugs agreed, of course). —Steve Summit (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about somebody address what is right beneath our nose instead of going far afield? This has all the feeling of a witch hunt about it. He made an edit. This was the edit: "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear." It is found in this context. Where is the great offense in that?
Is this a case of "displaced aggression?" I find the question (the one posed by the OP) very problematic. Would any of you have had a better response to the question posed by the OP? Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about any one edit. We are talking about a pattern that has been ongoing for some time, that has been variously worrisome, bothersome, or offensive to quite a number of different editors here. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the question remains at least somewhat relevant: where is the great offense in his comment?
My suggestion is that the energy displayed here would be better directed to discussing how to deal with what you may perceive as problematic questions posed. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's worthy of a thread in itself. Looking back now at the way the question was phrased, yes, how do you answer that? ("Your friend is an idiot" springs to mind, since it's a personal attack directed at an unidentified person.) I would have just as soon seen the thread closed with a not-a-forum template (and then everyone actually respect the template). But I don't know how open-ended RD/H is in general and I think I'm a bit of a hardliner anyway. I do think we could improve our early responses to potential problems. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well god knows where to post anything at this point on here. I would like to say that it appears that there is maybe a single person on here who values BB's contributions for what they are, and that the remaining discussion just seems to be between those who think that his unhelpful editing should be dealt with by administrative means or if people should just tolerate unhelpful contributors. Personally I find BB's contributions to be failed witticisms at best, off-the-cuff trolls at worst. I really do wish he would find a better way to spend his time. If other people want to bother with an RFC, they are by all means encouraged, but what a waste of everyone's time, in the end, because one poster couldn't grow up a little bit. The whole thing is sad and pathetic. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BB seems to be making a concerted effort with his RD posts of late. I suggest we let this lie. I also think it's worth mentioning that his good responses, which are now becoming the preponderence, if not 100% of his output, are useful, valued and sometimes excellent. I credit him for that - and for apparently making a concerted effort to edit differently, something which must be tremendously difficult to do. --Dweller (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Treat this page more like an article
Bus stop wisely suggested to discuss how to deal with problematic questions, and I would extend that view to answers as well. One way to deal with problematic edits is to treat the RD more like an article, which is an idea Tango brought up above at 18:35. This could mean that it will be OK to remove off-topic texts. We have been doing that already pretty strictly when we perceived an edit to be done by a banned user, and removals such as #Removed Glass-Steagall rant have only been praised. We could just agree to treat contributions here the same. We already ave a note on top of the page that says "other material may be moved", we could simply change that to "... removed", and maybe change the unclear "relate to" to some more stricter wording. A similar box worked well on top of WT:SLR. That page limits the permission to remove posts to project members; we could use 'established editors' or 'admins' instead. Or we could have moderators, as WT:IPCOLL has. — Sebastian03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC); amended 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't given your idea enough thought to comment on it properly, but would like to note that since the two most frequent editors on the boards are also the two editors most often griped about, I'm not sure the scenario of what makes for an established editor would work very well. Just sayin'. Matt Deres (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "established", I meant established at Wikipedia, not just here. If we can transfer the experience from WT:SLR, then that wouldn't be as scary as it may sound; usually people are too polite to remove others' contributions. Still, some people may feel more comfortable with a limited group, which is why I also brought up moderators and admins. Moderators could be nominated as at WT:IPCOLL; if we go for that variant then I'd nominate Dweller for her superb effort in moderating the Baseball Bugs incident. — Sebastian05:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) One observation I would make is that we are averse to allowing the reference desk to transform itself into an unstructured forum, or chat room. But therein lies a problem when we suspect an OP of loading a question in such a way that doesn't really allow for much in the way of a reasonable response. At that point I think it is necessary to engage the OP in some type of dialogue. The OP would probably have to be told that we would really have to refine the question. This could be done politely, I think. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's one option of many. Often, it's better to remove the question and keep the answer on the user's talk page. To use some concrete examples from recent questions:
WP:RD/M 1933 Glass Stegall ACT: Simply remove as non-question, as done here
WP:RD/H#Obama and Schmidt (originally "Pharaoh Obama and Semite Schmidt"): - delete as non-RD question and explain at talk page.
I got it from the comment "delete and answer at user talk page" which clearly indicates you think it should be removed from the ref desk and "that sort of question really doesn't make us look professional". By the way, no one here is answering questions professionaly as far as I know, it is a volunteer effort and failure of a question to bathe the answerer in a glow of academic excellence is certainly not grounds for its removal. SpinningSpark20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't choose the right tone in my post above. Also, I realize I may have been unclear. I didn't mean to say that any of my proposals were the only way to react; In only wanted to make the case to allow more flexibility. Those people who feel #4 does not improve the RD for everyone else should be allowed to remove to user talk. Conversely, if anybody felt they had a more specific answer, they could do so, too. But nobody has done so in two days, nor has the OP shown any discontent with the reply. That shows to me that it would have been very appropriate to handle it as I proposed. — Sebastian22:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't say I agree with that. Grounds for removal are disruption or questions seeking debate rather than a factual answer. This question is specific, has a definite answer, and is clearly at least potentially answerable by volunteers as it is being discussed on several BBs around the internet. It is not grounds for removal that we don't much like the subject matter. As I say, I am not much interested and won't be researching or answering it, but because no one else has done so does not mean that they can't or won't. If it never gets answered then so be it, it happens sometimes, but I can't see that as grounds for removing it other than through normal archiving. SpinningSpark22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why is #2 not a RD question? There's some rumor about Obama- is there anything to it? (The big hoopla about that question seems to have been the provocative section heading, which was itself a quote from somebody who was spreading the rumor. That and the reply by BB.) Is there anything really wrong with the question? Would the question "Is Obama really a Muslim?" be appropriate? (I say of course it would.) Staecker (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, of course, if you treat this page like a talk page, and AGF, then you want to look for the dime in the rubbish and make out that question. But that's precisely what I mean by "Treat this page more like an article". As Dweller wrote "Consider: would it be OK if someone posted here saying they'd heard someone refer to "Nigger X" or "Slitty-eyed Y" and asking if it were justified?" We don't have to keep such rubbish. — Sebastian19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with Dweller's note, but didn't want to answer him on the RD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Pharoah" and "Semite" are not ethnic slurs, not anywhere near as offensive as "Nigger" or "Slitty-eyed". Are these terms even offensive at all? (The implication that Obama has various secret agendas about Islam and Judaism is offensive, but that's another issue.) Staecker (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not the politics but that (1) there's no way we can divine the "real motive" behind Howard Schmidt's appointment as Cyber-Security Czar, (2) we know even less whether that "real motive" was to eavesdrop on Islamic culture, and (3) if that in fact were the (fuzzily-expressed) motive, no one who was in a real position to know (e.g. at the White House, the NSA, the NSC, the CIA or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) would blurt it out here. A free society and a free world thrive on free discussion and a free press, so there are many places to argue this point out and share theories and conclusions; but Wikipedia, with its anonymous contributors, neutral point of view, distaste for prognostication and advocacy, and commitment to sound sourcing (in practice at the Ref desks, when you don't have a 3rd-party peer-reviewed Reliable Source, at least something tangible and definite rather than vague and speculative), is not the place for it. Don't delete the question, but explain very early why we can't answer it. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the question may be hard to answer, but it's not inconceivable. If the rumor is true, then there would probably be some reliable sources for us to cite. The only problem is that it's a nonsense rumor with nothing substantial to back it up (I assume). But it's still a reasonable question, which we can answer with "there is nothing to substantiate the rumors". Staecker (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shakescene just made an interesting point[5]: "[T]he answer to the Humpty Dumpty question (a fall guy or scapegoat) turned out to be non-trivial [...].", meaning that we need to be careful and not just blindly tell the user to look up our existing article. I agree with that; it is in the human nature to be quick in dismissing something we don't understand. There is a indeed a chance that that could backfire if we allowed it to everyone. But these are details that I am sure we can solve (e.g. with moderators) if we agree that it's worth making this change of how we see the page. — Sebastian08:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to original post) I would like to make two points here. Firstly treating the ref desk as an article is a bad metaphor as it could easily be misunderstood - there are many things that are done to articles which we would not want to be done to ref desk answers. Secondly, I disagree that removal of inappropriate material should be restricted to approved moderators, that is elitist and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It is also unnecessary, the vast majority of such removals are done by the regulars anyway, rarely does a newbie touch such things, and the odd mistake can be quickly rectified. SpinningSpark14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't exaggerate. Nobody proposed to "treat the ref desk as an article"; that would be absurd. Currently, we are treating it as a talk page, which is obviously causing problems. It doesn't have to be either one or the other, we can decide to take the most appropriate from each. — Sebastian19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides deleting, there is more we can learn from articles. Who says we can't edit what someone else wrote here? A good example is Baseball Bugs' edit of the infamous headline, for which I applaud him. Maybe we should also allow editing posts? If we just added "Edited by ~~~~" then I don't see a problem with that. And I'm not just thinking of weird posts by SPUs. If I replied here with a complicated post, and you saw a way to provide the same answer with half the words, then I wouldn't mind if you did that with my answer, instead of adding yet another text that makes the whole thing harder to read. My point is: Let's use the advantages of wiki collaboration for this page - that's our strength! — Sebastian19:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with editing other peoples posts. You're just opening the door for confusion, people editing bits they personally don't agree with instead of actually writing why they don't agree, spelling "corrections" that are wrong because the person "correcting" didn't understand the context, a mess of "edited by" type messages all over the place that you end up not knowing where one persons post ends and the editing by another person began etc. The only way that could work is if you abolished signatures on the desks entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.43 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 December 2009
Fully agree with that, it is just not acceptable anywhere to change the text of something that has been signed. And I see you have taken your own suggestion and not signed your post:) @Sebastian, I have exaggerated nothing, I was merely responding to your own title and opening sentences, this is a bad way to describe what you are proposing. I have not anywhere said you are proposing something you are not. SpinningSpark20:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there is still too much focus on those who respond to questions and not enough focus on those who post questions, commonly referred to as the "OP." Many problems can be resolved if we undertake an attitude of engaging the OP in a minimal degree of dialogue as a first step to responding to any question that is problematic in any way. We have the responsibility not only of providing responses, but maintaining the atmosphere that we think best for the desks. That involves interaction. Before a question can be responded to in earnest it sometimes has to be restated in a way that reflects the atmosphere that the regular reference desk people feel is the ideal atmosphere. Let's get back to the incident that set us off on this tangent. It was a question titled, "Pharaoh Obama and Semite Schmidt." Right away that question, including and especially the title, should have been cleaned up. It would be my contention that it should be cleaned up in dialogue with the OP, not unilaterally. And it should really not be responded to until it reaches a state that is deemed acceptable to regular ref desk people. This could be done in a perfectly pleasant and polite way. The OP would be advised to select a title that is less colorful and less opinionated. In a polite way it could be explained that a wide range of people read these desks and we don't want to alienate anyone. It could be explained that if you want an accurate answer you don't want to express an opinion in the wording of your question or in the title chosen. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great idea to get the OP to clean up their question, but it just isn't going to work for the same reason that not responding to trolling doesn't work. You have no way of controlling everybody and if the question is left up while you discuss a rewording with the OP someone will answer it anyway. You may well not succeed in getting the question changed at all - a lot of questions seem to be hit and run, the OP seemingly never returns. So how long are you going to leave it up? an hour, a day? Someone will respond and then it's too late to change the question and you are faced with either leaving it up or deleting it along with good faith replies. SpinningSpark00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "hit and run", there's no obligation of the OP to say thanks to the responders. That doesn't mean the OP never checks back to see if the question was answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.127 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that. I was referring to the many cases where an OP is asked to clarify but never does and is apparently not watching the page. There are also frequent requests to reply by e-mail which indicates the OP does not even intend to watch the page. SpinningSpark19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Also, even the cases where no clarification is needed support Spinningspark's point that we can't rely on OP to clean up their question. While there's no law that says that you have to thank others, it is customary in human society, and indeed among many animals, to show some gratitude. That that is relatively rare here seems to support Spinningspark's point. But maybe newbie OPs just aren't comfortable editing here. That gives me a crazy idea: How about if we wrote something like the following when we feel a question has been answered: "If you feel this answered your question, how about a small donation?" — Sebastian21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huge no on the donation thing, we're not here to do the foundations fundraising, and frankly I find the banners atop every page large and unnecessarily cumbersome - we don't need to add more spam. But putting a suggestion in the guidelines that letting the desk know if their question was answered satisfactory is a positive thing, again no commitment to doing it, but a friendly reminder that it's nice to know if we've helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.127 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ref Desk is not an article, since all contributors are expected to sign their posts. It is more like a discussion page. The people who find none of Bugs' posts funny would likely have found none of the humor of the Marx brothers to be funny. People have very different senses of humor. Occasional and on-point humor is a welcome part of reading the Reference Desk, for me. I have found humor to be part of a college research lab, part of journal editing, and part of the engineering workplace. In any of those venues, there were some people who were offended by any form of humor, and who wanted things to be dead serious all the time. Some of the brightest and most productive scientists and engineers had a wicked sense of humor. Richard Feynman is a shining example. See Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. See also Spherical cow. I am not offended by some humor, as long as it does not bite or ridicule the OP, and as long as it does not get in the way of answering serious questions. But the Ref Desk should not morph into Open Mic Night at The Comedy Club. Edison (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One method of correcting excess offtopic humor would be to collapse it so it takes a click to view it. That would be far preferable to any banning. Contributors should exercise some filtering; for any pun in an answer I have posted, there are at least 10 that were stifled. I want to mention Isaac Asimov as another noted science writer who frequently had a humorous touch. Edison (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A technological fix could be a voting system, where, like the comments on YouTube videos, if particular answers get more thumbs-down votes than thumbs-up votes, the answer is automatically collapsed, but viewable by clicking it. Bugs's unreferenced opinions and witticisms would get voted out of the page on a casual viewing, but visible for the curious. But who's got the time to implement anything like that. I'm leaning toward more latitude for editors just removing offtopic answers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us are likely to get royally pissed off if someone else simply deletes an answer we posted that they judge to be "off-topic." The "topic" may include issues the OP did not consider, due to the limited understanding of the issues involved. Often this would lead to a misleading and unencyclopedic response. Any removal at least calls for a posting on the talk page of the contributor whose post was removed, and preferably a posting here of the coment judged "off topic." Then the community would have the option to restore it. Edison (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A common occurrence is that an OP posts some sort of a question. It is provocative. It is designed to polarize people. Or offend a group. But is is borderline reasonable. And then they don't participate in the ensuing mess. My proposal is that engagement is the correct approach. The OP should not be allowed to be the tail that wags the dog. This is a common pattern. Questions of a lightly problematic nature are posed — and then there is no further participation from that OP. The reference desk people are left to argue among themselves.
Initial responders need simply pose a question to the OP asking for clarification or restatement or reframing of question. If the OP does not respond that is an indication that any responses that anyone may choose to give should be tempered by the possibility that the question being posed is more for the purpose of causing a reaction than for the purpose of genuinely getting an answer. Sorry — I know I'm repeating myself. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out technical issues you feel are relevant even if they weren't directly asked by the OP
IMHO I agree with APL here. Ariel is right that fiber-reinforced polymer is a better name but our article itself makes clear early on it's commonly called fibreglass. If Ariel read the fibreglass article and/or understood this already then I would suggest a better answer would have been "fibreglass properly only refers to stuff that is just glass, you're probably thinking of fibre reinforced polymer which is common called fibreglass but which has resin in between the fibres and comes in boards and panels" or something of that sort since that's far more helpful to the OP and question answerers Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why correct the person at all when they are communicating effectively and properly using the common name of a substance? With the mention of "Resin" it was 100% clear to everyone what was meant. It's not as if the linked articles answered the question. APL (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the common name is confusing or even inaccurate I don't see anything wrong with pointing this out in a polite manner regardless of whether it's clear what the OP means, unless it's clear the OP is already aware. E.g.
someone wants to know what's the largest tidal wave caused by underwater seismic activity there's no harm pointing out that the correct name would be a tsunami.
someone says they want a list of red fruit but not vegetables like tomatoes there's no reason why you should point out that in biological terms a tomato is a fruit if the OP doesn't make it clear they understand that.
someone says that they know that whales of the species that Free Willy is eat fish and other animals, but do they eat seaweed sometimes in the wild too there's no reason why you can't point Killer Whales aren't whales even if it's obvious that's what the OP is referring to.
someone wants to know whether there are any current plans to send probes to Pluto, the furtherst and smallest planet in our solar system, the's no harm in pointing out Pluto is no longer considered a planet by modern International Astronomical Union definitions.
someone says that Pakistan has now recognised Hijras as a distinct sex, is there any other country that similarly has at least 3 different social categories for sex, there's no harm in pointing out that gender is usually the preferred term for the social categories.
Before anyone brings it up I admit none of these are that great comparisons which is why I chose so many. I'm sure there are better ones (i.e. terms in common non technical use which can cause confusion because of similarities to something else which uses the name and with an arguably better alternative name) but I couldn't rememeber any. Anyway IMHO these sufficiently illustrate the point. Even if it's clear what the OP is asking, there's no harm in trying to politely and civilly help the OP learn, which should hopefully what all OPs are here for (and many contributors aside).
It is wise to avoid long discussions. These shouldn't be necessary in most cases since if you disagree that's your right, but provided the answerer provided accurate information to enable the OP to make an informed decision there's usually no need for further response, although I admit it does happen and I've probably participated in it before. And also unwise to do it simply to debate or dispute the choice of terminology (so for example if Trovatore asks about fruit or Pluto, there's definitely no reason to point it out). I know some feel such discussions should only take place after the question has been sufficiently answered but that's IMHO unnecessary. Some OPs can get annoyed particularly if they were already aware but if you keep discussion down and are polite that should be sufficient for most OPs. And if it isn't then there's no reason why those OPs should take preference over other OPs and contributors.
The best way to bring up such points, if you're not just being pedantic (try looking for a tomato in a market's fruit section) or acting superior (the great ignorant public like you may still harbour the foolish illusion that there are nine planets, but we in the Expert Panel of course know better), is just as an additional guide to the enquirer's own search and research. And for those purposes, one could indicate if necessary (even more informally) the prevailing if incorrect understanding ("Try searching under 'vegetable disease tomato blight', 'planet Pluto' or 'Victoria House Windsor'". —— Shakescene (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I already say that? (I would suggest a better answer would have been "fibreglass properly only refers to stuff that is just glass, you're probably thinking of fibre reinforced polymer which is common called fibreglass but which has resin in between the fibres and comes in boards and panels" or something of that sort). I'm not disagreeing with the notion Ariel's may not have handled this well/there are better ways to word a reply, simply disagreeing with APL's idea that it's not acceptable to help the OP understand that a term is either confusing or incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here (I suspect) is that the word has two meanings (as I pointed out at the time) - and I believe there may be local dialect differences in how they are used. Ariel wasn't strictly right because the word IS used both ways - APL corrected that. I tried to clear up that confusion by invoking some kind of a reference (Wiktionary). What I disliked was that neither of them made any effort to actually answer the OP's question. So I explained about the resin and UV damage - which really is all that needed to be said. That should have been the end of the thread...what happened after that didn't add any value - and if it had to be said, should have been said here. Not really a big deal though. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell did scsbot do?
Check out the diff. I only noticed the situation in the Humanities desk as it completely removed my answer. Will check the other desks if I get a moment. Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the normal answer would be "no", but "undo" is not allowed due to the intervening edits. Need help from someone more wiki-savvy than myself. Matt Deres (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think everything is back where it should be. Only the Humanities desk was affected and I was able to copy/paste the missing text from an old version. I don't think I removed anything or otherwise made the mess worse, but others may want to check my edit. Matt Deres (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you make five edits in a row to a single talk page topic and you're the only one taking part, does that qualify you for anything? ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it just tells you that most regulars pretend not to be reading when they notice a request for help at archiving or other such tasks. Good on you for sorting it. Have a Wikicommons Yule log to sustain you in your efforts. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I'm not sure how that happened (looks like an interrupted transfer), and I don't know why none of the double-checks caught it. Thanks for fixing, Matt. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. If you're already planning some debugging, I'll just mention that it also failed to create December 29 date divisions on the Language and Science desks, but did create them properly on the other desks. Certainly not a big problem, but I figured you'd want to know. Matt Deres (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal and I'm happy to fix it when I see it. I only mention it because, as someone who spends his day fixing errors, I know that the toughest ones are the ones you don't know about. Matt Deres (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incomprehensible posts on the Language Desk
I am concerned about posts being made by Mihkaw napéw on the Language Desk. At best, they tend to be incomprehensible, such as this edit. At worst, they are misleading. For example, we often get questions on the Language Desk from non-native speakers of English about grammatically correct usage. Mihkaw sometimes offers himself as an authority on English usage when it seems clear that he himself struggles with the language. This edit is an example. My concern is that non-native speakers will not be able to recognize Mihkaw's sometimes weak command of English and will accept his incorrect answers. Is there anything to be done about this? Marco polo (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern. The user in question has made 164 edits as of this writing, of which 147 are on the Language desk and the rest are either user-page or language-related. I have only read a smattering of their posts, but have not yet found one that was both correct and clear enough to make out. In general we try to self-police by noting errors in subsequent replies - and that seems to be taking place - but it confuses the questioner and takes time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps a note on the talk page would be in order. Matt Deres (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't believe Mihkaw contributes anything of value to the reference desk or the project as a whole (as anyone who's seen me around here probably already knows), but at the same time he's not really breaking any rules, so I can't think of anything formal that could be done. I've just started trying to ignore him. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt Deres: I agree with your assessment of the situation. Normally, it's fine to self-police responses (and, besides, people using the desk should already understand that the answers are not reliable), but with Mihkaw the discussions seem to often get quite off-track, distracting from the original question, and in any case it's not desirable to have to have a big correction session every time someone asks a question. (I don't know if other discussions with Mihkaw are getting long and off-track, but I know most of the ones I participated in did). That being said, I don't think any of his behavior is bad enough that we could "ban" him from the reference desk, and with that off the table I don't know what else could be done. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just a question of his command of English not being as good as he thinks it is. He's _trying_ to help (IMO, WP:AGF, and that), and he appears to know the theory - he just doesn't know the language. But, let's wait for his input before taking any further steps. Tevildo (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he also doesn't understand a lot of the linguistics that he professes to (particularly with regards to phonetics and phonology). But there's no expertise requirement for participation at the reference desk, so again it's not like he's breaking a rule or anything. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Mihkaw napéw's command of Plains Cree isn't that good either, since "mihkaw", according to that page, is the inanimate form. BTW, I have already proposed a solution for this sort of problem above, so I won't repeat it here. — Sebastian07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP OP said he understood what everyone said. Maybe we could get the OP to explain Mikhaw's comment to us, since we (or I, anyway) can't make head or tail of it. In general, rather than censoring, I think it would be better, when Mikhaw throws a lot of big words out there, to ask him what he's getting at. I've known folks whose spoken English was pretty good yet their written English was like Mikhaw's. Maybe he just needs to be asked to use words of 2 syllables or less. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to the word "censoring". Editing pages is the basic idea of a wiki, and that naturally includes deletion of material that doesn't belong. Please read the warning you get each time you write something here: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." It's that simple. — Sebastian20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you or I are read something by Mikhaw that doesn't make sense to us, should be summarily delete it? Or is it better to ask, "What are you talking about?" or more bluntly, "You've got it wrong." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. From what has been said here so far, nobody finds Mikhaw's monologues helpful, and Mikhaw shows no intention to improve them, so anyone who just deletes such a post will save the rest of us, including the OPs, from wasting more time. — Sebastian06:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, my friends Bnna, and Crett, who are in fast-print clouds which translate certain things and texts within shortest times, said recently that you the people who confuse things purposely, because you do not want readers like they to get things straight easily. They want to do the same kinds of things in their free times as you people do, and they are interested in these kinds of edits and upgrading their skills to standards.
Personally, I also usually read everyone’s edits, and I cannot say that anyone’s English is completely free from any grammatical errors; everyone have few errors in their edits that are usually not detectable by ear-toned conventions. The problem many of you might have is that not knowing or stetting aside the position of readers as learners for many reasons--perhaps a) too skilled but interested only in play, b) too skilled but interested in only in misleading, c) too skilled but not interested in other things but in idiosyncrasy, d) many other reasons.
On my user name, yes, it is correct—means ‘an unanimated red man’. It can be an irony or a meaning (though not completely correct). I do have some attachment to it. However, this is useless for others literarily, because such portrait in usernames may or may not have meanings.
Now to come to your concerns directly, my reply to your concerns is simply that my edits are nothing for your considerations, but you could have done correcting my errors (if there are any) in informative ways and as tools for communication. I edit things that I have been taught by my elders. Though I have had very less use of public services (educational institutions) to be competitive like you people in these areas, my edits are no-nonsense or misleading. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, maybe it's the opposite problem. Maybe you know English way much better than we who are native speakers, and you're leaving us in the dust. But given that, there's a good chance you're leaving the OP in the dust also. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In communication, being way ahead of the pack is equivalent to being way behind the pack. There are parts of Mihkaw's post that have left me scratching my head: who are in fast-print clouds, detectable by ear-toned conventions, my edits are nothing for your considerations. Then, my edits are no-nonsense or misleading - I agree with the latter, not so sure about the former. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mihkaw, this is not the first time you have accused RD editors of deliberately "misleading" you, and you have never offered any evidence or diffs to support it. Unless you can back up these accusations, you should stop.
As for whether people's messages here have "grammatical errors"...the issue in your posts is not grammatical errors. The issue is that it is difficult to discern the ideas you're trying to express, as you often fail to put thoughts together well. On top of that, you often say things that are outright wrong, and refuse to listen when people try to correct you. If there were just a few grammar or spelling errors, we would be able to understand you. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mihkaw, please. Your English is not good enough for the Ref Desk. For that matter, it's not good enough for intelligible communication with a native speaker. Until you grasp that simple fact, we're not going to be able to have a meaningful discussion. Of course, we're happy to help you _improve_ your English, but you need to appreciate that it _needs_ improving. Tevildo (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tevildo means that your English is not good enough for you to be answering questions about English grammar and usage on the Ref Desk. You are fairly capable of getting your meaning across, and I'm sure you could ask and answer questions helpfully in other areas of your expertise. Your fluency just isn't quite at an appropriate level for you to be answering as an expert in the English language. Staecker (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a response to your request. I've - shall we say - completed the translation process for your post.
Interestingly, my friends Bnna, and Crett, who are in fast-print clouds which translate certain things and texts within [the shortest time? very short times?], said recently that you are the people who confuse things on purpose, because you do not want readers like them to get things straight easily. They want to do the same kinds of thing in their free time as you people do, and they are interested in these kinds of edits and in upgrading their skills to higher standards.
Personally, I also usually read everyone’s edits, and I cannot say that anyone’s English is completely free from any grammatical errors; everyone has a few errors in their edits that are usually not detectable by [ear-toned conventions?] [I honestly have no idea what you mean by this expression]. The problem many of you might have is lack of knowledge, or ignoring the position of learner readers for many reasons--perhaps you are a) too skilled but interested only in play, b) too skilled but interested in only in misleading, c) too skilled but not interested in anything other than idiosyncrasy, d) many other reasons. [Anacolulthon, but comprehensible].
On my user name, yes, you are correct — it means ‘an unanimated red man’. It can be ironic or an [accurate? literal?] meaning (though not completely correct). I do have some attachment to it. However, this is literally useless for others, because such portraits in usernames may or may not have meanings.
Now to address your concerns directly, my reply to your concerns is simply that my edits are [not worthy of your consideration? none of your concern?] [I don't think either of those alternatives captures what you want to say], but you could have corrected my errors (if there are any) in informative ways and as tools for communication. I edit things that I have been taught by my elders. Though I have had much less use of public services (educational institutions) to be competitive with you people in these areas, my edits are neither nonsense nor misleading.
Now, I hope that you can see (at least) how much more work you need to do on your English skills, and why your suggestion that we correct your postings isn't reasonable. Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. See Cloud computing. Basically, take what you want to be translated, send it to 200 Ruritanian students each with a 1924 Ruritanian-English dictionary, and average the results. An experimental disproof of the Chinese room paradox. :) Tevildo (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be some area of the fast/quick printing business that requires translation. I.E. they receive the document, translate it in minutes or hours then it gets sent to print. The clouds I guess means it's a business with several or many people, each person translates a document and then moves on to the next one, sort of like the way tech support and stuff works. Perhaps there's a secondary proof reader who checks the translation but definitely they aim for speed with understandable results rather then accuracy or language quality and are likely somewhat in between a machine translation and a high quality professional translation Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observe and learn, little ones, from what Tevildo has shown here. The Wise one welcomes correction, knowing that it is the golden path to perfection, while a Fool only defends its ignorance.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time to bite the bullet, folks. What, if anything, are we to do about this? Mihkaw, this edit is both wrong and incomprehensible. I would support a simple deletion of it - or we can go to a formal RFC if we have to. Tevildo (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is why this scheme is not going to work. Mihkaw just undid my deletion of it, and I assume that is going to happen every time we delete; he undid Sebastian, too. The problem is, how do we set an objective standard for what counts as gibberish? We can't, so even when we think something is gibberish, Mihkaw is going to contest it and be all like "it's not gibberish, it's great".
The alternative? Ban him from replying to threads on this page. He would still be allowed to post his own questions, like this, but responses he makes to other peoples' questions would be removed without comment. We can start an RFC/U to implement this, I assume. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this, which seems awfully close to censorship. But if he insists on reposting his gibberish rather than making any attempt to work with anybody else in making it intelligible, I'll support initiating the process. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is already doing that, though. And several people in the thread above already said that RDers should be more proactive about removing unconstructive posts; almost none of Mihkaw's posts are ever constructive, and a good number are actually counterproductive. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that WP:RFC/U requires that at least two editors have made a real attempt to resolve the matter on the subject's talk page, and I'm not sure that this has happened yet. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we make it official, we need evidence of _failure_ to resolve the situation by mutual consent. I consider that the matter has been adequately brought to Mihkaw's attention - if he continues to make disruptive replies (not implying that he's being _deliberately_ disruptive, of course), then we can initiate the formal process. But only if he continues to do so - let's hope that he now understands the position, and formal procedures won't be necessary. Tevildo (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that's puzzling is the statement "wrong and incomprehensible". If it can be determined that it's wrong, then it's not incomprehensible. Maybe the thing to do is to keep the focus on the questioner. If Mikhaw says something that's wrong or incomprehensible, then rebut the comment by telling the OP, "Mikhaw has it wrong" or "Mikhaw's response makes no sense". If he exhibits an accelerating pattern of disruption, and refuses to engage in dialogue, take him to WP:ANI and let the admins deal with it. If they won't, then start an RFC. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - parts of the offending post were wrong ("these sentences have no grammatical errors"), and parts were incomprehensible ("the second clause (an agent less passive) must follow a comma"). There is a well-known quote - "Your manuscript is both original and good, but the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good" - that I was thinking of adapting, but it didn't really work. :) Tevildo (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People (not every one) do have habits in healing their ego by frustrating others in creative ways. However, one can always add a new comment to OP or comments to other posters; any good information is reading worthy. So no one should have this kind of feeling for this kind of thing; there isn’t any scarcity. This is one of my hobbies (like every academicians), and of course, I cannot edit if my ID is blocked. However, I can understand some of your feeling. I also felt the same way when someone said that I was wrong. It hit little bit though I am [was] in a safest position to public embarrassment. If many of you are in highest positions, it is not difficult to understand such feelings. I do not know what else to say, other than ‘it is not really worthy of your effort’; there are many ways to self expressions and self-realizations. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to remember is that OP's can be assumed to be basically intelligent. If they can't make sense out of a putative answer, or if the putative answer is obviously wrong, they're just going to ignore it. We don't have to try to "protect" them with a bunch of heavyhanded after-the-fact management of answers. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think people may get frustrated, particularly if it's the only reply or think it's important and are trying to make sense of it but can't. More to the point, it seems easily possible people may not be aware when something is wrong. By definition people asking for help obviously don't know something. And with the RD/L both are perhaps even worse since people may think it's their fault they can't understand the post and could easily learn poor English and wrong things because they came here to learn. Note that I'm going solely by what I've read since although I'm a native English speaker, my understanding of the details of language are limited so I don't know if what Mihkaw napéw is saying is wrong and although I can see the bad English some of the stuff looks like the kind of thing that someone explaining a language thing would say (i.e. I don't know enough to know it's incomprehensible). Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that a portion of Hanlon's razor applies here. Whether to us or to Mikhaw, could be debated. On the other hand, I don't see any linguistic experts really standing up for him. So either (1) he frequently gets it wrong; or (2) we don't have any linguistics experts. From what I've seen from at least some of the contributions, I think it's safe to say the second possibility is false. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Re the title of this section "This is not working": Don't give up so easily! This is nothing new. We have seen thousands of revert warriors here, but Wikipedia is still working. "Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." — Sebastian18:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after he kept revert warring just after an explicit warning along the lines of my previous post here.
I realize it would have been better if I had announced that here. Thank you for doing that, and for your support in this matter. — Sebastian21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to see that things have taken this course, but having raised the concern, I agree that we need to do something. I guess this is the least bad solution, so I support it. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that everyone is working with full information, may I mention that Mihkaw requested to continue on my User talk page (which see) one of the earlier grammar correction threads arising from a different OP's OP (heh!). I felt this was inappropriate and declined, in part because my expertise in English is as a well-educated mother-tongue speaker and reader with specific training and experience in copy editing, but my academic knowledge of current grammatical terms and concepts is about 40 years out of date.
My impression (which may be quite wrong) is that Mihkaw has a good deal of literal 'book learning' about English grammar, but little exposure to an active spoken-native-English milieu, without which correct and colloquial English is almost impossible to perfect. I can understand his desire to improve his English language skills, but it seems to me that attempting to do so both by attempting to answer others' RefDesk queries, and by seeking direct tuition on a user's talk page, is not Wikipediatically appropriate. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year
Sorry for the late message but happy new year everyone! Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (NZDT; UTC+13)
I don't think you have to worry about the message being late, Nil, considering most readers are at least 13 hours behind you! After all, eight-and-a-half hours after your late post, I still have almost nine hours left until the new year... —Akrabbimtalk20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It feels odd to be signing my post with a 31 December 2009 date and time. I've already had my NYE party, slept, and am now making my first edits of 2010 at 9:49 a.m. on 1 January. But what the hell: May 2010 be memorable for everybody, and for all sorts of good reasons. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15 minutes into the new decade here. Hoping for a better one than the one that has ceased to be, that has expired and gone to meet its maker, the ex-decade without a name. Cheers, everyone. --NorwegianBluetalk... 00:15 01 January 2010.
Just got back in from watching the fireworks. Happy New Year to one and all. Now history can start determining what name the previous decade should definitively be known by... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would make a Bugs-style crack about how painful it would be to ring yourself or I've only ever rung my hands, but my immediate preceding edit was to The Ring Two so I'm too creeped out right now and I have to put duct tape over the TV set. Best wishes and let's all resolve to get this encyclopedia finished in the next year! :) Franamax (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, best of luck with that one, Franamax. But, what on earth would we all do if there were nothing else left to do on WP? Actually find a life, perhaps? No, no, that's too horrible to contemplate. ") -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we could just get the 'cyclo done we could devote more time to our true mission here, which is endlessly finding fault with each other. ;) Franamax (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A dear friend once paid me the lovely compliment that, despite my apparently nerd-like ways, I lead a "rich inner life". Nothing truer was ever said. External stuff - phooey! The insides of things - that's where it's at. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we somehow got the encyclopedia finished, we'd just start another one from scratch. It's been 2010 for 46 minutes now where I am (and UTC says I've reverted five acts of vandalism already this year), but I hope I'm not too late in wishing everyone the best of years ahead. Matt Deres (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new year, as well as a new decade. Change is to be appreciated. Scroll down and read the entire next section, then read my post on the Main Page talk. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neptunerover
User:Neptunerover seems to be using the Refdesk in an attempt to push his theories regarding the Big Bang and gravity. Helpfully, he's summarised them on a subpage. Twice now he's caused rather large (and ultimately purposeless) debates regarding his theories. Is there anything to be done? Vimescarrot (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble AGF with this user. The account is fairly new, and has a number of edits in article space. These seem to me to be nearly all pointless minor wording changes. That is behaviour known to be sometimes used by returning disruptive editors who wish to build up a "background" on a new clean account. I intend to treat this user as a troll and have posted an appropriate warning on their user page. SpinningSpark12:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the comments at the end of the thread (diff). We shouldn't diagnose our questioners as cranks, it looks ugly on the refdesk, and could discourage others from asking good faith questions. --NorwegianBluetalk10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does calling the OP a Crank add value to a thread?
User:Dauto reverted my removal of the comments at the end of the thread, which I deemed to be off-topic, and easily perceived as ridiculing the original poster. I therefore move them here:
He appears to be accepting the flaws in his hypothesis thanks to Gandalf61's reply. Cranks will vociferously deny that their hypothesis is wrong even when shown evidence is against it. I do find the non-sequitir worrying though (but we aren't allowed to make diagnoses on the ref desk). --Mark PEA (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post a concise and convincing response on this matter. But I don't have time today, so I'll try to do that tomorrow. ~AH1(TCU)02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if the OP is a troll, we should not be feeding him with comments like these. If the OP is not a troll, we should be more polite. Whatever the motives of the OP may be, comments like these do not belong on the reference desk. If someone were genuinely interested in whether the OP previously had been called a crank, the question should have been asked on the OP's talk page. --NorwegianBluetalk21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that. I can't think of any circumstance where mocking someone like this would be productive. I found it tempting, but at the end of the day, the more you taunt them, the more they're likely to come back, and why would you want that? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've noticed that the smartest people often have the most trouble ignoring trolls. I read and posted on rec.sport.baseball for years and frankly got fed up - not with the trolling, which most people learn to ignore after a little while on usenet, but with otherwise exceedingly intelligent posters taking the bait again and again and again. To paraphrase Thoreau, it takes two to troll. Matt Deres (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First let me thank you for implying that I'm smart. I just want to point out that that's the second time that neptunerover has posted that question in a few days. We pointed out why his ideas don't work but he still came back with the same crazy question again. I think a change of strategy is appropriate. He clearly wants to talk about he's non-sense model. I wouldn't give it the light of day anymore and just keep telling him his a crank (which he is). Or at least tell him that his model is a cranky model (to avoid personal attack). He might be put off and leave. Dauto (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving those comments here. I've visited Neptunerover's userpage and Theory of Everything article a few times now over the past 24 hours, and with the constant changes he is making (and - as I mentioned earlier - non-sequitir), I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He might be a talented person if he were to apply himself correctly, but at the moment the things he is typing just render him as an eccentric (where as in his head it probably all makes perfect sense). --Mark PEA (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that Mark PEA pointing out his Theory of Everything userpage did add value to the Refdesk, in that it illuminates where he's coming from, for the benefit of the answerers; and it also illuminated the low likelihood that the guy is going to do some reading and math in order to move away from the XKCD cartoon linked in the thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the XKCD thing, that process no longer works, and the reason why is mentioned in my !vote within the MfD for the OP's "Theory of Everything" page. By the way, I was going to post a convincing response, but I have no time today again. But first of all, we are not linguisticpsychologists, are we? Therefore we cannot simply assume that the OP is a crank just because his argument does not fit the current scientific theory. Some people are keen to assume, but this does not nessecarily work. However, if the OP is making unsourced additions to articles, then the article should be monitored, and any detailed disruptive additions deleted and moved to the talk page. But I am seeing that the Wikipedia community is struggling after the past year, so if we want to do better than a few things may need to change. I might post my "response" eventually, but just FYI, here is something I posted that offers a parallel discussion to this topic, and remember that with this particular topic (calling someone a crank), I am able to make more directly relavent points, though not today. This comment may seem a little bit tangential, but sometimes the tangent goes around the universe and back to the circle. However, this assumes that the universe is closed, round and non-infinite, not flat or saddle-shaped. But that's yet another tangent. So it often helps to think outside the box, but what if the box is three dimensional, four dimensional, five dimensional...or even eleven-dimensions? Often, making a self-evident argument does not immediately cause someone to be a "crank". Some skeptics even call Wikipedia a crank. So while we need rigorous standards so we don't end up making Wikipedia look bad, there is still a near-infinite number of topics we could write about, though not an infinite number of users. Endless debate when a new theory is introduced sometimes produces not a solution, but this. Assumption causes this, and since we it is more difficult to assume anything about an OP over the Internet, that's probably not nessecary. So while Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor intended for advocacy, sometimes it happens in a way that does not break the rules. Anybody remember the time an OP asked us a question for street directions on the reference desk, and it worked? That's thinking outside the box. By the way, I was also going to ask for a separate reference desk for topics such as psychology, philosophy, paradoxes etc, but I'll make my case for that later. Please take this into consideration. It's a new decade, after all. (Warning: might even be a little too convincing, although this is not the point I was trying to make earlier on the reference desk before the discussion moved here, although it is an analogy.) Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)02:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes somewhat glossed over and I stopped reading when I reached the part of thinking outside the box. Therefore I don't really know what you're point is but wikipedians as editors by and large shouldn't be thinking outside the box as editors. Personally I have a variety of words for people who come up with wacky theories particular those so full of holes as this one apparently was (I didn't read it myself but I do trust those who did far more then the person who came up with it), but won't mention them because of WP:NPA and WP:Civil although suffice to say, crank seems to me to be one of the friendlier words to use although I obviously agree it's best to avoid it. Regardless, whatever you want to call such people, if they come to wikipedia to push their theories, be they in articles, their user pages or in the RD, they need to be told to stop and if they don't it needs to be enforced. As I hinted at in another post in relation to this, and have said often in other cases, there are plenty of places that would welcome such 'theories', but wikipedia isn't one of them. I find it highly unlikely any reputable theory will be first proposed or successful dissemated primarily via wikipedia and allow people to attempt to do so will just achieve the opposite i.e. make wikipedia be even less likely to be seen as a useful resource. Ultimately wikipedia sides with the WP:RS since that's the way it's designed, so if editors think the WP:RS are "cranks" then they definitely should think of wikipedia as a "crank" as you seemed to mention. In some ways it should be a badge of honour since it shows we're doing our jobs properly and wikipedia is never going to be that welcoming to those sort of people. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the thrust of Nil's point above (and also admit that I gave up caring about whatever point AH1 was going for about a third of the way in...). Insulting the guy probably did no good, but I agree that the questions devolved into something less than useless and there seems to be evidence that this was part of a set of questionable behaviour/actions, etc. Unlike being a creep (see thread below), using WP as a soapbox is explicitly against policy and should be dealt with. Matt Deres (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here (and perhaps the reason to apply the 'crank' label) is that this person thinks they are doing science by trotting out some random collection of science-sounding words. Equating gravity to time might be an interesting concept if it had come from the mind of someone who understood the current body of work on cosmology and had done some math or perhaps tied this to the results of some experiment or other. But this person says that he neither understands the existing body or work - nor is able to do any math. He has claimed to have written a book - doubtless some 'vanity press' kind of a thing. That is a sad thing. He clearly wants to make a contribution to science - but simply does not exhibit the skills to do so in any meaningful way. He might as well go around saying that energy should be equated with an octopus or that an elephant should be equated with the cosmic background radiation - without some kind of formal definition of what is meant by that - or why we should come to this conclusion, it's just techospeak babble. It's simply meaningless unless it relates to math or experiment or (perhaps) expands upon some existing, reliable proposition.
That someone has these ideas doesn't make him a crank. But when that someone refuses to understand that what they are doing is meaningless...that edges them much closer towards crank-hood. What makes WP:RDS contributors cease to AGF is that this person is blatantly using Wikipedia to push these crazy ideas - he's violating WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOTSOAPBOX as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST by creating sub-pages of his user account to push these ideas - and now he's abusing the Ref Desk to promote them by asking long non-questions in the hope of stirring up interest in these theories. So, crank or not-crank, troll or not-troll - this person is without doubt behaving inappropriately and should cease doing this or "the wrath of admins" will undoubtedly befall him. His behavior on the WP:MfD that is debating the removal of this material isn't helping much. He had a little support there - but it's vanishing fast as his behavior worsens. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the issue is not whether he is a crank (he probably is, but who cares), but whether this is just a misuse of the RefDesk, Wikipedia, etc. There are no rules against being a crank. You just can't use Wikipedia in crankish ways—promoting and testing out pet theories, etc. It's not the place for it. It wouldn't be so bad if the questions were a bit more sane and he wasn't so insistent on making a muddle of answers. But they are and he is and it's just not a proper use of the RefDesk as a result. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't X be a Y word: Proposed response
Given the history of this form of question, I propose each one be given the following stock response, and then not entertained further at all unless they come back with an answer:
First, you must explain to us why you believe it cannot be a <name of language> word. Until you tell us that, we cannot help you.
If the same IP asks the same form of question again, it should be removed on sight. From memory, none of the OPs have ever explained the basis of their assumptions, which makes this at least troll-like. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I deleted the latest question as nearly no one who responded appeared to think it was a genuine question (or if they did, didn't think it was a useful question). I did inform everyone who responded. I'm fine with some other method of response but deletion may prevent anyone who isn't aware of the history from responding and is hopefully uncontroversial Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who responded. It's my opinion that this person was playing a game with us, and just kept on asking the same question until we found him/her out. Which I did. If the question had remained, it's just possible this poster would have given up of his/her own accord, having been caught out. Poor Adam Malysz - denied his bit of fame on the WP RD! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Why can't X be a word in language Y?" questions surely have to stop. They are largely nonsensical and there is unlikely to be any reason why the OP should actually require an answer. IMHO, it is possible to answer all such questions with a single answer...something like: "There is no particular reason why any string of letters couldn't be a word in any language - unless either (a) the alphabet that the language is written in doesn't include some of those letters or (b) the language is formally regulated (as in French with the 'acadamie francaise' ruling on what is or is not a word with the force of law behind them)." - that done, we may reasonably delete any further questions of this form on sight because they are (essentially) duplicates. HOWEVER: The OP's questions on the other RD desks do not seem so terrible...particularly if we assume that this person (posting from Germany) is likely not a native English speaker. So by all means, delete these formulaic questions on sight - but until more evidence of deliberate trolling becomes evident, I don't think we should delete questions of any other nature from this OP. SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that stock answer is not quite correct, as the user is basically looking for answers about a given language's phonotactics. But in any case, the user is a troll and the RDL questions should just be removed on sight. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Firstly, the hamfisted way this has been handled makes me sick. Secondly, nothing that user did deserves a block. "Stalking" is entirely subjective, and the user at no point threatened violence. Simply keeping track of someone and trying to be part of their life isn't illegal anywhere as far as I'm aware. Cross-posting this at an/i. If this block is allowed to stand as it is, I've entirely lost faith in wikipedias administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want we should wait until it turns violent? The stuff he's talking about is the same pattern as your typical murderous stalker. Read about John Hinkley vs. Jodie Foster and see how that progressed. And his user page (now zapped) was all about "obsessive love". Not only no value to the wikipedia project, but also the police should be notified. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bullshit argument. The user did NOTHING to deserve a block. Being weird is not a crime. Anyone can turn violent at any point, should we block you because there's an off chance you might turn violent? No, of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. And regardless, blocking them does nothing to prevent violence in the real world, and in fact may very well lead to them becoming violent as they've been denied an outlet when they attempted to reach for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I have not seen the userpage, and while I do not condone the behavior of the subject of this discussion, I do not see any disruptive actions, which are what blocks are generally given for. Strange? Sure. Criminal? Unlikely. In either case, that falls outside of our purview. Googlemeister (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The post began with two mental-condition links (1), (2) and a sentence later throws in a sickly self-referential interpretation: "they...intentionally don't log in so they don't have to talk to me." If that didn't make it smell FAKE the voluminous babble that quickly followed (and the colour-crafted user page) confirmed it. It wants attention. WP:DENY it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, attention seeking maybe, but there's no evidence the persons behavior is being faked. Just because it's odd doesn't mean it's a troll.
I don't think it warranted a block, or getting hysterical. It warrants pointing out that what the person is describing would probably be considered scary and offensive by the recipient, and may violate a number of local laws. And that's about it. They may be nuts but that's not really our business. If they described a really horrible crime that was about to occur (or even something that was without doubt against the law), maybe we should think about reporting it (depends on the crime, in my opinion), but they haven't done that. The "stalking" behavior they've described is creepy but I'm not sure it would be considered illegal. RefDesk is not the place for this, in the end. I saw the user page and it didn't have much on it at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also didn't see the subpage (and don't particularly care to), so I can't comment on that content, but I don't think the postings I saw on the actual desks warranted any intervention at all, other than the commonsense advice about how badly they could be interpreted. FWIW, this guy was far from the first person to post a opinion question about unrequited "love" on the RefDesk. Matt Deres (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user's entire contributions as of a day or two ago, aside from the stalking question, was a pdf uploaded in November, called "Psycological [sic] profile", since deleted as "inappropriate", which had a flowchart about low self-esteem, social ineptitude, obsessive love, delusional disorder, paranoia, depression, addiction, and other cheery stuff. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has nobody brought up the Medical Disclaimer? The obvious response is to apply the medical disclaimer. Attempting to diagnose this individual, either as a healthy or unhealthy, is performing a psychiatric diagnosis. We do not do this on the reference desk. Direct the OP to the appropriate articles and inform them of our medical disclaimer, and encourage them to seek professional counseling if they need diagnosis. Posting psychiatric symptoms and asking "is this normal" is exactly the same as if they posted photographs of a wounded limb and asked if it was serious. We do not diagnose medical and psychiatric conditions no matter how "obvious" anything may seem to us. I removed this question and applied our RD-med template. Nimur (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again – the medical advice crew. That question was not a request for medical advice, and any response to it would not have been a medical diagnosis. --Richardrjtalk email15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of Psychiatry states: "Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders." Do you disagree? The OP asked whether his/her behavior and emotional/mental state was normal and healthy. That is an explicit request for psychiatric diagnosis. Nimur (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No she didn't, she asked for moral guidance and society's/respondents' views on whether or not her proposed behaviour was morally acceptable. That's a request for opinion, no more and no less. Opinion-based questions are strictly outside the remit of these desks, but they tend to get viewed in a relaxed way. I've asked, and answered, a few myself. --Richardrjtalk email15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I point out the parallel hypothetical example. If she posted a photograph of her injured leg, and then asked for moral and societal opinions on whether the leg were wounded or normal, we would not answer that either. Nimur (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you to say that, on the evidence of her question, she has a psychiatric disorder? That is somewhat less cut-and-dried matter than an injured leg. --Richardrjtalk email16:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that half the strong viewpoints expressed here refer to the OP as male and half as female, somewhat showing a slight lack of thorough observation and confusion in regards to the situation. As far as those who support the validity of the OP's question-I must ask- where are the answers provided with references? Sometimes I think it is best to simply ignore such questions. After all, what is considered "morally acceptable" is going to vary between an individual's location, religion, status, health, etc. A primitive jungle dweller will probably have a different idea of what is 'morally acceptable' than an educated wealthy business person. but then again, perhaps not :) . At any rate, if this question was asked at a physical library desk, the appropriate response would probably be :" go seek some professional help". 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) No it wouldn't. It would be "that's not the sort of question we can really answer for you, but here are some opinions for what they're worth." Again I say: there is no evidence from the question that the questioner is ill, so to suggest that she needs to seek medical advice or counselling is misguided. She said she was female on her userpage, by the way. --Richardrjtalk email19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, right. "Obsessive love, delusional disorder, paranoia, depression, addiction". But not ill. Nope. By the way, did you follow the flow of that question? Asked if stalking was moral or not. Then twisted the responses to conclude that it was OK, which is what it wanted to hear. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, it's not valid to jump to the conclusion that the poster is on the verge of violence, or even to believe self-diagnoses of mental illnesses. The question should have been dismissed as outside of the purview of the Refdesk (or maybe tolerated per Richardrj), but not removed on medical-advice grounds. It was not a medical advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, when I saw this come up yesterday, my initial thought was that you could best have responded by closing the question up in a {{hidden}} box with a note that we don't comment on "moral views" / open-ended question / unsourceable / ask for an opinion. Then I thought about what would happen if B.Bugs actually ever did that on an RD question, even a clearly inappropriate one and decided that it would be better even to deal with an obsessive potential stalker than the fallout of OMG-Bugs!! Nevertheless, I think it was an inappropriate Q, your first response was correct (at least the bit where you said it was inappropriate, the part where you went on to give an opinion, opening the door for more wanderings, less so), and the whole thing should have been bundled up without substantive response. Franamax (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah trouble, thy very name is Bugs. ;) What is poking at my mind is putting {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} around the question, setting title=Inappropriate question removed, then writing outside and below the collapse box your signed reason for "removing" the question. It will still be there with the Show button, can still be answered, can have the collapse box removed - but the casual reader just sees a "removal". This would be for edge cases like this one and would require mandatory notification here on talk I'd imagine. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I guess wrong. I asked him to ask himself if stalking was moral, and he said it was. Hence he already had answered the question in his own mind, so I don't see what the point was in bringing it here. You may as well put brackets around it and be done with it. Maybe encrypt it with a subliminally-related password, such as "Silk". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the people who actually read it and aren’t just picking fault with what I said.
I'm just going to make few points as the person that asked the question:
1) Bugs, I don't see why you judge people so quickly but I wish you'd spend at least a tenth of that time judging yourself and your actions. Also, you pretend to have had an in-depth look at my page, you clearly didn't notice that I'm FEMALE!
2) Many questions are asked on the RefDesks asking about subjective things such as love and morals and the like. An apt example of a question about morals that received real responses is:
3)None of my actions have been unlawful, and furthermore, even if they were a block for that doesn’t seem correct - Wikipedia is not the police. I'm sure those in gaol could contribute greatly to the project.
4) "You want we should wait until it turns violent?" Bugs talks rubbish and his speculation is not only unfounded but also directly contradicts what I've said.
5) My links to mental conditions are only as much mental conditions as love is. They were giving a background about me so you could properly judge if it were moral.
6) The question wasn't about psychiatric diagnosis at all, it was about morals. Anyone who believes otherwise clearly didn't read what I said properly.
"That question was not a request for medical advice, and any response to it would not have been a medical diagnosis." --Richardrj
7)"OP asked whether his/her behaviour and emotional/mental state was normal and healthy. That is an explicit request for psychiatric diagnosis." No Nimur, I didn't I asked where moral boundaries lie. Did you read what I wrote?
8) "Asked if stalking was moral or not." Bugs lies! I asked about befriending. Nothing about stalking.
9) I'm not mentally ill. Firstly, self diagnosis is never accurate. Secondly, as I stated, everyone has mental condition or another - I even linked to wikipedia which claimed drunkenness was a mental disorder.
10)"He wanted to know if it was "moral" to stalk someone. Hence more of a legal question" Ugh, more of Bugs' rubbish. No, not legal, moral. And no, not stalk, befriend. Stop twisting my words!
11) The .pdf was only deleted because I asked for it to be as it was being manipulated so it could be used against me.
I asked a question about morals on befriending a colleague of an acquaintance and this was misinterpreted as some kind of for request psychological analysis and stuff about stalking.
This conversation is now practically pointless, I asked a question in the wrong place, this question was misinterpreted. Simple. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk can't answer your question. This is neither a positive or negative assertion about any psychiatric condition. We are refraining from making any judgement call about the situation because we are unqualified to make such judgements. That is our standard policy whenever we are unsure about these sorts of matters. Nimur (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It was a request for advice and moral guidance. Why do you have to bring judgements about the questioner's psychiatric condition into it? Such considerations are not relevant. If someone asked for guidance on whether they should download a movie for free, would you immediately play the "no medical diagnosis" card? This is no different. --Richardrjtalk email09:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nimur, I'm begging you here, *please* read what was written. If you don't want to, then please stop commenting, and undo your removal of the question! It's nothing about anything psychiatric, it is about what YOU would do in this situation and social protocol. You can't make a judgement call? Well, that's where I am; nor can I, hence I'm asking people. But surely you could give some kind of opinion, and even if you can't, I'm not forcing anyone to answer. So what's the issue?
Clearly people on here don't know (and can't be bothered to look) what was said, then stop commenting with half a story! Those who have actually looked clearly can see it was merely about guidance, as Richardj has had to point out once again.
I've restored the question, see edit summary for details
Search function
I really liked User:Wavelength's new search boxes. In response to a request above, I've created a subpage for them and done a bit of very minor adjusting to make to colours prettier. While I don't have a great deal of hope that questioners will use any search function very much, it may be useful to respondents. The page is here. Our current RD front page and header templates already suggest doing a search; perhaps we should include a link? Matt Deres (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two last search boxes require "more sophisticated linkage", as mentioned by User:Shakescene at 15:28, 25 December 2009. The concept might be technically impossible. I suggest linking to a page with just the other ones for now. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, there's a basic flaw in this search functionality, which I raised here last year but no-one was interested – perhaps someone will take notice this time? Entering a search string in one of these boxes searches Wikipedia and adds the prefix "prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives" plus the name of the relevant desk. But at some point in the past the structure of the archives changed, and searches made using these boxes won't pick up entries made before that change. --Richardrjtalk email11:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined the table of links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives. Apparently there have been two changes in the structure of the archives: before 2004 they were simply numbered from 1 through 8, in January 2004 they began to be named by year and month, and in August 2005 they were split into several subject categories.
I suggest revising the present search box for "all" reference desk archives by changing the word "Archives" to "Archive" in the prefix. This will add the archives from January 2004 to mid-August 2005, but will still not include "all" archives.
Here are two newly made search boxes, the second of which I have made as a replacement for the present one designated "Search (all) reference desk archives".
(ec) The Search buttons here worked unexpectedly. "Search all reference desk archives" performs well on a single click after the search term is entered. However the other buttons such as "Search computing reference desk archives" etc. merely link to another search engine that returns useless results of a meaningless search for " prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing" etc. It could be a useful page if the buttons functioned better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that those new search boxes work entirely as I had expected. I am not sure whether the system distinguishes between "Desk" and "desk", or whether it counts punctuation such as "/". Therefore I have made another new search box with the prefix "Wikipedia:Reference". This will include one (or a few) unwanted page(s) such as Wikipedia:Reference Desk philosophies, but that is a minor inconvenience.
Why, when I scroll up and down, do those search boxes seem to change size? (They aren't actually different sizes, it's some kind of optical illusion.) --Tango (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another "Is X black or white?" query
I've just answered the above on the Humanities RefDesk with what I intended to be a subtly discouraging response. If others think this was inappropriate, too bitey or whatever, my apologies and feel free to delete me: I just have an ill-defined uneasy feeling about this recent-ish series of similar questions, although I can't point my finger at definite inappropriateness on the OP's/OPs' part. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@87.81.230.195 IMHO with your good intentions you delivered a speech that implicitly supported the OP's apparent wish for a racist categorising by skin colour. Tiptoing on eggshells around a prejudice never changed one. It is the OP, not Google, that calls someone's wife black or white. Jayron's response that queried what image the OP is talking about was enough. My reply would be simply to snub the question with "Don't ask, don't tell." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Belatedly signed my post correctly.[reply]
Stock response
Bus stop wrote "Initial responders need simply pose a question to the OP asking for clarification or restatement or reframing of question.", and Jack of Oz proposed a stock response. Just after that, 87.81.230.195 reported Another "Is X black or white?" query, which also could have been simply answered with such a stock response. I therefore propose we use the following generic wording:
Before we can answer your question, please explain to us why you are asking this question.
Of course! I even think it would be appropriate to do so when someone thought it was a cromulent question after all. In either case, the editor would naturally also remove the {{stale}} template and add a new post with either a reply or an interpretation/explanation of the question. — Sebastian05:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, it should. But knowing the RD crowd, people will be so eager to post opinions, witticisms and off-topic talk that those four little words will quickly be drowned. — Sebastian19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we've discussed this user's posting habits several times before (most recently in September), I think pre-emptive deletion is also a reasonable response to repeated questions of this sort -- though I avoid that once someone else has already answered. — Lomn21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either of "please explain to us why you are asking.." and "why do you ask" seem quite intrusive to me. The object is to discover more about what information the OP is seeking, but the wording says "why do you want to know?", which we don't actually care about. How about "In order to answer your question, we need more information. Can you explain more clearly what problem you are trying to solve?" Franamax (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'm not in favour of tiptoeing around an issue or using a (mild and with a purpose) form of deceit with a questioner. I'm also not in favour of needing to know why a question is being asked - unless of course there's an actual need for clarification. If answering a question about someone's ethnic background makes you (in the generic sense of you, this isn't directed at anyone in particular), then you shouldn't answer the question, just as you shouldn't answer a question if you have no idea what the answer is.
I have a degree in anthropology; I've had it beaten into my head more than most that the idea of race is very much a social one and based only upon the flimsiest of genetic pretexts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can claim race has no scientific meaning (I'd agree), but there's no point claiming Barack Obama isn't black... because he is. If someone asks us if George Washington was white, why not just be honest and say "yes"? What would be the point of getting in their face about why they're asking? The answer is obvious, so say it. If the answer isn't obvious, then say so and explain why. A racist or unconscious racist isn't going to get educated by refusing to answer, but maybe they'll get an understanding of the realities involved if we say "x would be considered white by these standards, but Asian by those standards, which is why it's important to realize that classing people by race is just a social construct easily open to multiple interpretations." Matt Deres (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, even if race does not have much of any genetic meaning, it does still have that social meaning. It's a very real social meaning and one that has refused to be dismissed even in the face of knowing it has no genetic meaning. I think that the urge to say, "it has no genetic meaning!" is a nice knee-jerk approach that most of us who went to college in the last, oh, twenty years or so have been trained to say in response, but in many cases it is a non sequitur, since when people ask about someone's race they are often not intending us to give a genetic answer. I think explaining race in terms of who would think it is more useful than just saying "it's meaningless!" because it's not meaningless. It has loads of meaning—it just isn't something determined by straightforward one-drop-rule genetics. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. — (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
