Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Medical advice question

I'm starting this discussion in case there are concerns. Someone asked about the LD50 of something they'd ingested. I provided this answer [1] where I directed the OP to a poison control centre. I know there are some who object to directing the OP to any specific resource, but I felt in was the best option. Especially since one of the common concerns especially with those living in the US (the IP geolocates to the US), is that the cost for consulting someone can be quite high depending on your health insurance or lack of it. But this is a resource free at the point of use. We could get into semantic debates about whether people should tie up such resources with questions over eating Playdough, but the number of people who are going to follow this advice is likely to be tiny, maybe no one. And ultimately whatever it is, I feel if someone has concerns, and isn't able to address those concerns without asking on the reference desk where we explicitly tell them not to, it is better that they use an appropriate resource. If the OP is simply trolling us, it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember that just because the ip address locates to the US doesn't mean that the person using it lives in the US. MarnetteD|Talk 05:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess my concern is more that directing someone to a poison-control center is likely to provoke more anxiety than is really justified by the consumption of a little Play-Doh. It seems to me that the common-sense response would be something like, look, you're not really supposed to eat it, so it doesn't undergo the quality control or limitation on additives that apply to food; that said, there's nothing in the known ingredients that's really very harmful, so ask a doctor if you like, but in the mean time don't give yourself a heart attack. I concede I don't have a proposal for generalizing this observation. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's non-toxic, so there's little to no risk to kids from eating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should follow the official guidelines (unless those are out-dated). So, don't generally remove the question, just answers that give a diagnosis or other medical advice. Instead, post a link to the official guidelines. Also, general medical questions can be asked (and answered) as long as they are not presented as (a request for) advice or diagnosis (and questions that fall foul of that rule can potentially be reworded to the general case). Iapetus (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Requests for medical advice are subject to removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: You have written “Requests for medical advice are subject to removal.” What, or who, are you quoting? (I think this might be a secret rule you wrote yourself, and hence my challenge.) Dolphin (t) 00:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It ain't my rule, and it's no secret. It's been around for a long time. Read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read it; very carefully. Nowhere does it say requests for medical advice are subject to removal. However, it DOES say “Although removal of questions is discouraged, if this is done, please follow the procedure below” and then what follows are two items of procedure giving significant detail.

Notice how I actually quoted the words I want you to observe. Notice how you made no attempt to quote any words from the source? This is a clear warning to me and many others that you are possibly attempting to obscure the fact that you know you are on shaky ground. If you genuinely believe your view that “medical questions are subject to removal” please quote the actual words you claim justify your view. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 01:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I know what it says. Medical questions are not required to be removed, but they can be removed. Medeis was constantly getting in trouble for aggressive removals of requests for medical advice - not because of it being against the rules, but rather because there was debate over whether they really were requests for medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It is good that now we both know what the Guidelines say. Removal of questions is discouraged. If a question is to be removed there is a couple of procedures to be followed so the Ref Desk community is kept informed, and the originator of the medical question is treated in a polite and helpful manner. If the question was not asked in good faith it should be dealt with in accordance with guidelines appropriate to disruption, vandalism, trolling etc. Simply erasing a question, on the grounds that it looks like a medical question, without observing the 2 procedures specified in the Guidelines, is unacceptable to the Ref Desk community. Dolphin (t) 08:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is why Medeis got yelled at so much, and why I seldom take such action - often, an admin will step in and box up a blatant request for medical advice. In the case of Drac, he appears to be asking things that just pop into his head, and which could be interpreted as requests for some kind of professional advice, even if not for himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Iapetus: May be I'm nitpicking (and obviously I'm late to the discussion), but could you, please, check your entry for parentheses balance? The first one, which starts at the word 'unless', seems not closed. --CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Done (closed after out-dated). Iapetus (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd just note that it's also helpful to tell OPs something like, "check the product label to see if there is any relevant information" in addition to telling them to ask a doctor or poison control center if they are concerned, rather than internet randos. In this case, assuming he bought the American version, there's the word "Non-toxic" on the back, though I wouldn't tell him that, just leave it for him to find. Other products might actually tell him exactly who to call. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hostility from Baseball bugs

wikt:more heat than light from the start, and the evolution is not encouraging. If you want action, go to WP:ANI; if you want catharsis, write something without posting it; the refdesk talk page provides neither. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the reference desk is not a place to butt heads. Please stop responding to my questions if you cannot be polite or assume good faith. Please don't pretend that you have to respond to anything or everything I say. You don't. You can just ignore me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC) You've learned nothing from the various criticisms that you've received from several users. You should stick to what you seem to do well, which is editing articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC) The criticism concerned questions that had absolutely nothing to do with the questions I have asked recently. No one has banned me from the reference desks, and I have no intention of going away simply because you choose to behave with gross, unjustified rudeness instead of doing the civilized thing and ignoring me. I'm not interested in asking other people to like me; I can reasonably ask they not turn every question I ask into an opportunity to abuse me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Liking or not liking someone here is not a relevant issue. This is not Facebook. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Of course it is not relevant. But if you choose to behave in a persistently obnoxious, rude, hostile manner to try to drive me away from the reference desks, instead of doing the civilized thing and simply ignoring me and not responding as I've asked you to do repeatedly, then that is a problem. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Are you aware that people have been topic banned from the ref desks? Your questions are indistinguishable from trolling and if you cannot see that there is also a competence problem. Unfortunately the community is reluctant to sanction even blatant silliness here on the basis that everyone at the ref desks is volunteering so if they don't want to see trolling or silliness they should stop reading them. I would favor sanctions because you are are either trolling or are unable to see that your questions appear to be trolling. That detracts from the good job that the ref desks generally do and is irritating. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC) No, my questions are not "indistinguishable from trolling". If they really were, they would have been removed. "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar?" is not a troll question. You are making an absolutely, utterly, 100% unjustified accusation. All I am seeing here is personalized hostility. The content of my recent questions, which revealingly you haven't even discussed, appears to have nothing to do with it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I just skimmed the archive. They show you are wasting people's time and energy even more than I thought. Clearly you enjoy posing here and possibly it serves some social purpose but it is highly irritating and you should find another hobby. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Another accusation unsupported by even a shred of evidence. If you claim that "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar?" and "Is there a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water?" are troll questions, then it is up to you to support that. You haven't done that, unsurprisingly, because those are both legitimate questions. "Wasting people's time" is of course an empty accusation, given that absolutely no one is forced to respond. If people do choose to respond, that's their choice. I note the complete absence of any criticism of Baseball Bugs for his completely needless rudeness, aggression, and failure to assume good faith. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator - I'm with Johnuniq here. Your questions seem very odd to me. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is about them that makes me feel that way, but they certainly don't fit the general pattern of what we see on the Ref Desks. And they seem quite repetitive. Can you see that? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC) So far as I know, the reference desk neither has a rule against "odd questions", nor a definition of "odd questions". Nor is an "odd question" the same thing as "trolling". Your comments are pointless. If you cannot put your finger "my finger on exactly what it is about them that makes me feel that way", then that simply suggests that your response is subjective and has nothing to do with any relevant policy or guideline. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC) That was a very aggressive response. I asked you a polite question. Want to try to answer it? The reason I ask is that several editors have shown concern about your questions. Even if you think their reasons are poor reasons, can you understand why several editors are responding in a similar way? HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC) As I said, the reference desk does not have a rule against "odd questions", making it pointless to complain that my questions are, in your opinion, "odd". Accusing me of responding in an "aggressive" way doesn't constitute a meaningful response. Meanwhile, Baseball Bugs has done this and this, which has the effect, among other things, of concealing his rude and uncivil responses. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Boxing up side comments is standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Sure. But maybe you could consider leaving it up to someone else to decide whether to box up and conceal your displays of gross, totally unjustified, totally unnecessary rudeness? You boxed up the answers to the questions as well. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Then you could unbox the parts that you consider relevant to your questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar?" A more pertinent question might be "Is it possible for a person to become addicted to the Reference Desks?" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC) My suspicion is that it is the number and frequency of questions I've asked, rather than their actual contents, that has offended people (no one has tried to explain how a question about the addictive potential of sugar, for example, is offensive). I've tried to keep the frequency of questions relatively low. I'm not aware of any actual policy about how often one can ask questions; the aggression and rudeness directed against me seems to reflect the absence of defined rules about the matter. Apparently, an unofficial rule is that if you ask what some consider too frequent questions, people try to drive you away with utter rudeness. Hence the pile-on directed against me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I find your questions quite intriguing. But I can understand that others might see them as misguided. Yes, it might be wise for BBugs to try and ignore you more. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, indeed it would. Thank you for a sensible response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) ".. keep the frequency of questions relatively low..." One a month, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC) It would be nice if, instead of wasting their time discussing me, people could instead discuss how frequently Wikipedia users should ask questions, as that is apparently the real underlying issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC) "I've tried to keep the frequency of questions relatively low." In that quest, you have failed. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) If you consider too frequent questions from one user a problem, then be my guest and propose rules to govern the matter. Other editors might be interested, and such a discussion would be a great deal better than directing abuse and insults toward me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Have you heard of a Straw man argument? It means arguing against something that the other person in a discussion hasn't actually said. I'm afraid you do it a lot. Having raised the issue of frequency of posting yourself, your are now asking ME if I think it's a problem. All your comments about things not being against the rules are also straw man arguments. I see it a lot on social media, especially on controversial topics such as climate change or renewable energy. It's a very annoying practice, and won't win you any friends. It makes rational discussion almost impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC) My comments about my questions not being against the rules are correct; apparently that is the real problem. Insofar as my comments are not against the rules and are not troll questions, despite false and insulting assertions to the contrary, no one has any business complaining about them. The real lesson of this discussion appears to be that reference desk regulars with enough friends can get away with any kind of rudeness and abuse directed against anyone they dislike, all our policies about civility and assuming good faith not withstanding. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) A perfect demonstration of straw man argument, deflection, and a failure to assume good faith. You appear to have ignored everything I wrote in my previous post. 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, because it wasn't worth responding to. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC) That comment has clearly crossed the line of failing to assume good faith. Administrators, where are you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC) After the real trolls and vandals gave up, the regulars started turning on each other. 80.235.152.112 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Nah. I turn on other regulars regardless. Some of these trolls are such lightweights. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC) @Freeknowledgecreator Apology I acknowledge that my words "Important: Consult a qualified doctor if you..." can sound like criticism that you are asking for medical advice. I beg you accept my assurance that I do not mean to imply that. The "you" in the sentence is cautioning the general readership. The ambiguity in my caution is my clumsiness alone, for which I sincerely apologise. Legitimacy of your questions Any question that has received answer(s) that are on-topic and provide on-topic reference has IMO contributed positively to the working of the Ref. desks. Complaints posted about "too many" "too odd" or "trolling" questioning have little merit thereafter. They are unhelpful and appear as a public disgrace on the Ref. desk main pages, especially when they spill over from one question to another. Proposal: The confrontational exchanges between yourself and BaseballBugs have become toxic. Boxing these exchanges only brings readers' attention to them and it looks like neither of you "takes the hint" that your ongoing spat is disruptive. Instead you both fight to get in the last word. I propose that all dialog on 12/13 February between Freeknowledgecreator and BaseballBugs on the Science Ref. desk be no longer boxed but instead deleted as unfit material. Please express support or opposition to this action so we reach consensus about it. DroneB (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Support as proposer. DroneB (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC) General comment: I have been finding Bug's snarky reply to every question very unhelpful for many years. Also I never see the point or value in any of the questions from Freeknowledgecreator, so I just ignore them altogether. As far as I can see, they both make a lot of noise and provide very little actually interesting subjects or information. Them going at each other's throat is another way that they regularly soil the refdesk pages, and frankly often makes me want to not take part on the desk. --Lgriot (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I actually got complimented today for providing useful information.[2] The complainant here should feel free to post the most recent compliment he's gotten from another user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Lgriot - "I have been finding Bug's snarky reply to EVERY question very unhelpful for many years." I have highlighted one word in that comment to show stupid and unhelpful IT is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Oddly enough, the most recent compliment I have received from another user came from you yourself Baseball Bugs; you commented above that I am good at editing articles ("You should stick to what you seem to do well, which is editing articles"). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC) This is pointless. Baseball Bugs is trying to drive me off the reference desks with rudeness and abuse. If other people are going to let him get away with behaving in this fashion, which involves obvious violations of the rules about civility and assuming good faith, then of course I'm not going to participate here. The comment from Lgriot above is helpful insofar as it indicates that others are willing to acknowledge that his needless rudeness is a problem. DroneB is correct, of course, that I should not let Baseball Bugs provoke me, but it is equally true that Baseball Bugs should not be trying to provoke me to begin with. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I am not trying to get you banned. As for being "provoked", no one can be provoked unless they're willing to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC) That comment is an effective admission that you are, in fact, trying to provoke me. Little more need be said. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator—why are you asking a sequence of related questions? Is this a quiz of some sort? Do I know about caffein? Do I know about sugar? Is there a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water? I think your questions are funny sometimes. These are all questions that make me think about farting. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Support plus... - Nearly all of FKC's questions have been requests for medical advice and could have been zapped on-sight. The late user Medeis would have done so without hesitation. I'm less inclined to delete stuff. But if you want the stuff deleted, I'm all for it. Especially the junk about consuming human blood, and the user's confusing opinions about what coffee is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs Thank you for your vote of support for the deletion I propose. Please be clear that only dialog on 12/13 February between Freeknowledgecreator and yourself will be deleted. DroneB (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Which is why I said "support plus". Zap the dialogue between us, but also zap all of his questions as being requests for medical advice, which are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC) None of my questions have been requests for medical advice, and it is blatantly untrue to claim otherwise. I have never asked questions that amount to, "I suffer from such and such a condition, what should I do about it?" My questions have always been general inquiries about medical matters only. I can see that this does not really matter to Baseball Bugs, however. Baseball Bugs is trying deliberately to get rid of me, based on personal dislike and hostility. Baseball Bugs, you need not bother. I am not going to participate in the reference desks if people permit you to behave in this fashion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Freeknowledgecreator: As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Baseball Bugs can indeed be a bully and a boor. His actions towards you were, in all probability, improper. But. Your actions have been equally improper. Your questions are highly suspicious, and your observable behavior is indistinguishable from that of a troll. Moreover, you have reacted to every reasonable, well-intentioned criticism of your actions not with anything like "Oh, sorry, I see your point, I'll try to do better", but rather, "Screw that, there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing." But you're wrong. In the end, though (as you should have figured out by now), It is beyond pointless to be discussing any of this here any further. This is the third big, explosive thread you've started on this talk page in about as many weeks. Lots of immediate sound and fury, but nothing in the way of resolution (on either side). So you need to stop bringing your complaints up here, where it's clear that no one else cares or is sympathetic, and find a better venue. One possibility, of course, is the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Oooh, poor Bugs. At least he's not from South Sudan, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Steve Summit, you suggest no sense whatever in which my questions have been "highly suspicious". Like several other users here, you are simply making baseless accusations. Insofar as your accusations are unsupported by evidence or logic, I of course have no reason to care what you think. As I have said several times, I will not participate in areas of Wikipedia where people, such as you, abuse me in an irrational fashion. As for "no one else cares or is sympathetic", some users, including Martinevans123, Lgriot, DroneB, have in fact pointed out the inappropriateness of Baseball Bugs' behavior, so you're wrong there. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC) You seem to have a permanent chip on your shoulder about this (which is part of the problem), so I don't expect to convince you, but to clarify: I was not trying to accuse you of being a troll. I was saying -- as others have said -- that your actions are indistinguishable from those of a troll. If you continue to act like a troll, many people here are going to, quite logically, continue to treat you as one. I'm sorry if that sounds like an accusation (or like abuse), but really, it's a simple fact. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC) More unsupported accusations. Someone should close this discussion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC) What's stopping you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC) So my impression of the questions is one that a couple other frequent guests to the ref desks have triggered - they read kind of like google search entries. That is, it's not apparent in reading these questions whether the OP has even tried to look for information on the subject. It's possible he doesn't know how to, but no one could know that. As with other users whose questions give off this vibe, it always wears on the regulars eventually. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC) It's possible he doesn't know how to, but no one could know that - I don't buy that. He's highly articulate, his English is immaculate, he's found out how to find this Ref Desk, and he knows how to mount an argument. Is it possible that such a person has never heard of Google, or having heard of it, has no idea how to use it? I say no. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC) So that was 1 part "certainly he knows how to paste the exact same question into google, but maybe he doesn't know how to identify high quality sources, which makes it rather concerning he would trust randos on the internet but then again people don't always make sense", and 99 parts reflexively equivocating for agf purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I am well aware of Google. There is no rule that people have to look for answers on Google before coming to the reference desks. Please find something better to do with your time than accusing me of violating non-existent rules. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Resolved  – The proposal was not opposed so I have marked the deletions by consensus at WP:RD/S. DroneB (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Thanks. That was a perfectly sensible thing for you to have done. There is no point in continuing this overall discussion any longer, however, insofar as the main result is apparently that people are willing to let Baseball Bugs get away with any kind of rudeness and abuse of others he wishes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Peachy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I think I'm going to have to defend Freeknowledgecreator. Yes, his questions do come across as a bit odd, and he probably should be doing a Goggle or Wikipedia search first, but that doesn't mean they are inherently illegitimate, or that he is trolling. (The reference desk front page states "Before asking a question, please try the search boxes at right to search Wikipedia as a whole or the reference desk archives. See also the reference desk guidelines". If you think someone is not doing this when they should, I think its probably better to point this out to them, rather than trying to shut them down and accuse them of trolling). I haven't seen him asking for medical advice. As per the medical advice guidelines asking general questions about health or medicine etc is fine, and can be answered by pointing someone to the appropriate Wikipedia article (or any other source). They only become illegitimate if they are asking for a diagnosis or other advice. (And even then, its answers giving such advice that must be removed, not necessarily the original question). Baseball Bugs can often be amusing, and often makes useful contributions. However, I also think he can be (and in this case has been) needlessly pedantic and confrontational. AS a general rule, if someone asks an ambiguous or poorly worded question, I try (not always successfuly) to give an initial answer that explains why it is ambiguous, and give an indication of how clarifying it could lead to different final answers. Or alternatively I don't answer at all, because I have other things to do. I think following either of those approaches here would have avoided a lot of needless aggro (especially on e.g. the coffee question, which could probably have been most usefully and efficiently answered with something like "pure coffee contains so few calories that it would probably be physically impossible to drink enough to noticable affect your weight, but many people drink coffee with so much sugar and cream in it that a single cup a make up a substantial portion of your recommended daily calories"). Iapetus (talk)22:41, 15 February 2020‎ (UTC) The OP's ambiguous definition of "coffee" was kind of funny, but when he asked about drinking human blood and claiming it was a "general knowledge" question, that was too much. "I'll take General Knowledge for 100, Alex." "This reddish fluid commonly consumed by Dracula and many other Internet users is surprisingly fattening." "What is human blood, Alex?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure who I'm replying to (Freeknowledgecreator seems to attract odd editing behaviour), but I cannot defend him. He seem to have learnt absolutely nothing from this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I think an examination of "trolling" is in order. Trolling in this case would be a question that is designed for a purpose other than its ostensible purpose. To give a hypothetic example suppose a question were designed to induce nausea, even though it was an entirely legitimate and sensible question that has probably been explored in other venues many times before—such as the effects of eating feces. The question could be an entirely acceptable question—but if asked one way, it is entirely acceptable—if asked another way it likely would be considered trolling. I'm not saying anyone is trolling but what I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the person asking the question to take every effort to avoid the appearance of trolling. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your hypothetical example of a troll question. For the record, I have no interest in asking questions about eating feces. The main purpose of this discussion, at this stage, appears to be to allow people to make accusations against me without evidence. I suggest it should be ended. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, I should have said that. You did not pose any questions pertaining to the eating of excrement. But I nevertheless have an interest in a definition for trolling. I think it is an under-examined topic for a phenomenon often invoked. We talk about trolling quite a bit. I would define trolling as carefully designed input that skirts the line between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Trolling is designed to be undefinable. I don't absolve anyone of the burden of needing to present a convincing argument that something constitutes trolling. A person cannot simply accuse another person of trolling without also presenting an articulate argument that the speech is indeed trolling. There were Salem witch trials in which people were accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. We don't want to do that again. In the interest of open-mindedness anyone accusing someone else of trolling should have the burden of presenting an accompanying convincing argument. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Alright, that comes quite close to Godwin's law. Anyway, I think there's a difference between lazy or opinion-seeking querents ("let's see what these people here think about this topic ..."), experimental querents ("let's see what happens when I post this question..."), and trolls ("let's have some popcorn and watch them freak out ...") Neither are the kind of querents the reference desk has in mind, but not all of them are trolls. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC) If a question asked is primarily seeking a response, regardless of the value of that response vis-à-vis the question asked, that is trolling, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC) When you say "seeking a response", I presume you mean as in "provoking a reaction", rather than just "getting a reply"? Iapetus (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon news

Just letting people know of this news about an editor who is active here User talk:Guy Macon#message from guy's wife Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Antisemetic purported Talmud quotes, take two

I tried to ask about these purported quotations from the Talmud on WP:RDH yesterday, but my question was removed without comment, warning, or any mention here. I've cropped the original image to remove an offensive image at the top. I still want to ask because I've found some corroboration from a few of them randomly selected, so I want to get some kind of an idea from someone familiar with Talmud studies as to how accurate these representations are. I am not trying to provoke anyone, this is simply so that I can respond to them when I see them again. I am asking here so that they won't be part of the RDH archives in case that is a sensitive issue. Thank you for your consideration. 107.242.121.3 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want my user ID associated with this thread either. I'm no Talmud scholar but I can say with confidence from googling around a handful of them that they are just distant paraphrasing of completely different statement intents taken out of context just enough to seem superficially plausible and as inflammatory as possible. They are in no way accurate, or made in good faith, or representative of the intent of the text from which they've been twisted. Just a lot of sad work in the long history of antisemitic libels. 2601:647:5E80:1850:5063:4177:E12B:2156 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)