Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

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

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

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

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

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

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

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

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

Side by side search fields

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

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

article gripes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Layout problem

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

Topics are not desks

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

"Choose" or "Select"?

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

Where are the recent archives???

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

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

Skip to the bottom

We're still fast

I did a brief analysis last year of our response speed on the Science Desk. On a whim, I repeated the analysis using data from four days in November (November 1, 10, 19, and 27).

I've only plotted the time to the first response, and I haven't attempted to assess the quality of answers supplied. (Someone who's more dedicated can dive in.)

No questions went unanswered this year. Our median response time was 33 minutes, and three-quarters of all questions received a response in less than two hours (106 minutes).

All of these numbers were similar to 2007's figures; see File:Questions Answered Science Ref Desk.gif. Keep up the good work, everyone! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful math/s, Ten of all, thank you, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the science desk after all, may I ask how you chose the days? Was is random or is there a chance of selection bias? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I chose four days roughly evenly spaced through the month, including a roughly proportionate mix of weekdays (one each of a Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday) and weekend days (one Saturday). In other words, my choices were selected to give (what I hope was) a representative (but not random) sample. For what it's worth, I selected the dates from my wall calendar before I looked at the archive pages; there wasn't any cherrypicking of the data. The number of questions on each day was roughly the same, however I didn't look closely at the number or size of responses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable assertion of safety removed

Under the Science desk topic "Speed of sound in SF6" the following was posted:

Sigma-Aldrich probably carries it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this gas is hazardous to inhale - though non-toxic, it can displace oxygen and cause suffocation. If the intention is to use the gas for novelty voice effects, you should reconsider based on informed understanding of the possible hazards. Nimur (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "don't try this at home" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or anywhere... —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually inhaling SF6 as a party trick is relatively safe. Contrary to some myths, it is easily expelled from the lungs with just a few deep breaths. And even if you were stupid enough to try to hold it in, the body's suffocation reflex would get your lungs to convulse and expel the gas. The real risk is that SF6 will fill the room you are in without you noticing (odorless/colorless/tasteless, etc.), but the risk of that can be managed by being in a large ventilated area. Inhaling small quantities of SF6 from a low pressure/low quantity source like a balloon is quite safe. Dragons flight (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[2][reply]

Questionable safety advice removed to Ref Desk discussion page.Edison (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the above post by Dragons flight from the above from the Science Desk. I object to telling people it is "relatively safe" or "quite safe" to inhale a gas which can cause asphyxiation. This jumps into medical advice about how the body's "suffocation reflex" would work. Edison (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. I was tempted to chime in on that question with all kinds of notes about how the practice could be dangerous, but frankly I didn't want to help someone get in over their head. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that.) Ignoring asphyxiation and other direct risks of exposure, some damn fool will probably do themselves serious harm passing out and falling down on the surrounding lab equipment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying over the rest of the safety related discussion. Fostering paranoid by saying this is unsafe is not helpful. The experiment comparing the effects of breathing small amount of He to small amounts of SF6 is done in middle school and high school chem labs. It is quite safe, and we shouldn't be scaring people and saying things like "don't try this anywhere". If you don't want me to say it is safe (when it is), then fine. But you shouldn't allow other people to say it is unsafe. Out of curiosity, I searched the LexisNexis news archive and can't find a single news report of anyone ever dying due to exposure to SF6. If you have ever had access to the stuff you'd know accidental suffocation is pretty unlikely (outside of accidents with industrial quantities). Dragons flight (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main page now has no direct discussion of breathing it, I hope that other people find that satisfactory. Dragons flight (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might try it myself,like breathing helium, but there is always someone who will take it to the extreme and die, by trying it in such a way that fresh air is not readily available when they pass out. I see no reason to encourage that. Passing out and falling down can also be quite harmful. Edison (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to respond to the rest of the discussion but I should point out there is likely a difference between trying a small amount in school, presemuably under the supervision of people who have experience with the sort of thing and are well aware of the risks and necessary precautions and can also manage any emergencies is likely quite different from trying it yourself alone without any knowledge of the risks etc Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This removal is WRONG. I must protest it in the strongest possible terms.

We simply don't go around removing replies that we happen to believe are incorrect. That's NOT how the RD works. To allow this to happen sets a dangerous precedent. What we do - in the spirit of openness - is to post a reply eloquently explaining the contrary position (preferably with evidence and stuff) - and we allow the OP to decide which argument sounds the most convincing. This is well established practice - and I see no reason to change that practice in this case.

So removing this reply because you think it's wrong is NOT justified - if we all went around removing each others post every time we believed them to be wrong - the RD would be a battlefield. That's simply NOT how we work.

Nothing that's been said above in any way addresses why we should apply different principles in this case - it doesn't matter whether the answer is true or false - WE DON'T REMOVE INCORRECT ANSWERS. This one isn't even definitely wrong - it appears to be highly controversial in fact - all the more reason not to remove it just because you happen to disagree with it.

I move that we restore the discussion immediately before the OP loses interest in the topic. I'll do it myself unless I hear a clear consensus not to do so.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I don't want to disagree with you (I can count on maybe one toe when I've ever done so, and I was probably wrong then), but telling someone that inhaling a dangerous substance is perfectly safe is not a good way to go. You're right that it can be refuted by someone else, but should we be having that type of discussion? It's a Science desk, not a stunt-desk, and IMO we're crossing the line into medical advice. Certainly, saying "it won't kill you" is offering a medical opinion, isn't it? Franamax (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve on this. If you think an answer is wrong - say so, and say why. Provide a reference if you can. I don't see any medical advice in the removed content - risk management maybe, but that's actually a good thing in my book. DuncanHill (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comes under the medical question category - and it certainly wasn't removed on that basis - so let's not seek new reasons to cover up a fundamentally bad decision. The OP wasn't seeking medical advice - remember: (S)he asked about the speed of sound in a gas. Nothing medical about that! The medical prohibition is not to disallow us from explaining medical matters - we do that all the time. It's there to prevent us from attempting to diagnose or cure the OP's specific medical problems.

For what it's worth - I strongly agree that the reply was totally incorrect - inhaling "inert" gasses can be exceedingly dangerous...it definitely comes under the "Don't try this at home" category. Heavier-than-air gasses are even more dangerous than helium...and even helium is well-known to kill people who don't know how to demonstrate it safely. But there was no reason why we couldn't say that - in detail - with references - with explanations as to why - with loud denounciations of the person who said it was safe...sure, you can put the fear of God into the poor OP. But deleting the answer is extremely counter-productive.

Indeed, if the OP returned, read the (presumed-to-be-incorrect/dangerous) reply - then came back later and saw the entire thread had vanished - he/she may well not understand why and could easily assume that the original advice was good. The ONLY way to safely counter that incorrect reply once it's been read is to add a clear, cogent, well-researched contradictory response. In this case, two answers - one of which says "it's OK, it's safe" and another that says "no, it could kill you" would be enough to make most people at least think twice about doing it. Simply deleting the incorrect reply doesn't do that. Heck, if I were the OP, I might think that the deletion was simple vandalism or 'a computer glitch' or something.

But there is a strong principle at stake here - if we simply start removing replies without there being a clear guideline (like the medical/legal guidelines) then it'll be open warfare within a month and we CERTAINLY don't want that.

Fight words with better words. Please.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The original thread was indeed a science question, but then devolved somehow into a discussion of whether the gas is safe to breathe, and DF unfortunately decided that it is, and the particular post in fact was removed under the medical stricture. There's two little weird bits right there.

I see the RefDesks as a little mini-pedia where we work out the rules on our own without the paraphernalia of policy, hopefully just on our own common sense and goodwill toward each other and the OP's. To that extent, I'm not enthused with the "answer everything" crowd, since I do believe our first principle should be "do no harm" - whether or not that involves any strict medical/legal test. For instance, if someone came here and said "I just found unexploded ordinance in a marketplace, how can I set it off?", we would hopefully not leap to provide that information.

Steve, I would trust you in particular to restore the post and simultaneously provide a convincing rebuttal (though you didn't declare that as your intention). To that extent, I agree with you. I wouldn't have the same faith in some others, so I'll maintain that the prudent course is to remove first, restore later, when the initial concerns have been addressed. Franamax (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't jump right in and restore the thread because that too is not how we work around here. Once someone has taken action like that, we discuss it here and try to form a consensus before countermanding the original person's decision to take drastic action. If there is any merit at all to the original deletion - we need to discuss it rather than start an ugly edit-war. Sadly, the short time-scales over which our OP's monitor the answers they get makes any protracted conversation about the deletion moot. It's probably already too late to mess around with restoring and writing a detailed rebuttal for a two-day-old question thread.

That very difficulty of responding with a reasoned talk-page consensus in a timely manner puts EXTRA responsibility on the person doing the deleting to do so only under the most extenuating circumstances - in direct response to a very clear policy violation would be the only occasion I'd do it. The best that can come out of this now is a consensus NOT to delete replies just because we happen to disagree with them. As I said before - the correct response to a bad answer is a better answer. We all make mistakes (I made a horrible one a few weeks ago when I forgot the formula for Newton's law of cooling and threw the discussion right off the rails!) - but it should be our firmly stated, consensus-back policy that we DO NOT DELETE INCORRECT RESPONSES - instead we shoot them down with fact and references.

So - let me make a formal proposal:

Proposal to add a clause to the WP:RD guidelines.

I would like to add the following section (or something very similar to it) to the WP:RD guidelines-for-respondants:

Respondants must refrain from deleting other people's answers to questions posed on the Reference Desks even if they know those answers to be false or misleading. The correct response to an incorrect Reference Desk answer is to post a correct answer - possibly explaining why the previous reply was wrong - hopefully backing that assertion with copious references and links to Wikipedia articles - but in cases of recklessly dangerous advice ("Sure, it's OK to put a plastic bag over your baby's head to stop him crying") a simple "That's not true!" may be used while a more nuanced reply is composed. The only answers that may be justifiably deleted without prior discussion and consensus are those that are in clear violation of our posted guidelines - such as answers to questions seeking medical advice or providing answers to obvious "homework questions". Respondants may delete their own replies if they later believe them to be incorrect or inappropriate - but it is generally considered more polite to merely strike them out with <s>~~strikeout markup~~</s> in order to preserve the 'flow' of a complex debate.

Please respond with the usual Support/Reject replies - along with a brief statement of your reasons and a ~~~~ signature:

Support (per my posts above) SteveBaker (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Steve's (as always) very clear and sensible arguments above. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1.typo: respondant –> respondent. 2. Could it be briefer? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Voting is premature, given that there hasn't been any time or opportunity to discuss the proposal. What's the rush to a vote? I've created a section for discussion below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Steves proposed new rule implies that I removed content from the ref desk simply because it was incorrect. In fact I took the action because I saw a danger to life from someone following the recommendation offered. If someone says to take a whole bottle of aspirin for a bad headache, that should be removed rather than offering a counterargument about proper dosing. Edison (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new clause - discussion

I'm badly pressed for time at the moment, so I can't jump into a detailed set of arguments. I'll note that I think it's absolutely reasonable to remove "it's OK to put a plastic bag over your baby's head to stop him crying". I'd probably also block the troll who posted it. We're supposed to be helping people here, not harming them. Users who are obviously acting against that goal should be shown the door.

That said, I think there is room for a conversation about how we handle comments for which the interpretation, intent, and context are a bit more nuanced. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I wouldn’t think twice about removing the above statement per WP:UCS as patently ridiculous and dangerous. (That being said I would still note the removal here.) I’m sympathetic to the position that we should not selectively remove other editor’s replies, but I don’t believe an absolute statement like “must refrain from” is warranted or useful. There are always exceptions. I can think circumstances where immediate reversion of another editor’s comments may be necessary: an editor that is revealing personal information about a person/user for instance. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a guideline - you can still use common sense - ignore all rules - that kind of thing. What is needed is a simple guideline to tell people that removing answers that we think are incorrect is not our modus operandi here at the RD. I mentioned that it's OK to remove things that violate our other guidelines...if revealing personal information is not OK - then we should say so in the guidelines. By all means fritz around with the wording of the proposal. SteveBaker (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that sounds pretty reasonable. I’d really like to hear what other people think though. Somebody want to comment? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering, how often does this happen to justify an etiquette statement at all? but suggest one that appeals to me is this selection from Steve's own words:

~~Note:~~ Do not delete incorrect responses, instead offer a correct response with references. Only threads in ~~clear~~ violation of guidelines may be deleted.

Otherwise, it's tl:dr all over again. Personally, I support the deletion of a completely phobic thread that got away from the original question and seemed to unfairly impute all kinds of chaotic dangers/impulses to the poster. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if additional specific guidance is actually required here. The current wording of the existing guideline#When removing or redacting a posting reads (in part):

When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply. In particular, never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, as discussed in these and the present guidelines, but you should exercise caution in doing so. In all cases, use common sense rather than some literally-minded interpretation of the guidelines. Removing postings unwisely is bound to result in hurt feelings and acrimonious debate.

When removing a posting, also remove any posted reactions, unless they are appropriate and can stand on their own, not needing the other removed material for context.

In general, you should leave a note on the Reference desk page explaining your edit and the reason behind it....

When you remove a posting, it is recommended to note this on the Reference desk talk page. Include a diff of your edit.

...

Please do not restore a question that was removed by another editor acting in good faith using a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just because you disagree with the reasoning, and also do not discuss this on the Reference desk pages themselves. Instead, discuss the issue on the Reference desk talk page, so that, hopefully, consensus may be reached.

Is there really much that we want to say beyond the current wording? I fear that we may be trying to codify common sense — more often than not a futile endeavour. While I appreciate Julia's suggestion above, I'm afraid that one man's 'clear violation' is another man's 'informative response'; it may not be possible to avoid gray areas.

Looking at the specific case that started this thread, we did essentially follow the (existing) process. A post was removed to this talk page, and a (frank) discussion about its appropriateness ensued. The fact that the discussion took place – with multiple views from multiple parties – suggests that the removal of the comment was not patently unreasonable on its face, nor was it unambiguously out of line with what at least a substantial portion of the Ref Desk participants think is reasonable or ethically appropriate.

So, would the proposed change preclude the comment removal which precipitated this discussion? At least some of the argument above is based on the notion that the response given was not merely incorrect, but incorrect in such a way as to potentially present a serious hazard to life or health. While I'm hesitant to declare a consensus, at the moment it seems that a healthy majority of participants here would be willing to remove (or tolerate the removal of) the hypothetical baby-in-a-bag comment. Both would seem to fall on the misleading-and-potentially-dangerous continuum, albeit at widely spaced points. Where we ultimately place our threshold of tolerance on that continuum is always going to be fuzzy and context-dependent, and I don't think amenable to easy codification in our guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say it's more or less covered in WP:BEANS ? As to my "one"-liner for the How to answer questions section, on reading it, it does seem to be covered. If something needs to go in , I'd prefer leaving out "clear" since, as Ten says, it frequently isn't. As for common sense, though, it's not that common. A conundrum when you look into it. PS I edited myself above. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion that ensued post-deletion in this case was more or less entirely about whether the reply was correct or not. That's not the point. That debate about the truth of the statement could more usefully have been conducted on the RD itself rather than on the Talk: page. The point was that although the reply was clearly incorrect (I'm pretty sure I can prove that if forced to do so) - it should not have been deleted. There was no harm to be done in leaving it there PROVIDING that at least one person replied in a fairly forceable manner to say that the reply was incorrect. If we head down the slippery slope of people deleting replies because they are believed to be incorrect then the RD will rapidly become unworkable. I don't want to let this become a precedent-setting case. There have been hundreds (possibly thousands) of cases where someone is really sure that a previous post was incorrect - only do discover after a bit of further investigation that is was in fact perfectly OK. Case in point - was my horrendous boo-boo when I forgot the equation for Newton's law of cooling. I was (at the time) 100% sure in my mind that the previous post was incorrect - and I said so. Sadly, my brain-slip was a bad one - and shortly afterwards, someone else corrected me. If I had taken the line that the previous reply was wrong and therefore DELETED it, then the followup to my reply had deleted my reply in turn - it would have been a horribly bloody argumentative mess - rather than a bad post from me followed up by an eloquent correction from another respondant. Some of these questions are pretty difficult - it's not always possible to get it right on the first, second or even third reply - but if we start deleting things just because we don't think they are correct - the RD will change in nature from a place where there is an exchange of ideas and education to an edit-war battle-ground. In article space, it's necessary that the article is maintained in a clear state - and corrections have to be done by deletion of incorrect facts - but the RD is very different - it's more of a 'stream-of-collective-consciousness' thing - and there is no reason not to preserve multiple viewpoints. Hence we should leave all of the replies (including the ones we believe to be incorrect) right there in the thread and let the evidence speak for itself.

I would hope that my change WOULD preclude the removal of the response that was debated above. The person who deleted it could just as easily - and just as effectively (more effectively, IMHO) posted "No! You're wrong. Breathing this stuff is potentially lethal." - that would have been just good as removing the offending post - without the risk of delete-wars getting started.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad reluctant to start editing policy over what appears to be a relatively rare happening. Talk of setting precedents, slippery slopes, delete-wars, and so forth strikes me as an extrapolation not necessarily warranted by the events that have taken place.

I think that in the vast majority of cases, the helpers (responders? answerers? what should we be called?) here are quite content to leave incorrect answers in place and simply to provide rebuttals. I know it's something that I've done on many an occasion. (The Desks – and probably human nature – sometimes have a problem with responders who prioritize 'fast' over 'correct' or 'fact-checked', but that's another kettle of fish.)

The distinction between your Newton's law of cooling example and the sulfur hexafluoride case above is that the latter case involves offering potentially life-threatening guidance to our readers while the former did not. While I'm not entirely convinced that removing the comment in the SF6 case was the best course of action, I'm also not comfortable asserting that the removal was harmful, or even necessarily undesirable. I'm working against a bit of a (real-life) deadline and I have to cut this reply short, but I think we need to consider very carefully how to approach these situations in the future; the time isn't yet ripe to write new policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve mischaracterized my action. I do not go around removing replies I believe to be incorrect. I saw an immediate danger and acteed immediately. I moved it here for review, rather than simply deleting it. If someone says E= M*C*2 I will not delete it, but will instead post my own reply noting the error and offering a referenced correction. I moved the text in question not because I felt it was incorrect, but because of a unreferenced and questionable assertion that inhaling a suffocating gas was "quite safe" when in fact it could clearly cause death or injury. The reply I removed also offered unsolicited medical advice about the "suffocation response." No safety guidelines were included about making sure that there is breathable air in the space (don't put put your head in a bag of SF6) Numerous people have died from entering confined spaces filled with nitrogen rather than air. It was not responsive to the original question, which asked about the speed of sound in the gas. No guidelines were provided, such as not doing it via a mask, or making sure there was adult supervision, or making sure that the gas did not contain adulterants (recycled SF6 removed from a circuit breaker would contain products of arcing, for instance). No reference link was provided, such as to a science experiment site published by a college. No irreparable harm is done by the immediate removal to this reference page of similar well intentioned but dangerous recommendations. If the community disagrees with the removal, it can be readded. Edison (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archiving task

Here's a little archiving assistance task, if someone feels up to it. (I can't think of an easy way to do it, or I'd do it myself.)

at 00:31 on 15 December 2008 with this edit, scsbot archived the Mathematics desk for December 11 to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008 December 11, as usual.
at 18:25 on 15 December 2008 with this edit, Topology Expert moved that day's content back to the main Mathematics desk, un-transcluding it.
at 01:24 on 16 December 2008 with this edit, scsbot tried to archive December 11 a second time. It deleted the day's text from the main desk, but couldn't place it at WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11, because WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 was already there. (But it did re-transclude WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 to the main desk, as usual.)

Question 1: Did #2 accurately copy the contents of WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 as of 18:25 on 15 December 2008?

Question 2: Were there any changes made to the December 11 text on the main Mathematics desk after that? (I suspect there were.)

Question 3: Were any further changes made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #2 happened, and before #3 happened?

Question 4: Have any further changes been made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #3 happened? (Note that this question is a moving target: if the answer is "no" now, it could change to "yes" at any time.)

Depending on the answers to these questions, we can either have the bot forcibly recreate WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 with the text deleted from the main Mathematics desk in #3 (which is easy), or hand-integrate the changes involved in question 2 back into WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 (which is harder). Or we can throw up our hands and forget about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that the current MathRef page has the valid content for Dec 11? In that case, wouldn't the simplest course be to rename the existing (and presumably bad) Dec 11 archive page to "Dec11-deletable" and let the bot do it's normal thing? Then we just MfD the Dec11-deletable page. Will that sweep up the crumbs? Franamax (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, remove the existing entry in the archive index for Dec 11 also, to leave a clean slate for Scsbot. Franamax (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the questions? I think the problem is Steve doesn't know what's happened to the content (whether the MathRef page has the complete valid content, whether the archived page has been modified etc) and needs someone else to check it since he's quite busy. I'll start that now Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay in response to question 1, the answer is yes [3] (I copied the archived version and the version that Topology copied to my sandbox and did a diff, the only difference is Topology didn't copy his/her new reply but he/she replied again so that doesn't matter). In response to question 2 the answer is again yes [4] (I copied the text that Scsbot removed and compared to the version Topology added back). In response to question 3 the answer is no see the edit history of the archive page [5]. In response to question 4 the answer is a partial yes since I copied the version that Scsbot removed back to the archive page. Since nothing happened to the transcluded archive page there was no need to manually integrate anything and everything is now fine. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for those still confused about this, basically the problem was that Topology copied the transcluded page to the main page for reasons unknown. This meant there were now two versions of December 11, one in the archive page and one in the main reference desk page. Most people would have seen the main version but if anyone visited the archives directly they would have seen and edited the archived version. When the bot was next run, it removed the content of December 11 on the main page and added the transclusion template in preparation to make an archive page but then threw up an exception to Steve because the archive page already existed. This meant the main page now showed the old transcluded page which Topology had copied and anyone trying to change the page would have modified the transcluded archive page. Fortunately no one did ever modify the archived page after topology copied it back so I just had to do what I mentioned above and it's all fixed. P.S. As to why Topology started this mess, well you'd noted Topology added his/her reply twice to the archive page. I suspect there was some sort of caching issue which meant the reply wasn't showing up and rather then purging it, he/she just copied the archived page back. Tpology appears to be in a bad mood at least partially due to a disputed AFD and has recently changed his/her page to say he/she was retiring. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! —Steve Summit (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section after it was put back in the main article and my edit ended up disappearing at some point during the process to fix it. I realised what had happened and decided it wasn't worth fixing it, it probably still isn't. The discussion was pretty much going round in circles by that point anyway. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain? The only edit of yours that I can see to the December 11th section that occured after Topology added it back is this [6] which has been there (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008 December 11) since I fixed the section (it did disappear in between the time the bot removed the section again and the time I fixed the section for the reason explained above). Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

Here, 87.102.86.73 said "...forward and the new date pointing backwards...". How does he mean?96.53.149.117 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He means to put a link in the old thread to the new thread and a link in the new thread to the old thread. -- kainaw ™ 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell, people?

[7]. The guidelines only apply whenever you feel like, or what? And hey, let's don't forget to all chime in on "Who would win?" and "Punch in the face" since we're not bothering with answering valid questions with references these days. --LarryMac | Talk 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Name Change

The Wikipedia Chatroom. Because let's face it, that's what it's become. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? You? I don't agree. -- kainaw ™ 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See LarryMac's comment above. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit fun is ok as long as you don't lose sight of the main role, to answer factual questions. I see no harm in the hard working regulars indulging in a little lighthearted banter now and then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this kind of thing isn't really a Refdesk, but it's certainly not a chatroom. flaming lawye r^c 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the chatty replies, but the chatty questions get a bit tedious. Matt Deres (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Just in the past day, I have left extensive answers with references on at least half a dozen serious questions. If the question doesn't beg a serious answer, then it likely gets less than serious responses. I am unbothered at this point. If you don't want to reply, then don't. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just glance over the science reference desk (I can't talk for the others) and nearly every serious question is exhaustively answered, with references, by the regular contributors. Their work should be congratulated, not complained about. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's complaining about the regulars; I think the complaints are about people looking for advice on how to get a girl and posts about punching people in the face. I like it when responders leaven their answers with a bit of humour, like the occasional pun (there are even sum on the math desk, nyuk, nyuk!) or facetious link, though I would never post such a thing myself! Matt Deres (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then it should be explicitly stated, all I interpret from it is that people are being critisized for not replying with references anymore - which is completely unfounded - on the current desk I see many excelent replies with excellent references. If we are talking about a few bad eggs as you suggest then it is not appropriate to say the reference desk has become a chat room since those post are evidently in the minority. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant to post your comment in the thread above. Matt Deres (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is with the questions - then we're screwed. Much as I too hate some of the dumb questions people ask - as soon as we start excluding them, it'll be a slippery slope. Most questions get the answer they deserve. Our readers are almost always happy at the end - and when you compare what we do with 'competing' services (Yahoo Answers for example), we do a VASTLY superior job. Don't change a thing. SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Medical Advice removed

this was a blatant "I have a (insert disease here). Give me medical advice." question. I feel it rather depressing that so many people responded, including otherwise good editors. Perhaps I read the question wrong. Feel free to revert if I'm completely off on this. -- kainaw ™ 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the common cold doesn't seem like medical advice to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with kainaw. There's a self-diagnosis implicit in the statement "I have the common cold," and, while may be a correct self-diagnosis, it's still a self-diagnosis of a medical condition. Had the user asked "What are some alleged remedies for the common cold," that would be more of a gray area, but the original wording of the question was a pretty clear request for medical advice. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; that's a good call. The question was right over the line of a request for medical advice. It's a bit unfortunate that we didn't catch it sooner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the question should have been removed, though it's really more chatty than a pure request for advice. "My car broke down and the dog threw up - what should I do now?" is neither a request for mechanical or veterinarian advice, but a call for commiseration. Maybe I read it wrong as well. Most of the replies were pretty harmless, at least. Matt Deres (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal advice?

The recent question on WP:RD/M#Attaining US Residency as a student seems to me like a request for legal advice, although the relevant expert to ask would probably be an immigration officer, not a lawyer. I'm just enough unsure about that that I haven't deleted the question and answer, but I think I hope someone else will. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay to me, but is personal and I wonder why not ask the registry and the regular bodies involved in this kind of plan? Maybe it's like the common cold chat – "I'm thinking of this, but need some reassurance..." Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not legal advice, as you wouldn't go to a lawyer for such basic questions. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for medical advice removed

[8]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like trolling to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because that seems like such an impossibly long time? Maybe the poor fellow's just really tired from work. :) jk --S.dedalus (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A job that tires him out sexually ? Trying to earn an Xmas bonus, is he ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal advice (unpaid medical bills)

[9] (also not appropriate for Science desk). -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not legal advice. The OP never says this is himself or anyone he knows. For all we know this is an entirely hypothetical situation used for illustration. It’s a legal themed question, that’s all. Consensus has always been that we base our judgments on the actual content of the question. Double guessing the OP is not appropriate. Please restore it to bottom of the desk ASAP and link from the original heading. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a question of international bill collection practices. Also, your text: "...including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations" makes it sound like it was a request for medical advice, which it certainly was not. I restored. StuRat (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Xmas Refdeskers!

...and...oh! It looks like Santa has dropped down your virtual chimney! Here is your present! (My son and I were recruited as elves - we wrote it specially for the occasion)

Xmas SameGame

[[to]]

I was typing that and when i pressed preview, it didnt blue link. Post this on bugzilla please, because I don't have an account.96.53.149.117 (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might just have been an error on that preview, seems to be working now. If you used the nowiki tags in your preview then it wouldn't blue link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another (potential) request for medical advice removed

By JSBillings. Just giving a quick heads-up here in case he doesn't. I was actually about to remove it myself... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

need help.......... my child has been taken out of the country without my consent

To anyone who can help me.... My daughter who is 2 was taken out of the country on the 16th Dec 2008 without my consent. The female Judge granted this only two weeks before the due date. I had made things very clear through out my ordeal with the court system now for almost 2 years regarding the threats of her never coming back if she should ever be taken out of the country. Not only has this happened just recently but the courts have turned a blind eye to demands that she is to be stripped down and handed to me while i pick her up from her daycare centre. I have video recordings of all these matters and still the judge will not take into account what has been happening to her.. This story could go on to be truthful but I need some answers as to how this could happen and what grounds. The Judge also refused to put restrictions on my x partner and I do not know where she is or their itinrary's. Supposedly she is due back on the 8th Jan but what if she is not what do i do next... My lawyer isn't the best lawyer but I cant afford a decent one either. And I have never used this site before so sorry if its in the wrong place

forjustice77 Perth WA

Erm, I believe that this is a wrong place to post. Sorry. E Wing (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and this is the reference desk talk page. There may be some helpful articles such as child custody or Parental child abduction, but even the best information available here is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Nimur (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FJ77, for free legal advice in Perth try this search[10]; for free preliminary legal advice in all areas of law, the Women’s Law Centre WA Inc. Phone: (08) 9272 8800. Legal Aid where you are is the Citizen’s Advice Bureau Legal Service 25 Barrack Street Perth WA 6000, and for more legal advice options, contact the Law Society: phone numbers here[11]. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical advice request removed

Diff of removal, just for the record — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling on the Language desk

Just a note, 68.127.228.70 (talk · contribs) is actually Lysdexia (talk · contribs), who was banned many years ago. I suppose the IP should also be blocked if anyone would like to bother with the effort. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late but Happy New Year!

Sorry for the late message but Happy New Year to all RDers! Lets hope in 2009 there are no more trolls and other problematic users Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (NZDT, UTC+13)

Hmm... here in the UK it's a bit too early, Nil Einne, but I wish you a Happy New Year down there in the distant Antipodes! Xn4 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wooo! 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the first two and a half hours of it! --Bowlhover (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just ten more minutes... bibliomaniac 1 5 07:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Laser based short sight correction-what is the downside?

I agree that this was a request for medical advice, but many good, non-medical advice answers were also removed along with the Q, so I restored them. None of the responses were mine, BTW. We shouldn't just blindly remove all the responses to a medical Q, as many are good and don't contain any medical advice. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. answers to medical questions should not be removed so long as they don't give medical advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion, but it is a bit confusing: Now we have a "question was removed" message instead of a question, followed by answers (recommendations to see a professional plus some wikilinks) and me trying to guess what the removed question was. Makes for a puzzle, I guess. To raise the challenge, we could eliminate all questions after 24 hours and only leave the answers. Maybe the threads wouldn't even grow that differently from now! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer that removals of Q's be done with one of those collapsible boxes, so it can be opened up by those trying to understand the responses. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rm alleged med advice

For the record, the title showing above was modified by someone from the original composed by me, which was "rm med advice". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pittuitay tumors. The guidelines...excuse me...*YAWN*...say nothing about consensus before removing. We talk here. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete without consensus, but then I will afford you the same courtesy and revert you without consensus, too, as I have: [12]. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just noticed this, sorry. Not giving you the silent treatment. To respond, what we're doing here at Wikipedia has been proved impossible time and again on every internet forum there ever was—remaining civil while working together constructively. I'm proud and not a little bit puzzled to be a part of it. I feel nothing one way or the other toward any party to this pituitary business, I was simply following the guidelines like a good little law-abiding gnome. No hard feelings. Just doing the right thing according to my understanding of the rules, which say to remove the question and any answers when you see them. The rules do not say to unilaterally just put them back up on the board. Coutesy or lack of it don't enter into it, and I'm sorry if what I've done made you feel bad. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines are in violation of general Wikipedia policies, which either state that consensus is needed for any change (deletion or reverts of deletions) for policy pages and such, or that anyone can delete or revert a deletion, for normal content pages. There is nowhere that deletions are allowed to be made unilaterally but where reverts of deletions require consensus, for obvious reasons. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a diff would be nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a dif. I feel the removal was in good faith and appropriate, since we can discuss it and repost in part if there is consensus. The question was partly a statistical one, about how unlikely it was for brothers-in-law to get a tumor of the same part of the body. The OP did not say "My friend has these symptoms. Does he have disease X?" or "Doc says I have disease X. I am thinking of trying remedy Y. What is your advice?" I would have left the question which asked for statistical probability, and would have left the removed response by Steve Baker provided the statistics requested and was a credit to Ref Desk, and comparable to the information any good Real Life Reference Librarian might have looked up for any patron. The borderline area was the OP asking if the unlikeliness of two brothers in-law getting the type of tumor meant that they might have had the same environmental exposure to one of several possible causative agents, (and possibly whether either one of the two tumor patients or a third person is "in danger." Unclear text). That last angle goes into remote diagnosis of the etiology of pituitary tumors, and risk analysis for a particular individual, and at least that part of the question and any answers involving risk assessment or prediction should probably have been removed, had there been any, which there were not. In summary, I would favor restoring the first part of the Q and the A. Edison (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice to know that StuRat still cares about my contributions. I removed this question earlier: [13]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat has not been cited so far in this discussion. RefDesk cannot offer diagnoses. Ref Desk should offer reliable sources in response to questions not seeking diagnoses or treatment recommendations. Real Life Reference Desk librarians point the way to books answering such questions. Edison (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll have to reference myself. I saw no request for medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment in that question, or in the answers, so see no basis for the removal. Also note that Ten didn't even bother to post a notice here after his removal. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again. Stu, dude, what the H? Are we reading the same guidelines? Anyway, "am I crazy to think that the one husband still married may be in danger?" Explain how that is not a request for medcal advice, please. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would all depend on what the possible cause of the disease was. If they both lived near a toxic waste dump, it wouldn't be medical advice to say "Move away from that toxic waste dump, it's potentially dangerous". StuRat (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't seem like a complicated case. The thread was started with a brief sketch of the treatment histories of two men with pituitary tumors. There were two questions: a subsidiary one about the chemical DIFP, and the main one about whether or not one of the men's health was still in danger.

Obviously the latter question is far over the line — we don't offer prognoses. The Reference Desk isn't a crystal ball that forecasts the future health of our readers. The former question is, on its face, completely answered with a link to our article. If someone wants to post a link to DIFP and close the matter, they're welcome to. Still, the intent of the question is obvious — the poster wants to know if the pituitary tumors can be blamed on this chemical, and may be sniffing for a lawsuit (I have trouble thinking of an alternate, plausible explanation for the "I am being careful not to point any fingers or talk about this with anyone" stuff in the original post).

As an aside, can we all try to remember that the reason why we have these guidelines is to prevent unseemly revert wars on the Desk? If a question has been removed from the Desk as an inappropriate request for advice, before replacing it please bring the matter to this talk page for discussion. If a consensus is established that the removal was in error, the question goes back on the Desk at the bottom of the page where it will be most conspicuous. The worst case scenario is that a poster receives an answer tomorrow, rather than today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with that, TOAT, is that some editors will claim that there is no consensus for restoration as long as a single admin opposes it. Also, As StuRat says below, removing questions and good-faith responses can drive people away from the RefDesks and from Wikipedia. As to removing without explanation here (with diffs) that is just downright rude. DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's a (potential) pitfall with all Wikipedia's consensus-driven processes. (The dissenting person doesn't have to be an admin, either.) If this becomes a substantial problem then you should probably work your way up the dispute resolution process.

If you need help with this, let me know — I don't like it when any editor tries to hold an article or process hostage. If you see a case where a single editor (admin or not) tries to overrule a consensus established through a reasonable period of discussion on this talk page, drop me a message. I will issue cautions – and blocks, if necessary – to any editor who attempts to stop up the works in that way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case scenario would be that the poster finds their question has been deleted, when there's nothing wrong with it, and gets pissed and leaves Wikipedia, along with some of the responders. Even if it is reposted, there's no guarantee they can find it again, or would even think to look for it again, after it's been deleted. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the removal, but this would not have been as controversial if diffs had consistently been posted here with a rationale. --Scray (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statistical part of the question was not "medical advice", neither was the request for information about a specific chemical. Medical advice is "have I got a disease" or "what treatment regime should I follow". To remove the whole thing, along with good-faith informative answers, is I think contrary to the guideline, damaging to the refdesk, and disrespectful to the other editors involved. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 'statistical' part of the question wasn't actually a question — it was just a reference to a previous question that was asked and answered on 29 December (as it didn't seek medical advice): Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2008 December 29#chances developing same affliction. I agree — a single good-faith, informative response was removed. However, it only re-answered the question that had already received a detailed response on 29 December, and wasn't really being asked this time around.

I think it's also important to note that no good faith answers would have been removed and SteveBaker's effort not been wasted if StuRat hadn't restored my original removal of the question. He didn't do me – or the other volunteers here – the courtesy of notifying us that he'd done it. Given the number of times that StuRat has done this type of thing before, he should have known that the question would have been re-removed eventually, and the time of anyone who answered in the meantime wasted. That is behaviour that is contrary to the guideline, damaging to the Ref Desk, and disrespectful to the other editors involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever accepted that you have been mistaken in removing a question? DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Ten, it's you position that you have no responsibility to list your removals here, much less develop a consensus for those removals, but anyone who reverts them must do so ? StuRat (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your position that you want to reinvent the wheel every time, and re-discuss whether or not medical advice is welcome here whenever these situations come up? Friday (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing whether medical advice can be removed, as you well know, I'm discussing whether people who delete content from the Ref Desk have a responsibility to post diffs of their removals here. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOAT appears to believe that he can remove posts without bothering to tell anyone or to explain his actions. He appears to believe that his interpretation of guidelines is the only correct one. He appears to believe that his interpretation of questions in the only correct one. He repeatedly ignores other editors concerns about his behaviour. He objects when others behave in a way similar to that in which he behaves. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.... and he appears to be beat his wife! If you are going to ask such a loaded question, at least have the decency to let the man respond before doing so for him.

Look, we ask people to use exercise good judgment around here and was assume good faith that they are doing so. In the case of a very well respected and experienced administrator, such as TOAT, it is not unreasonable to expect that he has the wherewithal to interpret our guidelines and policies correctly and act on them accordingly (especially since he was instrumental in forming this particular one). Does that mean that he doesn't make mistakes occasionally? Of course not. But in these sorts of discussions, there are rarely black and white, rights and wrongs. Instead there are opinions in shades of gray. We are not a democracy, and we don't need to vote of every removal of a medical question (or a question that, to someone with experience of our policies and guidelines, appears to be one). If there is a genuine concern that someone has misinterpreted our guidelines, then discuss it with them. Its not rocket science. Its also certainly fair to ask that someone provide a link here after they remove a question, but if in doing so you get the needlessly drama-provoking response StuRat offered in this thread, then I wouldn't note it here in future either. Rockpocket 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Friday's post. I do not have to wait for TOAT to respond to a legitimate question about his edits before responding to a question from Friday. I was not aware that the fact that TOAT helped develop the guideline (NOT a policy) gave him enhanced rights in interpretation. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you folks choose not to tell anyone or list diffs when you delete something, then I won't feel the need to do so when I revert it. The same rules apply to all. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "same rules" do not apply to all in the manner you suggest. When there is material that is reasonably considered to have the potential to be defamatory, libelous, dangerous or harmful then it is our prerogative to remove first, and debate later. For example, this principle is the basis of WP:BLP. Unqualified medical advice certainly has the potential to be dangerous or harmful, therefore if that is a reasonable consideration it should be removed first, and only added back if there is a reasonable consensus that the removal is unwarranted. On that basis, note that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Rockpocket 05:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reject this "guilty until proven innocent (of being medical advice)" policy, as a violation of WP:Consensus. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our best contributor proposed an addition to the guidelines to help deal with removals of replies (see above), guess which admin decided that it was premature to hold a straw poll on it? I'll give you a clue, it is our most prolific remover of good-faith replies. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone isn't helping, Duncan. This section of the guidelines already says that diffs should noted here and the remover already said he'll do so in future. The mudslinging really isn't necessary. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milkbreath said he would, but the original remover, Ten, didn't say this AFAIK, and Rockpocket seems to also feel no need to do so. I suspect the same for Friday. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put a diff when I removed it for the second time. That was wrong. I'll be sure to do so every time from now on. I have no excuse, sir. Pure slipshoddity on my part. Out of practice. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: Certain removals can and should be carried out without consensus to protect the OP. The violation of WP:Consensus is imo an excellent demostration of the usefulness of WP:IAR. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think that the presence of the signed {{rd-deleted}} template on the Ref Desk itself serves as both a clear indication of why most questions are removed, and provides a convenient link back to the editor who made the removal. In this particular case, I replaced the question with the template; added an additional on-Desk explanation of why, specifically, we couldn't provide an answer; referred the poster to qualified professionals; and signed the message: [14]. (That's the same diff as I provided above.) The implication that I was trying to conceal my actions or in some way 'not...tell anyone' what I was up to strikes me as quite unfair.

Instead of 'undo'ing my removal without notifying anyone, StuRat could quite easily have brought the matter to this talk page – or even asked me to do so on my talk page – and saved all of us all this trouble. I note that his edit summary ("Undid revision 261495653 by TenOfAllTrades: Reverted nonconsensus deletion, as no diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice was asked for, only asked for possible causes of diseases." [15]) suggests that he was also quite familiar with the guidelines, and was also violating them. He should by now be aware that the guidelines compel us to discuss the issue of whether or not a request seeks medical advice on this talk page, not through edit summaries and revert wars on the Desk itself. That he undid my edit implies that he had no serious difficulty locating the diff.

I suspect that anything else that I say in this thread will end up just going around in circles at higher and higher volume. Since more heat than light is already being generated here, I don't think that I want to continue. If there's anyone who wants to argue that I'm participating in the Ref Desk solely (or even primarily) as a power-tripping referee or in some other manner of bad faith, I strongly urge you to first review my contributions. I have made thousands of contributions to the Desks, responding to hundreds of questions (often the 'difficult' science questions that take some hard work to answer). Treat with me as an equal – a rational adult who cares just as much about this project, this Desk, and the people here as you do – or not at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I just happened to notice the removal. I don't read every Q, and if I hadn't chanced upon it, I'd have never known a questionable removal had been done. If Ten's removal had been noted here, as is proper, this wouldn't have been a problem.

2) I eventually found the diff, but it took a long time sorting through the huge history on the Ref Desk (on my old, slow computer). I suspect that Ten enjoys making me waste my time searching for diffs he should have provided up front.

3) The "Undo" button, as usual, could not be used due to "intermediate edits" (is there any way around this ?). So, I then had to painstakingly reconstruct the post instead. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's inconvenient for you to edit disruptively? Sorry, but I don't find your whining compelling at all. This nonsense is getting old, StuRat. Grow up. Friday (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing editors of "whining" when they list objections is not appropriate behavior for an editor, much less an Admin. Neither is calling any edit with which you disagree "disruptive". StuRat (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick and tired of TOAT's apparent inability to accept that he makes mistakes, and that his interpretation of the guidelines is not final. I am also sick and tired of Friday's jumping on the heads of anyone who criticizes TOAT here. Enough already - TOAT, start treating others like equals and stop trying to stifle debate (as you did with Steve's proposal above) and Friday, stop acting as TOAT's strong-arm. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nobody's anything. I'm just am an editor who is tired of having these same discussions over and over. Nobody did anything wrong or unusual here. Removing inappropriate content is done all the time, all over the wiki. Nobody needs permission in triplicate before doing this. We've got a couple stubborn editors here who either don't know, or don't accept, how things are generally done. StuRat wants us all to play by whatever he says the rules are. Then, he whines and ruleslawyers whenever someone does something he doesn't approve of. It's all gotten very tiresome. Normally I wouldn't bitch about it so much, but it's been going on far too long. Friday (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of stubborn editors yes, I can think of a couple. TOAT wants us all to play by whatever he says the rules are. All gone on far too long? Yes indeed, and a little more care and respect for others might have prevented it in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're "tired of having these same discussions", then just avoid them. There's no need to start insulting people due to your fatigue. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the RD (compared to most WP editing) is that there is an element of timeliness involved. Because edits scroll off the top of the page and are never looked at again within just a few days - we can't afford to have prolonged debates about it here. That's QUITE different from normal Wikipedia editing - and hence we need our own guidelines. If a question is removed for even one day - then the quantity and quality of the replies goes down really sharply after it is replaced. On the other hand, our rules about medical and legal advice DO require prompt action because we might maybe be in ethical or legal trouble if we don't do that. So I think our customary practices should continue to be:

If you see something that you are sure is not OK - just BE BOLD and remove it...if you aren't sure - come here and ask.
- BUT it's absolutely ESSENTIAL that you delete something that you leave a note explaining why - which REALLY ought to be one of our standard disclaimers rather than something you just made up. {{dyoh}} for "Do your own homework" for example....not "HaHa! We're not going to answer that because it's homework.".
- I don't think you need to come here to explain - all you're going to say is "It was a homework question" and the template already does that.
- I certainly don't see the need to post diffs or anything - that's why we have the history mechanism - nothing ever gets lost forever.
If anyone thinks it's a bad decision - come here and explain why - hopefully by explaining why the guidelines do not indicate deletion.
Now the clock is ticking...we have two editors who disagree and we have to come to a decision very rapidly...waiting for full consensus is truly impossible. We have to use our best judgement because we don't want to start an edit war.
So - I'd argue that if the first few responses to the complaint about deletion agree with the complainant - then we should restore the question while we finish the debate. If the first few responses say it was correctly deleted - then we should probably leave it as is.
From that point onwards - if we REALLY don't have near-unanimous agreement then the debate will simply rage on until the decision is moot because the OP is never going to read the answers anyway (or has already read them and it's too late to delete them).
Hence - the ongoing debate cannot be about whether this specific question should be deleted or not - all we can usefully discuss is whether (procedurally) this is some kind of a new special case that needs to result in a change in the guidelines so this kind of mistake doesn't happen again.
In the end we don't have - nor ever will have a perfect process - and we can't do things "The Wikipedia Way" because the RD is time-sensitive and that requires a quite different process.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, finding a diff in the history isn't always as easy as you think:

1) Newbies aren't likely to know how. To them, their question is just gone forever.

2) The history pages on the big Ref Desks are huge, so finding anything in them is a challenge. I have to list 500 entries at a time, if my poor computer can handle that without locking up, then do a search for the question title. However, if the question title was changed, that may not work. Also, if the editor who did the removal got an edit conflict, then it escalates to a page level edit, and there's no section title listed. In such a case there is no other way besides viewing every single change until you hit the right one.

This is why it's critical to list diffs for removals. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hi Steve - I like a lot of what you're saying, and I agree with you that putting a question back in its original location a day or two later will essentially guarantee that it remains unseen and unanswered. The bulk of activity on the Desks happens right at the bleeding edge bottom of the page, and most questions get replies very rapidly there. (Heck, that's the reason why our policy is to remove a question that seems to seek medical advice, rather than having a discussion first — about two-thirds of questions on the Science Desk get their first response in less than an hour: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#We're still fast.)

I'm a bit concerned that a codified 'rapid decision' process could be prone to gaming. Two or three editors acting in concert could nullify the entire medical advice guideline by coordinating their objections to each removal of an advice request (generating a temporary, illusory majority against the removal of any given question). The benefit of your proposal (fast replacement of legit questions) could be nullified by one or two editors who made a point of chiming in with a 'me too' support every time a post was removed. Neither of those outcomes would be healthy.

I seem to recall an earlier discussion where this concern was raised – if someone can find it above or in the archives, that would be wonderful – and I think there was a reasonable solution reached to the ticking clock problem. Instead of trying to rush to a temporary decision, we would allow sufficient time for discussion and develop a proper consensus on the talk page. If the consensus was that the question had been removed in error, it would be restored to the Desk, at the bottom of the page. (A link from the original location would also be provided and the original poster would be notified, whenever possible.) Moving the question to the bottom means that it would receive the usual full dose of loving attention from Ref Deskers.

I recognize that it's not a perfect solution. In some fraction of cases, the original poster may well have moved on, never to return. Unfortunately, I don't see any easy (or difficult) way around that problem. Would those posters – having seen their questions removed after twenty minutes – be much more likely to check back in two or three hours than they would in a day or two? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that what I propose could be 'gamed' - but why? Who does shit like that? The RD is (mostly) a bunch of pretty friendly people. If it becomes obvious that people are cheating - then we wag our fingers at them and tell them that they are naughty, NAUGHTY people. If it happens a lot - we change the rules...but I don't think that's going to happen. People here are fairly reasonable. If I had a gun to my head I'd say that anyone who does a 'quick reversal' of a delete which is subsequently not upheld by consensus should lose their right to make quick reversal decisions for...meh...six months. No more tag-teaming. But we shouldn't need that rule - let's live with 'the honor system'. And we always have "break all rules"...if there is blatant abuse in clear-cut cases that contradict guidelines - go ahead remove the question and start an edit war over it. People will pretty soon rally around you if you're right...and they'll flay you alive if you aren't.

Finding the diff is easy - you look at the signature of the person who removed the post - that gives you the time of the edit (accurate to a minute or two) - plenty good enough to find it in the history. This does rather require that the person doing the removal signs their removal...but I don't have a problem requiring that.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, shouldn't the rules be symmetrical ? That is, if you punish people in some way for restoring things that the majority later says should be deleted, shouldn't the same punishment be meted out to those who delete things which the consensus decides should stay ? StuRat (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#sexual_reproduction_would_never_work.

I really think this thread is a troll thread. Thoughts? bibliomaniac 1 5 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly reads that way. But, assuming good faith, enough answers have been provided to explain why the OP's analogy is poor. Should he continue to offer his opinions then it might be time to draw a line. Rockpocket 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it's very subtle. It seems like a misguided belief to me, and nothing more. I tend to use the word troll very carefully -- usually only for people who create threads just to offend people or to cause angry arguments. Try to assume good faith.--Djnghfg (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like to assume good faith, but feeding a believer from the bridge as well as God could be asking too much: "are you saying you disagree with God that bees can fly? What does that have to do with my question? Start your own thread!" ?? Maybe there are so many answers because of a lack of good questions? Hmmm, Bibliomaniac's got something there... Julia Rossi (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very trollish. Something that one would probably never walk up to a person at a library reference desk and ask or ramble about without being looked at very strange. If the OP doesn't agree with God or want to deny reproduction works, fine. But it's not something that brings to mind good faith to me. I still don't even see a valid question. Just my two cents, and happy late new year to all. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I interpreted it, he was really asking how two individuals can have their DNA combined in a semi-random way to produce a new, different, and fully functioning human. Saying he disagreed with God was simply a creative way of phrasing the question. --Bowlhover (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit odd - "Hi, I disagree with God - but science is bullshit" seems oddly like the post we discuss in the next section down which starts in a similar manner: "Hi, I don't believe in God - but evolution is bullshit". IMHO, a troll is someone who does this REPEATEDLY. But those two posts came from wildly different IP's so there doesn't seem to be a pattern here...yet. When OP's come back and argue about the answers we give - then my "troll-o-meter" starts to head into the red zone - but this one wasn't too terrible. The ensuing debate (OK - it was mostly me disagreeing with nearly everyone!) was interesting and challenging - and sometimes the joy of the RD doesn't end when the OP's initial question is answered...that's just how it is. This was an INTERESTING thread - notable in that it continued almost to the cutoff when it disappeared from the page. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is more similar to Bowlhover. 79 didn't appear to be saying he/she didn't believe in God. It sounded more like he was saying God was trying to fool people into believing sexual reproduction works when in reality it doesn't and so humans must reproduce some other way (I guess with God's direct involvement). He/she didn't even appear to be directly challenging evolution, it was only sexual reproduction that didn't work. (Of course those two are interlinked in so many ways you can't consider one without considering the other.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the t-revealing pattern in snippy replies to refdeskers. Btw, is this a new strategy to discourage t'g – to answer the bejesus out of the question? Looks like a fun solution to me. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thought it was a valid question, just as much as asking if dropping an egg is inertia at work (no, it's acceleration/deceleration). The question looked strange because it came from an invalid premise - an incorrect understanding of how software works and how human reproduction works, neither is a "mish-mash". And "start your own thread" is OK too by me, if the OP is trying to keep things focussed. Snippy yes, but we've seen way worse.

And for my own benefit, why do we have "cutoff when it disappeared" situations? I've always thought that RefDesk questions are only fully answered when they go quiet. It shouldn't matter if they're five days old, if they are still active, they shouldn't vanish! Franamax (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I agree that the scrolling-then-archiving thing is a harsh mistress. I started a discussion a while back (which kinda fizzled) to make each thread be a separate page - which (had it panned out) would have given us the option to keep questions around until (say) there were no additions to them for the past 48 hours. Certainly you CAN keep talking on a thread that's fallen off the top of the page - but you're likely to be talking to yourself. This saddens me - but without major infrastructure changes, it IS a fact of life. We DO have the option to post a followup question or even to repost the same question in the event that the discussion truly hasn't reached a decent conclusion - both of those are within the RD guidelines - and contributors can ask questions too. The only issue is the stricture against soapboxing - and asking a question solely so you can continue ranting about software-versus-hardware-versus-DNA without you personally seeking some additional truth - would be soapboxing. SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the separate page thing, I had it lined up, but the botop in question ignored my request for a trial. That person is now an arbitrator; if they were too busy to respond then, I doubt it's going to be a priority now to solve problems and answer questions on the method and the bot. We could always revive that issue though, and maybe ask for the code to be transferred to someone more committed.

There's another alternative too: the Admin noticeboards are archived by MiszaBot, which only archives threads when they are inactive for a specified time period. I'm not sure if it could handle archiving them by date though, and Ummit's bot does a great job right now (except for that one issue).

It would be nice for the interesting threads to stay until they're worn out. Soapbox-y ones could be handled with a {{resolved}} template and a hatnote. (A whole 'nother thing to argue about on this page :) Franamax (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll question removed

I removed a troll question from the Science desk, consisting of the old "babby" meme --LarryMac | Talk 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for the headsup on junk. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good removal to me. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist troll question removed

I love nothing more than to debate creationists, but this was pure soapboxing masquerading as a question. Nipped in the bud. Here is the diff, should anyone want to examine it. Matt Deres (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reinstating the question myself, since Steve has decided to respond. Matt Deres (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't see it. Also,~~ I didn't think there was provision in the guidelines for removing such questions, just the potentially lawsuit-generating and harm-causing medical and legal ones. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's gone, and I think it's better not to tempt people to respond to those sous-pont dwellers, but it's a giant step down the slippery slope of removals to yank anything that we feel doesn't belong there. Who's to judge? I'd be pulling lots of crap every day if I were the judge. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone could think of a way to turn those who repeatedly ask worthless questions into users who ask good questions. Want a list of pathetic questions that are more soapboxing than questions and designed to strike up a debate instead of get factual information? Easy, look here. -- kainaw ™ 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "Why is it illegal to fight to the death?", "Why can't pro football be played seven days a week?" and "How many times will they let you hit foul balls?"? :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simplest way is to simply avoid answering questions that you think are worthless. Just say nothing. If nobody answers them - the person will get bored with writing them and go away. If people DO answer them - then perhaps they aren't so worthless after all. The system is self-correcting. Possibly the worst response is to mock the questioner or attempt humor. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing these kinds of post...and I thank Matt for replacing the question without a major argument. We ask that people not start soapboxing - but taken at face value, here were a set of very answerable questions. I prefer to WP:AGF. There is interesting science in the answers - the time is not wasted. What I REALLY don't want to see is some major newspaper headline: "WIKIPEDIA SUPPRESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION" - or yet "WIKIPEDIA SUPPRESSES QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN" - because that's just the kind of thing that'll give ammunition to some bible-belt school-board to ban students from using Wikipedia...and that's the last thing we want. So, suck it up and answer with a straight face. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that while questions like this often appear as trolling from an outside perspective, most of the time the questioner is looking for a real answer and is simply a bit misguided or has worded their post in an unfortunate way. In addition, I enjoyed reading SteveBaker's epic response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any great need to AGF in this "question", TBH. They didn't ask whether fossilized bootprints had ever been found or whether C14 dating was truly accurate or any of the other points Steve so nicely explained, they used the desk as a soapbox to proselytize their position that evolution is bunk and to stir up a debate about ID vs. rationalism. Just to be clear (not that anyone is stating the contrary), I removed the question not because of the topic, but because of the intent. Matt Deres (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Matt, what you have to understand is that many people, especially kids, only see one perspective in life, such as that of whichever immoral, fat televanglist his family watches on TV and sends their life savings to. So, to him all those things are true, because he's never heard the real truth. If we assume good faith and enlighten them, then maybe they will have a broader perspective. If, however, they come back with the same nonsense again and again, then I agree that they are a troll. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we have SteveBaker around, willing to implement his "don't remove it, answer it convincingly" proposal from way way above, there's not much to worry about. If the OP had gone on to ignore Steve's excellent refutation, that would qualify as soapboxing. If some strangers suddenly turned up to support the OP, that could be suspicious.

As noted above though, it's important to AGF where possible. People come here to sort out the "facts" they've been fed in their daily lives. I have an ex-friend who I'd always at least semi-respected until the day they handed me a book titled "Why Evolution is Wrong" or something, and asked me "do you think we come from slime?". I read most of it - it was quite entertaining, a compendium of discrepancies in evolutionary and biological science (almost like what's discussed every week in scholarly journals, just more selective). Now, my response was "yes, we come from slime, heck, we are slime, we eat slime and incorporate in our bodies" and we parted ways not long after - but this guy was honestly parroting what other people had told him. If there's a chance he can ask a question here and read Steve's answer and experience a different viewpoint, all the better I say. If he goes on to ramble or attack or bait, see-ya bye. But the OPQ was valid, if oddly phrased. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I admire your ability to AGF, but this is not the post of a kid who doesn't "know" what evolution is or who is looking for help on getting information to make a decision for themselves. People in a position of ignorance (e.g. kids) ask about how things work and why things happened. People in a position of stupidity (e.g. creationists) ask questions about why everyone is lying when the truth is so obvious. You can inform people who don't know things (i.e. teach the ignorant), but you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

If the poster had said something like, "I heard this guy on the radio say that (insert creationist lie here). What does that mean?" or "My biology teacher was forced to tell us a bunch of conflicting stuff and said she wasn't allowed to mention which one was right. What's going on here?" I would have put together a huge answer with directions to all kinds of really good articles here on WP and I would have responded to every follow-up question they had (assuming Steve hadn't beat me to it!). But that's not what this was. Stuff like "Is there really a single scrap of evidence that supports evolution over intelligent design?" is not the question of someone who wants an answer, it's the question of someone who wants to start a debate.

I'm struggling to see why you considered this a valid question, yet agreed on the removal of the "babby" thing above. I'm sure it was just a leg pull too, but answering it does nothing more than provide some nice links. Keeping this question provides a soapbox for creationists. Matt Deres (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "babby" meme has been repeated over and over - THAT is what makes it a troll. We can assume good faith when someone asks an off-the-wall question. But when that assumption is proven to be incorrect, we are NOT expected to force ourselves to believe it's good faith against all evidence. So "babby" posts are now clearly trolling - I'm not assuming good faith anymore - I'm convinced of bad faith - we can delete the posts - accuse the OP of vandalism - seek administrative action in terms of blocks and bans. That's fine by me. But this creationist question (as far as I could tell) was the first question of this nature posted by this person. Sure, the odds are good that they are a loony creationist who had hoped to get a huge argument going between creationist-sympathisers and atheist-scientists. But that didn't happen so that may well be all we hear from them. OTOH, if we start to see multiple, similar questions from this person - then sure, stop WP:AGFing and start with WP:DFTT. If we stop answering those questions and the user gives up and goes away - then all well and good. If we have to escalate further then we can give up on WP:DFTT and delete questions, post vandalism templates on their talk: pages - and if they persist after we ask them to stop - we set the admins loose on them and the inevitable rounds of blocking, then the spiral into sock-puppetry, etc will inevitably follow. But WP:AGF is a WP:5P requirement of people who work here - so this question MUST stay, no matter what you personally feel about it's author. That's what WP:AGF is all about. It's tough in the face of 'obvious' soapboxing - but them's the rules! SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the things is the question was arguably answerable in RD style even if poorly phrased and there are few people on the RDS going to dispute or argue over the answers. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google

Does anyone mind if I edit the intro to direct the user to use an internet search engine rather than specifying google on basis of NPOV and no need to have a link since searching is one of the first things a computer user learns - could update with a little pointer to putting in more of the question maybe e.g. 'what is the fastest car' maybe. LeeVJ (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do, Google is by far the superior and most well known search engine available. "Google it!" is a term now in common usage. The Link is required, users in general are more likely to do the search if we provide a link than if they have to find this themselves. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it would be better to link to an article on internet searching. In the unlikely event someone visiting really doesn't know how to access a search engine on their own, it's better we teach them then just direct them to Google Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick scout for a suitable essay / article but no luck so far. LeeVJ (talk)

Invoking NPOV here is not entirely appropriate. Google have gone further in indexing Wikipedia effectively (and working with us to make things work smoothely) than any of the other search engines (who have basically ignored us). Google is streets ahead of the competition in indexing Wikipedia (just take a look at Google Maps with Wikipedia icons enabled - it's SO cool! Can you think of ANY other way to ask "I'm going on vacation HERE - what Wikipedia articles should I read to get the best information on local culture and landmarks?"). So I don't think neutrality enters into it. If we wish to tell people how to search more effectively than Wikipedias' internal search can manage - then telling people to go specifically to Google is not at all inappropriate. If the other search people get upset about this - the answer is easy - improve your searching of Wikipedia and we can include your name when you are the best solution. However, that in no way alters the need to implement an RD-specific search box per the proposal below. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems somewhat irrelevant. We are helping people to search generally not to search wikipedia. Also it seems it may not be entirely correct [16] [http://virtualearth.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2BBC66E99FDCDB98!15346.entry. (Disclaimer: I use Google all the time so I haven't really compared Google to anyone else in searching wikipedia). At the very least, could we mention 'other search engines' (or something similar) with a direct to an appropriate article? Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about not JUST searching Wikipedia. I concede - we should mention search engines in general. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive search box

I think it would be useful (for both questioners and responders) to add an archive search box at the top of the ref desk pages. Something like:

This will work for the post Oct 2006 archives. Any objections, or suggestions with regrads to placement etc ? Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a very good idea. Currently the archives say "The best way to search the archives is probably to use a search engine, such as Google by using this search string for the post-October 2006 archives, and this search string for the pre-October 2006 archives". I don't think that's very accessible to non-experts. Replacing this text with a search box would be a good idea, everybody knows how to use a search box. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed makes sense particularly now that our search engine is a lot better. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! In the words of Jean-Luke..."Make it so!". SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tut, tut, that should be Jean-Luc. I think you've been in the US too long... :-) Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, yeah, and I agree with adding the search box. Matt Deres (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for test purposes I added a searchbox on the science reference desk (see this page version). Unfortunately, its location below the page header also places it "under the fold" where, I suspect, it will often be overlooked by new editors. So I think we should add the searchbox to the page header itself, where it will be most visible/useful . Please look over my specific proposal on the howtoask talk page and let me know if any tweaking is required. Once we have consensus on the wording etc, I can add the {{edit protected}} template to request the specific change to be implemented by an admin. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a request for the edit to add the archive search box on the howtoask talk page. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like a useful addition, as long as it can search the archives immediately, not with the delay which Google has. If I want to see the answers to a Q I recently asked, which was just archived, and I'm not sure of the day, Desk, or title, (but do know a key phrase in the Q to search for) it's currently painful to look for it manually, and Google doesn't work until they update their indexes. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new search box looks very good. Could this be added to the archive page also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives to search both pre and post 2006? I'm not convinced all users will know how to use the search strings currently linked there. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Success! I used the search box to point an OP toward a similar early Q here: [17]. However, it would have been better if the search box had taken me right to the earlier Q section, instead of just the page containing the earlier Q. (I know, I'm lazy). Can this feature be added ? StuRat (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and WP:OR

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics:

This is not really a mathematics question but I thought that I would post this here because it is relevant. Most of the time, the questions here are either trivial or of the same difficulty as a textbook exercise. Sometimes the questions are simply posted out of interest and the answer depends on opinion. But is there a possibility that someone asks a problem here that is publishable and includes some of his/her findings with the question? I remember seeing such problems here before and it is possible that such a thing can be done by an inexperienced mathematician (someone who is learning mathematics and is not really familiar with reading journals; for example, a university student). I think it would be appropriate to include, in the guidelines at the top of the page, that people should consider this when asking a question. Any opinions (and how one can add to the guidelines at the top if people agree)?

Thanks!

--Point-set topologist (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify exactly what it is that you think "people should consider ... when asking a question" ? What exactly are you suggesting should be added to the guidelines ? Can you give us an example ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we could write something (roughly) like this:

"Please only ask questions that are either homework problems, come out of textbooks, or problems that are standard. Any problems that require a deep understanding to solve or are possibly something publishable will be removed"

I think that the people at the ref desk can decide which problems fall in that range and remove them accordingly. --Point-set topologist (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I have a better understanding of what you are proposing, my next question is - why do you think this is necessary ? We don't get too many deep questions on the Mathematics RD, but one does come along, it can be really interesting. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to ban the very questions that make lurking on the maths desk worthwhile? Algebraist 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The prevailing view is that core content policies such as WP:OR don't apply to talk pages (last discussed here, I think), so why should they apply to the reference desk? This is hardly a part of the encyclopedic content. -- Jao (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not familiar with the current state of math research, but wouldn't it be incredibly unlikely that one of our humble helpers (no offense!) would post something of publishable quality? Surely the stuff getting published in journals would be well beyond any layman's question anyway, right? In any case, someone bright enough to work out "new" solid math proofs would also be bright enough to publish their stuff first. Matt Deres (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly shouldn't remove questions like that. It might be worth pointing out to both askers and answerers that they may wish to publish original research in a proper journal before publishing it here in order to make sure they are properly attributed, but it's their choice. --Tango (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that suppose someone asks whether theorem X is true (theorem X is currently unknown) and it so happens that theorem X is a very deep result in mathematics that could have high merit if discovered. There is a chance (and I am pretty sure that it has happened before), that someone will take advantage of the OP and publish the result. I know that most of the questions here are pretty much trivial (and unfortunately bring up a three page discussion!) and it is always nice to have something interesting bought up. But I just want to make sure that someone does not miss out a chance at getting a PhD because of asking something here (there is a chance!).

P.S Maybe writing something roughly like:

"Please do not post a question here that contains your findings (i.e original research)."

--Point-set topologist (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if the post would serve as time dated copyright as say the idea, if not as material itself, under the free document licence? A long shot but just wondering if a person could claim they thought of it first since it's on public record in some way? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it would hold up in court (it wouldn't strictly be a matter of copyright, you can't copyright ideas), but if I were to have my original idea stolen, I definitely would prefer having posted it on a timestamped, history-preserving wiki rather than just having told a colleague in private... -- Jao (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all the OP has done is conjectured it, then there isn't really a problem - being to first person to conjecture something isn't that big a deal (it's nice to be credited, sure, but I don't know of any case of a major dispute over who conjectured something first - although I admit I haven't looked for one), it's proofs that mathematicians are after. --Tango (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would actually do any good. Firstly, I don't think we should be discouraging researchers (amateurs, graduate students, or whathaveyou) from asking us for help explaining their results, or validating their ideas. Anyone who would naively post a potentially publishable theory or experimental result is likely also discussing it freely and is not aware or not concerned about the possibility of its being stolen. I don't think providing unecessary caution to the rare poster with a publishable question warrants possibly confusing and/or discouraging the vast majority of other posters (assuming anyone actually reads the instructions). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question? Anything is "publishable" so this must be a question about revealing information that is valuable in some way. If someone posts information to Wikipedia the FREE encyclopedia then they certainly aren't keeping it confidential. If they had no right to reveal the information (because of a law or a secrecy obligation) then they and not Wikipedia must take the consequences. If they spoil their own chance of exploiting (e.g. patenting or selling) the information then the only one to blame is themself.

So why ask how to restrict knowledge when Wikipedia's promise is nothing less than the liberation of human knowledge? (The Economist, 20 April 2006) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec): I fully agree with Someguy1221 and Jao. A person doing research work is well aware of the danger of having ideas stolen. I'm currently working on a project (biology) where I'm considering asking for advice on the maths desk. If I do so, I will chose a wording that doesn't reveal exactly which field I'm working in. And if I were to receive advice that proves to be valuable to research work that is published, I would certainly include an acknowledgment to the user(s) who gave the advice on the reference desk. If a naïve person comes along and presents publishable theories or data while asking a question, I find it rather unlikely that he or she is working in a research environment. In such a case, the decent thing to do for a RD contributor would be to post a note on his/her talk page, telling him/her that the data indeed is interesting, and encourage the poster to get in touch with someone who could assist in writing a paper, or to invite the poster to a collaboration. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. Both OP and respondant agree to release their contributions under GFDL - so if either of them writes something publishable then either of them - or some third party is allowed to publish it. Attribution is guaranteed by our history mechanism - we can always prove who wrote what and when - so if someone does publish your idea - you can always prove that you had it first. Our mission here is more openness - more access to information and ideas. Preventing the most interesting questions from being asked is just silly. No - let's ENCOURAGE this kind of thing - not DISCOURAGE. SteveBaker (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian blue's suggestion for communicating with specific contibutors where it's relevant in whatever way that alerts them to its importance or likely importance sounds healthy combined with the history mechanism. Agree contributions are free but non-attribution for significantly original-in-a-specialised field is something else. @ NB, I hope you didn't just give away your actual field of investigation in that post. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are all right. The number of people who would actually post something of publishable quality (unknowingly) here is very low and by putting that notice, people who "think" that they have found something new (although trivial) would not post it here and would never learn that their findings are trivial (there was once a magazine which offered $1,000,000 for the proof of Goldbach's conjecture; some people submitted their "proofs" but got no response. They thought that they were so intelligent that they accused the reviewers of stealing their "proofs".). Anyway, discussion closed. PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PST, I suppose you have an idea of what is original research in mathematics today. I can tell you that the best it may happen in the situation you are describing is that somebody posts an intelligent question, possibly with some intelligent remarks or results of himself or herself, in a topic somehow not covered by standard programs of maths courses. But it will be almost surely a problem that has been already asked and already solved, not only once, but several times indipendently (maybe not by the same person, although I can attest personally that multeplicity is also possible). For sure, some of the solvers published, and will publish, independently, their "original result" about the problem in reviews that are not relevant enough to have to bother about originality of what they publish. A more smart solver may solve the problem just out of curiosity, even because this can be simpler and funnier than searching for a reference in the enormous mathematical literature. In alternative, it may be a truly open question, never treated before, just because the answer is simply uninteresting. Asking a question that is both relevant and open, requires a deep knowledge on the subject and of the state of the art, and doing it by chance and unconsciously as you prospect seems to me just possible, but astronomically unlikely. Say I see more likely that somebody finds a plant of unknown specimen in his house's garden. --PMajer (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on guideline talk page

Someone has raised a question at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Financial_Advice. That page has been quite idle in the more recent past, and I don't know how many people watch it, so just a heads up. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sluzzelin. Commented there. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since (at a guess) few people watch that page, and we're hardly inundated with comments here that need to be moved there, is it time to remove the notice on this page directing guideline-related discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Guidelines? Algebraist 12:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. This seems like a good place for discussion on refdesk guidelines. If it's not too radical we should also consider placing a soft redirect to here from there. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought when I started this thread. The downside would be losing a manageable place for reviewing discussions on changing the guidelines. This page moves quite fast and there are plenty of archives. It is not easy to find the right threads amidst discussions on layout, specific removals, doing someone's homework, pushing people off the soapbox, feeding Orcs, biting Hobbits, and everything else we talk about here.

I guess we could transclude discussions directly relevant to WP:RD/Guidelines on its talk page, or copy them there after a certain period or once they've been archived. We could also post links to the threads archived here on the talk page there.

I don't know which is the best or most wikipedian solution, but I do think we should make it easy for people to find discussions on changing our guidelines. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SciRef page size

Just a note that atm the Science desk is 345KB of wiki-text and 815KB of rendered HTML. This effectively makes the SciRef desk inaccessible to anyone with a dial-up connection (~2-1/2 minutes to load at 56kbps).

I would guess it's due to a couple of mega-threads over the last few days and will take a few days to be archived down. We're cut off from a large part of our audience and it's even making my memory-laden system a little shaky on display and scrolling. Don't know the solution, but I thought I'd point it out. Any ideas? Franamax (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sometimes felt we should put a 'recent archives' link at the top of each desk and make a special page (something like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/Recent or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Recent where we transclude the last 7 days of discussions and start removing transcluded pages from the main desk sooner for this reason. As a temporary solution, we could just cut off one or two of the transcluded pages I think, as far as I'm aware the bot shouldn't have a problem if we manually remove transcluded pages Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, manually removing a transclusion link is safe, and won't confuse the bot at all. And that's a fine interim solution which anyone can take when, as on the 11th when Franamax posted, a desk is bloating because the bot is behind. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives For 2009

Where are the archives for 2009?96.53.149.117 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're there just not linked to. I've added the links now... (N.B. Some people may feel it would have been better to keep the 2009 with the 2008 but IMHO it's easier to keep the years seperate. Also the 2008 list by itself is getting a bit long, on 1024 full screen it's okay but it's probably not on 800x or a non fullscreen window where the later months scroll to the next line which IMHO is not ideal. Of course I could have left them with 2008 for now and moved later but my way requires less work and makes it less likely someone will have different ideas about when to split 2009 :-P ) Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I was gonna do that myself, but ran into a snag. (My copy of ViewSourceWith stopped working, and the details of why I haven't been able to get it fixed are far too tawdry to go into here.) The arrangement you chose is just what I had in mind, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a matter of time...

From this on the ent desk[18]: "In my last question, what do you mean? Can you please just tell me the answer straight?" Bowei Huang may be showing more obvious signs of sous-pont dwelling (thanks to Milkbreath for that word). Am very tempted to give a straight answer but am resisting the urge. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's still in stupidity territory but it bears watching. Algebraist 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Al, is there a difference? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the previously-given answer was neither helpful nor likely intelligible for someone less familiar with English (which would seem to follow from the structure of the question itself). If, in addition to or in replacement of the humor, the response had pointed out that the question was very difficult to answer then perhaps we wouldn't have a question asking for an explanation of the previous answer. -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was pretty much being a prick when I responded that time, however Mr. Huang had been asking questions at the Ref Desk like that for some time, and was getting no where. I was using humor (humour for our UK readers) to point out the difficulty in answering his questions, but it was a rather assholish-type of humor I must admit. I would guess that this is a) a rather young user who b) doesn't speak English very well. The resulting combination means that he's asking questions which are pretty much unanswerable. I am not sure how to deal with this, since he (if we AGF) does seem to earnestly want to know these answers. I am pretty much lost in how to deal with it beyond ignoring him for now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I felt relieved when I read that answer. Nil Einne has pointed out that Bowei Huang lives in Australia and I get the impression from posts that he is being disingenuous and faking it somehow. I also feel the question is clever as is the insistence that fakes a repeat. BH succeeds in getting what he wants and my guess is, that it's not a correct answer to his curve balls. Hopefully he is being watched. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have curve balls in cricket? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of curveball, it seems to be a bit like spin bowling, but not very. Algebraist 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very cute. We try to be ambi-cultural when speaking in another country. A "bouncer" doesn't work in text, for me anyway, the curveball is it. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a bouncer doesn't work, try the wrong 'un. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Watch these tiny wrists! :) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computing:Word Processors

Discussion from Computing:Word Processors -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump on him and say this is his homework. I assumed he was wondering. I honestly have wondered these things myself. Rgoodermote 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or could be trying to win a bet (had a similar one a while ago about Media players. I lost.) Rgoodermote 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like homework to me. It seems odd that someone that someone would want to know the names of exactly 5 word processors and exactly 7 things they do. A WHOIS on the IP returns the Bahamas - it's Sunday night there, prime time to do homework you've forgotten over the weekend. Xenon 54 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, every single sixty three (63) times I've wondered if I could think of eight (8) specific items, I've ensured that I included the digits on all four (4) websites that I posted on, just in case the one hundred (100) or so people who read it might be confused. Or, perhaps, the student isn't smart enough to paraphrase the question. -- kainaw ™ 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't knock 'em, they had the sense to mistype it. Algebraist 03:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five wordprocessors that come to mind are AbiWord, LyX, KWord, OpenOffice Writer, and that funny one from Microsoft. Wordpad I think its called.

Seven things that can be done with a word processor might include... Browsing files and folders, viewing images, viewing web pages, fiddling with buttons and toolbars, making the window larger and smaller, doing your income tax, and writing a letter to the IRS to beg for an extension. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't your taxes be done in a spreadsheet? .. ;) Ched (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way! Everyone knows that spreadsheets are used for writing greeting cards and writing letters. But for really snazzy animated greeting cards you need a CAD package. Word processors are no good for those things. They put squiggly red lines under all the words. That's mainly good for tax returns. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC) (one of my ex-bosses really did use Lotus 123 for writing letters, including form letters).[reply]
What we should be doing is directing the OP to the Word processor article. Remember, there's a difference between saying "we won't do your homework" and deliberately misleading someone who may not aware you guys are joking. Please take note of the "How to answer a question" guide at the top of this page. Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sad part is that all these "jokes" (and more! Act now and we'll throw in a virus-friendly scripting language, a brain-dead webpage editor, and an obnoxious animated paperclip!) are things that bloated word processors actually do (here's looking at you, Word). -- 74.137.108.115 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention a spellchecker that corrects 'spellchecker' to 'spell-checker' even though it calls itself 'spellchecker'. Plus another one that offers 'Em-ail' as a substitute for 'email' (Neo-Office).--KageTora (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~TeX. --wj32 ^t/c 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

OK - I'm upset. When you think someone is asking a homework question you use the {{dyoh}} template and you sign it (as I have now done) - then you and everyone else should refrain from answering the question in any way other than (perhaps) to provide some USEFUL links to articles in which the answers may reasonably be found. You DO NOT give false answers - you DO NOT mock the OP. I'm ashamed. SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hate it when people make fun of an OP who's new or doesn't understand the way things work around here. As for the question, look at Category:Word processors for your first question and the Word processor article for your second one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't joking...I was being dead serious..so I find my comments being strikin out rather rude...thank you for that. Rgoodermote 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing..my comment was in reply to the guy blanking out my answer to the person who asked...I actually gave him everything he was asking for. Rgoodermote 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a Reference Desk is generally a place where people go when they don't know what to look for. There's a huge difference between LIST 7 WORD PROCESSORS, PLS SEND ME TEH CODEZ and "I need to find 7 word processors." If (and I think it's fair to say that's a small if) that's homework, newsflash, this is now grade school (grammar? school for the international audience?) level material (which may or may not lead to a proper and polite question formulation and this would be a fine leap back to RD/L a month ago on want vs. need usage), and precisely the sort of thing an RD would be for. "Oh, you'll want to go look in the informatics aisle, that's the 800's..." Or, in this case, the above linked "Oh, we have categories, so try category: word processor." As opposed to, say, Yahoo answers or a message board (in which case, I'll lngjmp for speed and make this post "First!" 98.169.163.20 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I like your approach except for the striking out thing. I don't think it's appropriate to strike out other people's posts. I also think entire blocks of struck out text look incredibly ugly. Maybe a collapsable box thingy would work better next time (and maybe I'm wrong about it being inappropriate to strike out other editors' posts. It's just something I would never do). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@SB, could you have said the same thing without stomping all over other people? It seems to disprove your own point about rudeness. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this turned into something big...I'm going to step out from this entire thing..I'm not into debates that only lead to conflict. See ya all. Rgoodermote 15:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ SteveB btw, I agree that it's not welcoming to mock the OP or give false answers, though they seem to have a place where they were usually saved for persistent trolls, or so I noticed. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial questions and removal of posts

I notice, rather frequently, some trivial questions at the ref. desk such as 1000/16 and such. Should we include a guideline at the top of the page like:

1: 'If your question involves a numerical calculation, please first consider seeing the article on arithmetic or trying google calculator'.

I think this would save a lot of time and would prevent boring the volunteers here. Sometimes, people also ask people here to explain a concept. So:

2: 'If you want to understand a particular concept, consider having a look at the corresponding article before you ask a question here'.

Guideline 1 has a higher priority that guideline 2. So if we notice someone who obviously does not follow guideline 1 (i.e asks what is 100/10 or something) we remove the question with an edit summary of "please re-read the guidelines".

The other thing I am worried about is the triviality of questions at the ref. desk. I propose creating another reference desk 'School mathematics'. This way, anyone who asks a question here, from school, can go to a more specialized reference desk (it seems that most questions here are homework). How does this sound? PST

If you're worried about people not reading the articles, it already says to search the archive, search Wikipedia, and search Google before posting, so I'm not sure what you need add to that. Maybe changing it to "search and then read the results" would be more explicit. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Malte in that I find it highly unlikely that anyone inclined to post about 1000/16 would be held back by any of our guidelines, however they were worded. But I don't think PST is suggesting this to avoid these questions popping up, so much as to be specific about the acceptability of their removal. -- Jao (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PST, you recently suggested banning of non-trivial questions from the maths desk, and are now moving against trivial questions. May I ask what sort of questions you consider correct material for the desk? Algebraist 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questions I recently wanted to "ban" were trivial questions. The questions that I consider correct for the reference desk are:

Non-numerical questions (maybe make a "calculations reference desk"): integrals count as these.

Non-trivial questions: questions such as "what is the complex plane?" or "is a straight line a right angle triangle?" are far to trivial for my liking. I think that the latter question is in a sense acceptable for the reference desk but I would lean towards not supporting such questions.

But that is just my opinion. PST

Having just read complex plane, I don't regard the question "what is the complex plane?" as being at all trivial. I got a B at A-level in Maths, and I'm sure we used the things, but reading that article confused me utterly. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel very strongly about what is or is not in the top of page guidelines. However, I definitely oppose the idea that we should use the guidelines to justify removing legitimate questions like "What is 100/16", which we could answer but don't want to (note that I said legitimate questions - soapboxing and trolling are obviously different issues). Removing legitimate but straightforward questions would be just bitey - if you are not interested in answering a question, then just ignore it. I also oppose the proposal to split the Mathematics RD - the existing RD is not too busy, and splitting it will only give rise to debates on whether or not topic X is "School mathematics". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main activity of real world reference desks is answering trivial questions. They exist precisely because it is very difficult to answer one's own trivial questions when surrounded by information. Reference desk and information seeking behavior might be helpful reads (though the latter is stubby; Kuhlthau has some very good books and articles). The reference desk is a service to the information seekers; it is not a source of entertainment for the staff. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Let's change the process for submitting a RD question so that rather than simply posting, it searches an appropriate set of sources (WP, Google, etc) and displays the result. Then the user is prompted to peruse these, and submit only if their question has not been answered. We could dispense with all of those instructions at the top of the RD! --Scray (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desks exist for the benefit of the questioners, not the benefit of the people giving the answers. A large part of why we don't answer homework/medical/legal questions is because it's in the questioners' best interests that we don't. The point of homework is to practice solving problems - if the RefDesk solves it for the questioner, they suffer by not having the same learning experience. As we do not know all the specific in legal/medical situations, there's the real possibility of making things worse for the questioner if we try to answer them. As far as "trivial" questions, there's absolutely no harm to the questioner. (The other reason we delete questions is because of trolling. While an overly simple/silly question may be trolling, keep in mind two points (1) WP:Assume Good Faith - if you're not absolutely sure something is trolling, treat it as if it isn't (2) WP:Don't feed the trolls - trolls post to get attention, so a true troll post should be ignored/deleted. You shouldn't argue with the poster or answers, or pontificate about the trivialness of a troll's posts - that's what the troll is looking for.) Then there's the question of what constitutes "trivial" - sure "Please give a basic description of the complex plane" is a trivial question to a topologist who probably has a university degree in advance mathematics, but it's a topical and advanced question for a High School student who's just finished geometry and algebra. You probably have forgotten, but complex numbers are a difficult subject for the average teenager to wrap their head around. Likewise, the calculation of compounding interest is a mind numbingly boring topic to someone who is used to dealing with N-dimensional manifolds, but the majority of people didn't take calculus, and don't even begin to have a clue about the difference between a sequence and a series. For them setting up the calculations or knowing if there is some sort of short-cut one can use is high-level math. Most people don't have advanced math knowledge, so if you were expecting a post-grad level of discourse on the Mathematics reference desk, I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen. People have differing levels of knowledge, and we shouldn't delete people's questions just because they don't meet some threshold of background knowledge or "interestingness" to knowledgeable answerers. For example, to pick a non-math subject, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about classical music should be familiar with Eine kleine Nachtmusik, but we don't delete questions from people who aren't aware of it [19]. - Bottom line: if you think that answering a question is beneath you, then ignore it. If the quantity of "trivial" questions on a RefDesk gets to you, take a WP:Wikibreak - there's no rule saying you *have* to answer any of the questions at the RefDesk. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. An additional two cents: The question "What is 1000/16?" is indeed trivial as an arithmetic problem, but it leads to all sorts of things if you extend your thinking. It illustrates, for example, the discrepancy between the base 16 and base 10 number systems when we talk about 1k not really being 1,000 bytes. This could be mentioned in the answer in case that's what the OP was driving at. We should think our asses off in an attempt to provide the best answer in the world, and the challenge is greatest when the question is trivial. This is the Superbowl every day, and our opponent is the aptly named Yahoo! Answers. Also, there is no age limit to get in here. We could be answering a precocious, curious kid without being able to tell from his writing in the question. Even "trolls" must be thought of as redeemable, because some of them are. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the last two responses, which I agree with, the RD exists also for the benefit of casual readers, who may be at least entertained, and possibly intrigued into studying the area in question. I've frequently been sufficiently interested in what has been asked to follow the links given in the answers, and would claim that any increase in the distribution of mathematical knowledge like this is a good thing. So no more talk of triviality or deletion, please - it just comes across as pompous elitism.→81.153.219.101 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not actually intend to show off (and by the way, I have not played music for a while: I know how the song goes but I simply forgot the full name). I wanted to note that "what is the complex plane" is not only an impossible question to answer (there are heaps of things I could say) but also rather unspecific. I could just answer: the complex plane is a field. I will respond a little later in depth but I just want to confirm that by "trivial" I just meant that it is trivial to the general population of mathematicians: I did not intend to show off or say that it was trivial to myself. PST

Right: to mathematicians. The RefDesks, even the Mathematics RefDesk, is intended for use by all sorts of people, not just specialists. That was my point when referring to your music question: There's nothing wrong with it. It's a perfectly valid and acceptable question for us to be answering. That sort of question is just the sort of thing that the RefDesk is here to answer. Even though a professional musician may view the question as trivial and think it bizarre for someone to forget about "Eine kleine Nachtmusik", you're not a musical specialist, nor should anyone expect you to be. Likewise, we shouldn't expect people who come to the RefDesk to be mathematicians or confine themselves to non-mathematically-trivial questions, either. -- And if you're trying to figure out what sort of answer to give someone who asks question where you can say heaps of things, do your best to judge the level the questioner is at and try for the type of response that would be most understandable to them. Don't worry that you won't be able to give a perfect response, just do the best you can - others will be able to fill in details, and hopefully if the questioner is still confused, he'll post a followup/clarification. If you aren't even sure how to begin answering, that's okay too. Just leave the question alone; someone else will be along shortly to take a stab at it. We're wonderfully collaborative here at the RefDesk (and at Wikipedia too, for that matter.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with 128.104.112.113. And even questions that seem quite silly can lead to interesting issues. I must admit to begin one of those giving a silly response for the cloud of steam destroying physics question on the Science desk, but I did at least answer that ArXiv was the right place for a paper about it. That question led to an interesting one about why blowing hard cooled things whereas one can blow into ones hands to warm them. No deletions without a very good reason indeed, not just because you think the question is trivial. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To PST (talk) - Please stop noting your opinions on the RDs as to which questions are or are not acceptable [20] [21]. This page is for that type of commentary, not the RD pages themselves. You can easily link from this page to any section/question that you would like to discuss. Also, when you were asked for a link to this discussion please provide the link and not some keyboard shortcut which may or may not work in all OSs and/or browsers. Also, please properly sign your posts as it provides temporal information and the links needed to communicate directly with you. Oh, and please read about edit summaries. Thanks, hydnjo talk 19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Hydnjo's and IP 128's comment above.

PST, please think over the feedback you have received here and do stop adding your opinion on which questions are trivial on the ref desk (you can comment on the talk page if you wish). Irrespective of your intentions, your tone comes across as extremely supercilious, and is liable to drive away genuinely curious or confused questioners. That, in my opinion, is more harmful than the posting of so-called "trivial" questions. Also, in case you are not aware, you can sign your comments by appending ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your comments on refdesk and talk pages. Abecedare (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that the signature adder,

, (just above the edit window) can be used just in case your keyboard doesn't support tildes as PST claimed last December. hydnjo talk 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for posting answers

This doesn't happen a lot, but sometimes people just forget the one obvious rule relating to posting comments: post your comments at the bottom of the section unless it's a reply to another comment. Some people like to post comments above an older one. I know it probably looks like a silly rule, but it really does matter to have the comments in order of time posted. Maybe we should put this rule somewhere? --wj32 ^t/c 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure anyone is doing this deliberately? I've seen it happen a few times from MediaWiki's auto-resolution of edit conflicts, but that's all. Algebraist 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Algebraist: you just gotta be careful with those out-of-order comments. Sometimes it's confusing. --Scray (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Indeed, I only recall seeing one or two (maybe youz fixed the rest). hydnjo talk 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes did it in order to answer a post in the middle (sorry). By the way: is there a rule in the use of the indentation by colons ":..:"? If I understand it should be one colon more than the post one refers to: is it so? (For example in this case I should be supposed to refer to Algebraist's post...) --PMajer (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal etiquette, and is recommended by the essay Wikipedia:Indentation (which also recommends out-of-order comments, for what that's worth). Algebraist 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation. I'm not sure that we need to repeat those guidelines or further codify them here; on the rare occasions when a comment ends up in the wrong place, we can just fix it. (If the problem recurs with a particular editor to the point it gets annoying, a gentle note is all that's necessary — though I expect that a regular visitor will tend to pick up the norms through exposure.) If we have the occasional new poster who top-posts or otherwise breaches our usual protocols then no real harm is done, and it seems unlikely that most posters will read the entire set of rules before posting for the first time anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread removal

I have removed a soapboxing non-question from Misc. Comments welcome. Algebraist 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. We'd not be able to load the page after a couple of days of that one. hydnjo talk 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been dealing with the user for a while, I'm increasingly of the opinion that he's around just to yank our chains. So yeah, no objection from me. — Lomn 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn, you asked if that law was still in effect. As stated, Bad catch. Louisiana passed that law to deal with carjackings. Source is on the link you user:Algebraist provided. Can you reinstate that question? Powerzilla (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this thread be restored? Powerzilla (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link is http://www.law.wustl.edu/journal/55/109.pdf and another source is http://www.article.latimes.com/1997/aug/14/news/mn-22319

That is two sources regarding this matter. Powerzilla (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, DFTT or something? hydnjo talk 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no troll at all. Louisiana is, so far, unique in passing that kind of legislation. I've got word that Florida has passed similar legislation recently that allows people to kill burglars, and as a result, a Japanese national was mistaken for one and killed. Google these matters for more information. Cheers :) Powerzilla (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :)[reply]