Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

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

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

Protein Question

I notice this question at wp:RD/Science#Protein has remained unanswered for about 11 hours:

1) What happens when someone does strength training and doesn't eat much protein afterward? How do the muscles repair themselves? Thanks. --Mudupie (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this regarded as a medical question? I have training in weight lifting instruction and exercise physiology, including basic nutrition. (though not experienced in those exact areas of exercise.) I am not certain of the 'correct' answer/s but I think I can give a 'educated' response, and direct the OP to other resources when I reach my limits. Comments please? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not medical advice (it's not diagnosis, prognosis or treatment), it's nutritional. Answer away. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, general health and nutrition answers are not medical advice. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quick feedback, Vimescarrot. Okay, I was just thinking that RD editors were holding off for some reason as 11 hours seems a long time unanswered. I've already started my reply, I'll see what I can come up with c/w references and links to relevant WP articles. I will recommend they also discuss the matter with a dietician or nutritionist. Perhaps they should eat some extra carrots?  ;-) (Oh, oh, theres an opening for BB!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In future I wouldn't read a delay as being equal to the question being unacceptable — usually an unacceptable question will receive a scolding rather than silence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's not asking for medical advice. The question isn't "Do I need to eat protein when doing strength training?" it is a question about the technicalities of muscles. --Tango (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

extreme version: say someone has super skinny arms and torso + huge legs due to the particular sport they do. So what if our hypothetical person doesn't eat ANY protein, only vitamins, for 15 days while he strength trains his arms. Can the protein that had been in his super developed torso + legs "move" up to the bicepts and tricepts, and through what mechanism? Note that my hypothetical assymetrical guy is hardly a preposterous notion - just look at heavyweight boxers! 84.153.204.221 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Full protection warranted?

Do the RD headers really warrant full protection as "high-risk templates" when they are only used on the RD? Mike R (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Given past vandalism, and the general lack of need to edit the templates, yes. — Lomn 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've fixed your sig links. Please don't link to an account you're not actually posting from. — Lomn 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is a valid reason to protect temporarily, not indefinitely. "Lack of need to edit" is not a valid reason to protect. This is a wiki. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Any changes needed would require consensus here, so protecting them is reasonable. The mere fact they are only used with the ref desks actually makes it easier to justify protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Any changes needed would require consensus" is not a valid reason to protect. This is a wiki; we use "bold, revert, discuss" as our edit model. Temporary full protection is a tool to stop out-of-control edit warring. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please compare Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (no separate header subpage), which are not full protected. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What changes do you propose for the RD headers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make my change, and if someone disagrees with it, they can revert and we can discuss. That's the wiki way. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you afraid to state what change you intend to make? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not ascribe fear where it is not warranted. By not discussing my intended edit beforehand, I am standing up for the principle of bold wiki editing. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the argument the banned editor Pioneercourthous used to use, and when someone was gullible enough to fall for it, he messed up the article and it was quickly re-protected. I would assume the RD headers were protected by consensus, which is also the wiki way.

Also, why are you editing under one ID and claiming it's another ID?

Mike R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Hero of This Nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I can see why you might be suspicious if a new user were saying this things, but I have a six year history of valuable contributions and a clean block log. Do not compare me to a banned vandal again. To answer your other question, because I feel like it. The redirect and the account creation log entry make it clear that The Hero = Mike R. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if the header was protected by consensus, so be it. I don't see that it was, although I admit I have not scoured the talk archives thoroughly. I see right now two people who agree that the header should be full-protected (three if you count the admin who protected it), and one who does not. The one who does not appears to me (I admit I am biased) to be making solid arguments against permanent full protection. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a policy called WP:BecauseIFeelLikeIt? No, I didn't think so. The page was protected on Dec 20, 2006.[1] Feel free to try to build consensus to unprotect. Trying to build consensus is the wiki way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at that point in time,[2] the specific reason was to keep newbies from posting questions on the main page, and as noted in the discussion, the template itself was (and is right now) open to editing. Some of the editors in that discussion are still active, so they could be asked if they still think it needs protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The page I really wanted to edit was Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask which was full protected as a "high-risk template" in 2008 after a someone was vandalizing it with Avril Lavigne pictures. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The RD headers are fundamental enough to the structure (as opposed to the content) of the Reference Desks that they deserve this protection for the same reason that other structural templates do. In particular:

• damage to them (due to vandalism or otherwise) is typically simultaneously more visible and more difficult to revert (especially by naive vandal-fighters)
• they change infrequently, and changes should be by good consensus, so the gating function of having an admin actually make the change is not a bad thing.

I, too, am very fond of the wiki way. I, too, have been frustrated -- once -- by not being immediately able to make a change to an RD header. But on balance, I'd say the status quo here is fine. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The RD templates were not vandalized a couple times by a single vandal. They were vandalized repeatedly by multiple vandals who chatted outside of Wikipedia about new cool ways to cause problems by vandalizing the templates. Each vandal originally competed to see who could be the biggest pain. Then, they decided to work together to share knowledge to make matters worse. By protecting them, that game was stopped. However, those vandals are still here (using IP addresses and thousands of one-time-use accounts) and will certainly pick up their game again if the templates are opened up for editing. -- kainaw™ 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the technical ability to fix/improve issues with the RD templates, but I just ignore problem reports about them here because they're fully protected. Permanent full-protection seems wrong here. It would be nice if protection allowed certain users to be granted rights over certain pages. I don't want to be an admin, but I should be allowed to edit these templates. --Sean 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Clone the template and edit in your sandbox. This has the added benefit that if you break something or get stopped in the middle of a series of changes, the live copy won't break. When you have something you like, easy enough to ask here for the live one to be updated. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bite removed

In this edit, I removed Jayron32's sarcastic WP:BITE and replaced it with a non-bitey answer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with his response (certainly nothing that justifies deleting it...) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it, actually, there was really no justification for deleting. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. It was unnecessarily sarcastic and condescending towards a new user. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It may well have been (although he should have looked in the obvious places), but which part of WP:TALK mandates the removal of comments which are a little sarcastic? No part does. Particularly since Jayron's comment actually linked to the relevant articles, it wasn't purely snide. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK might not mandates their removal, but WP:BITE strongly discourages sarcastic comments towards newcomers, which the OP of that question obviously was. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Since that was the redlink's one and only edit, it's hard to tell anything "obvious" about him. What's necessary (as I myself have been lectured countless times) is to try to resist making fun of an OP whose question is on the order of "What color is the White House?" I find it hard to believe that a newbie's first act would be to pose a question to the ref desk that makes it look like he has no clue about how to use wikipedia, and if not, how did he find the ref desk? Such inane questions are probably best answered either by terse answers ("See artery and vein.") or by ignoring them as being either incredible ignorance, or run-of-the-mill trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How did they find the reference desk? It's very possible they followed a link from google or some other forum directly to the reference desk without ever having seen any other part of wikipedia. They might not even know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So I think it's our duty to inform these new people in a kind a friendly way that there are articles which answer all their questions. Sarcasm isn't helpful at all. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I put "vein" into google, and the first entry was the wikipedia article on the subject. Then I put "artery" into google. Take a guess what the first entry was. Since the redlink posted exactly one entry, we cannot say where he came from. He might be jerking us around or he might really want to know. At least it wasn't something quite as stupidly obvious as "Michael Hunt" or the perpetual "Uranus" jokes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP put into google "where to ask questions online" or something similar. The point is they could have come directly to the desks from somewhere else so expecting them to have knowledge of the internals workings of Wikipedia is unfair. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they noticed the "Questions" link on the Main Page? Perhaps they then noticed the bolded "Factual questions", clicked on the first link in that section, and then clicked on the big question mark icon? Then perhaps they clicked the big "ask a new question" button? The Reference Desk is hardly a secret, elite club hidden behind a "beware of leopard" sign. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bite again. This is childish hostility which has no place on Wikipedia or, especially, on the Reference Desk. There is no need to demonstrate your superiority to the querent: yes, you are great at Google and at searching Wikipedia, and he or she is not. I agree with 82.43 just above. Just answer the questions, please, like a reference desk librarian would. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of the trouble is we don't know the age of the OP. If a little kid came to a librarian and asked that question, the librarian would probably be very helpful. If someone of roughly the librarian's height asked they same question, they would probably get a look like, "You gotta be kidding!" Then, as punishment, they would be directed to wikipedia. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Age is completely irrelevant. If they went to a librarian and asked a question, the librarian should be helpful. End of story. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're fairly "bitey" yourself, there. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all of what you've said could also be said of you, and the way you've handled this. I've reverted your removal BTW. You don't have to be good at using a search engine to find the answer. You just have to actually use one. If they really have so little idea of how to use a search engine that they can't search for artery and vein an obtain some sort of answer of what each is (yet somehow were able to find the RD, register, find the 'new section' button, type out a heading and question and click save page) then it would be far better helping them with whatever major and basic problem is stopping them from being able to do such a trivial query on a search engine Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what's really awesome? Before people talk about your actions, they first come to you to discuss it personally. You know what else is really cool? When you are the subject of a discussion, someone drops by your talk page to let you know about that. Thanks to everyone for doing both things. Oh wait. No one did any of that. --Jayron32 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think part of the problem is people think, someone must have already told him/her. Also since you're a regularly on the talk page, it probably seemed less urgent for people to check if you'd been informed. I had been thinking of saying something like 'if Jayron agrees to the removal then I have no problem and won't revert' but it seemed should be obvious (I'm guessing the same for TT too) Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the comment myself. You know, if one person had come to me at any time, and asked me to remove or rephrase my comment, I would have done it instantly. Yes, I was being an asshole. My edit summary where I left the commented indicated that I was aware I was being an asshole. I probably shouldn't have left the comment to begin with. Had someone just said "Hey, asshole, don't do that!" I'da removed it myself. I never even knew there was an objection to the comment until about 10 minutes ago. Please, while we're having this massive discussion about rudeness, consider whether it was more polite to discuss me behind my back and edit war over my comment, or would it have been better to confront me directly and be direct and honest. Seriously folks! --Jayron32 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look at what exactly was said and removed, but I do agree with Jayron that we should generally try the bilateral approach when we are bothered by a comment posted by someone who regularly answers questions at the reference desk. Even then, of course, it will depend on the tone with which we present our concerns, but my observation is that a more "private" approach will usually be well-received and acted upon. Most of our "regulars" are reasonable people who don't really wish to cause offense, and most of them are human, and won't appreciate having their breaches of guidelines dragged into public that much. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Jayron32, I should have notified you on the talk page that I removed the comment. I still support removing zero-value comments from the Reference Desk, though in the future I'll notify not just here, but to the poster. I remember someone having removed a bitey, zero-value comment of mine without notification when I was new to the Reference Desk, and I was angered by the removal, but in retrospect I think that was the right thing to do rather than ask me to remove it and waaaaiiitt ... maybe I log in to Wikipedia today or maybe next week .... that doesn't work; if something ought to be removed then it ought to be removed immediately. With notification, I agree. Sorry. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that everything that would be best removed is best removed immediately. As others have commented on, when you remove something you tend to annoy people unnecessarily. In some cases when removal is important, such as clear cut case of medical advice being given then yes, remove before discussing. In cases when it isn't so important, then it's far better to politely approach the person rather the blow up the issue into a bigger mess then is necessary. In this particular case, IMHO, it's questionable if even a week is too long, there's no particular reason why that reply is somehow super bad, if the OP is offended, tough, in any case anyone was free to leave a comment to try and reduce that chance if they felt it necessary. However if you really feel a week is too long, there's no reason why you can't wait a day and then remove it yourself if you haven't received a response. Note that this is common outside the RD for even far worse things like violations of WP:NPA Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The existence of an article about "A" and and article about "B" do not always make superfluous the creation of a brief and informative response in which the two things are compared and contrasted. In the present case, the first couple of sentences from each article furnish a good answer to the question. But many articles about science, economics, mathematics, or philosophy are not so approachable. In such cases,more is to be desired than merely identifying the articles about the things under discussion. The good-faith response of some editor on the Ref Desk should not be modified. It would be better to delete it and substitute your own more suitable response, with your signature, while notifying the editor in question you have done so, and posting a thread about it here. Removals should be limited to violations of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or Ref Desk guidelines. Sometimes the Ref Desk community agrees that the question was evident trolling, and not just a naive questioner. Edison (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Referring people to Google, etc.

I've noticed a few times that Ref Deskers will remind Querents to look it up themselves. Good idea. But, while the thought is noble (it's super annoying to have to do this at work when the question and solution appears obvious), it's not realistic. One must never underestimate humanity's lack of common sense. Maybe it would be better to try and stick with a more considered reply, like this:

"I plugged the terms 'x' and 'y' in google and got this result."

This shows them how simple it is to do without snide comments or even a well-intentioned but potential offending comment like "next time, Google it yourself." Wording is everthing, and it doesn't make the OP feel stupid. Aaronite (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FURTHER: Google often give results that make no sense. The OP may not know how to evaluate the reliability of the results. This could explain why they can't or didn't Google. Aaronite (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it somewhat depends on the question. If someone asks something like "Where can I buy a lawnmower?" - then it's reasonable to redirect them to Google. But if they ask "What is the atomic weight of Carbon?" then it seems kinda rude not to hit the link to Carbon yourself and just give them the answer. People who ask questions here are very frequently incapable of searching themselves. We tend to take for granted our own skills at using search engines and forget that others quite simply suck at it. That's what reference desk librarians do - they don't just point you at the card file index and say "Do it yourself!" - they actually go and find the answer for you. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for google tutorials finds many useful search results. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Kellhus (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if I visit the fish counter at the supermarket and they try to force me to learn to fish, I will complain to the manager. I don't think failure to google is all that often a matter of skill, anyway. One reason people don't bother is just pessimism. I've caught myself doing this: googling that can't possibly turn up useful answers, I think - I'll ask somebody instead; and of course the person promptly googles it and turns up the answer. There's also an element of intuition and luck in knowing what the right search terms to use are. They may seem obvious to the person doing the googling, but that obviousness is subjective. The search terms may even be taken directly from the OP's question, but I think sometimes the act of phrasing a question in order to post it on the ref desk brings out the correct search terms, ironically enough, which wouldn't spring to mind while staring gloomily at a blank google search box. I can't fault Aaronite's suggestion of politeness. Who among us is not an eternal n00b. 81.131.68.87 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Snide remarks about humanity's lack of common sense aside, I don't think it's appropriate to underestimate the technical competence of the people who post questions on the Reference Desk. These are people who have somehow already managed to clear one reasonably significant technical hurdle — they found the Wikipedia Ref Desk in the first place. (Granted, some have gotten here through some manner of perverse coincidence, and they pose questions in fractured English and assume that we're the website of an obscure Pacific Rim manufacturer of machine tools. Those people probably won't be aided by a Google lession.) On the occasions where I believe someone is likely to absorb and benefit from the instruction, I will provide a direct link to the Google search that I used; the OP can then see what sort of keywords generate useful results. (On the off chance that they've never seen Google before, then it also points them in the right direction.) Heck, sometimes people who have been helped by the Ref Desk later come back as volunteers to answer questions; teaching people how to use search engines is a small part of building the next generation of Ref Deskers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not merely a question of competence. We ref-desk regulars (most of us, at least) take for granted the concept of a personal computer with a broadband internet connection. Many users do not own a PC; some of them do not have internet at home; some have disabilities and cannot type or read easily; and so forth. These users are a small portion of the "internet community" - but because we are a help desk, they are disproportionately highly represented among our OPs. We can never forget this - the users may speak limited English, may have to drive ten miles to a library to use the internet, wait for a turn to use a public terminal, access the internet exclusively through a text-based mobile-phone, or so on. "Just google it" is great if we're assuming everybody has the same accessibility (let alone technical proficiency) - but we have to keep in mind that many users are not as lucky as we are, to have 24-7-365 computer access. Nimur (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a number of factors at play. In addition to the ones listed above, I think we sometimes (warning: ego stroke up ahead) forget that we're probably more knowledgeable than most people. Notice that I didn't say smarter, which is entirely different. To take Steve's question about the atomic weight of carbon above, just click that link and imagine you're a junior high school student or other beginner in terms of chemistry and atoms and such. Could you figure it out? Is "standard atomic weight" the same thing as what the teacher is asking for on the homework? Did you even pick out where it gives the weight amidst that wall of information? We (hopefully!) have the background knowledge to pick out the correct information and it's that background knowledge that makes the difference between a seemingly elementary (heh) question and a wall of chemistro-jargon. It's a bit like that old engineering joke about marking the data point being worth $1, but knowing where to put the mark was worth $999.

When it comes to Google results, things get even hairier. Most of us are experienced enough to spot an untrustworthy site or bogus information - at least most of the time. Lots of really smart people out there don't have that experience and are looking for help in evaluating the results. Maybe they did a Google search on their own already, but couldn't contextualize the info they got back or maybe one site said A and the other said B or maybe the sites all said B, but the person had always been raised to think A correct and they want someone to verify what they've read or... It goes on and on. There are lots of legitimate reasons why we get some really obvious sounding questions. Matt Deres (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While you have some points, some of them are frankly, irrelevant. If you don't own a PC and need to use a library PC, posting something to the wikipedia RD and may be waiting a few days (and when you go back to the library in 2 weeks the question is now in the archives so you have to find it) is clearly a lot more pointless then spending 1 minutes searching yourself for the answer. If you can't type easily, it's questionable whether spending 10 minutes typing out a 20 word question, with headers is more effective then typing one or two search string into an internet search engine. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I support Aaronite's proposal (if it's a proposal). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• SupportSince it is easy and also gives an example of how to "Look it up." It would seem extremely passive-aggressive for a Real Life Ref Desk librarian sitting there at his desk to say "Go look it up yourself" and then go on sitting there doing whatever he was doing. There is the implied "Can't you see I'm BUSY!" when the questioner gets such a brushoff. We can't evaluate whether the questioner is quite young, has limited English, has only momentary use of a terminal, or is developing senile dementia. Edison (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think it is worth acknowledging that knowing how to search Google for what you want is a skill. Sometimes the answers are pretty simple—the first Google search for the question header itself would give you the result, and telling the poster that might let them in (if they haven't already figured it out) that this Google thing can be useful to them. But sometimes finding the right keywords to get the right answers are hard, and sometimes the poster is really saying, "I don't have the knowledge/confidence to wade through ten pages of results to figure out which is correct." I heavily agree that showing posters in general how you came to a conclusion is useful, especially if it is something that they could presumably emulate in their future queries. Let's just be civil and be helpful. If we run out of those qualities we ought not work at a volunteer reference desk (for those who are looking for an uncivil and unhelpful work environment, I would recommend my local US Post Office). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing, to me, is that while we present ourselves as a professional reference desk, we're really just a scraggly bunch of nerds (going on my own case here; I'm sure each and every one of you is an attractive and likeable person, it's just me) who have nothing better to do than help people online for no money, no recognition, no credit, and, by and large, no thanks. This is wierd. Most people going to this page don't fully understand that, is my guess. Riffraffselbow (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We are nerds. But we don't have to act like it. We don't have to be professional (which is why I support a little humour), but we do have to show the users some respect. That said, I am a real ref desker in real life, and I try to bring what I learn there about people here. That's why I think keeping it simple and polite is best. You never know who is asking or why. Aaronite (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I already offer search strings when I feel they are helpful (when they require some thought). (And I'm pretty sure I've seen others do likewise). When the query is very simple and there seems little way you can get it wrong, I often don't bother and may simply suggest they use a search engine, or mention I found the result very quickly with a search engine or something of that sort. If the person needs further help, they are free to ask (I may even mention this in my response). I think this is a key point, ultimately this is a two way street. We have no way of knowing why a person can't answer what appears to be a very, very simple search. So ultimately, if it's a very very simple search I don't see any harm in waiting for the OP to explain what the problem preventing them doing such a search. If the problem is simple laziness, then yes, I'll freely admit I don't give a damn if the OP is annoyed by my response as they may be (although I've never really understood why people feel it's more effective to type out a 20 word question then type a word or two into a search engine and click on the first or second result). If the problem is not laziness, then IMHO it's more likely that the OP will learn something if we appreciate what the problem is.

In cases when I can perhaps guess what the problem is, e.g. there's a variety of search strings and some of them are useless or less helpful, then as I said, I sometimes already simply suggest a or a variety of search strings. When I did find the answer by searching, but it's extremely difficult to search or was partially on my existing knowledge, then I think most commonly I'd just give the results. And I think this is what most people do. In other words, it's perhaps worth remembering that most of the cases we are talking about are cases when a very simple an obvious search (or heck any real simple and obvious search) will find the answer. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I think it's rare that someone will suggest a internet search when the question is so complicated that it's clearly likely to be very hard to find (in some cases people have suggested a search or wikipedia article which seems like it should help but doesn't).

Another key point, which I emphasise whenever issues like this come up is that ultimately IMHO this is a good case when it's a bad idea trying to 'regulate' what people should do. It's best just to leave it up to the individual respondent. Definitely when I answer however I choose to answer, I don't usually do anything to try to stop others responding differently. Discussing on how to handle these sort of things may help but I've seen enough of these to think that there's probably little point, ultimately people will behave however they choose to behave. If there's a seriously problem, it may be worth discussing it and while there's nothing wrong with proposing people behave differently, it's probably not going to make much of a difference.

BTW, in terms of the nerds thing, I think the more important point is we are volunteers and unregulated ones at that. The internet has provided greater opportunity for unregulated volunteers to offer help of this sort, but in any event, volunteers are generally going to be less patient then professionals (where it's part of their job) in dealing with people and I think many would understand that. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to maintain some level of courtesy and professionalism.

P.S. I should add I don't think 'just Google it' or 'just search' or whatever is really that common anyway. I did a search of the current Humanities, Science and Misc. Most of the references to Google (ignoring Googlemeister) or search are either people offering search suggestings (either with a string or with a link), people mentioning they tried but couldn't find anything (whether the OP or someone else, sometimes after the question has been answered), or sometimes a person mentioning a search will probably find useful results as an aside (in other words, they already partially answered the OPs question and think they can do the rest themselves) and even then often with a suggestion of a string. I didn't actually see anything that I would describe as 'just search' without any suggestions on what to search. In other words, while it surely does happen occasionally, I don't really think it's that common and I'm even more sure that plenty of people are already doing something like this (well I didn't pay close attention to the dates but some of them predated this discussions)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a Thought in Making Wikipedia Better

Wikipedia is a magnificent online encyclopedia—the, not least, but most magnificent online encyclopedia in the world. However, there exists a thing or two missing in order to make it, not less but, more magnificent.

One thing which “might” make it an improvement would be to link ‘each link’ in a sentence “at the end” of a sentence. Quite often young users (even older people) have a tendency to go to another link “before they even finish the sentence” since they may not understand the vocabulary/terminology/word which is stated. I have found myself doing this. Instead, wouldn’t it be better to say at the end of a sentence [See: and then name the terminology, such as: Greek Classical Books; Classical Books; Greek Books; Greek; Classical; Books] while providing a link to those things. This also shows a disambiguation hierarchy which students can follow. It also brings the editor/writer a means by which to find mistakes. For instance, I may have said [Classical Books; Classical; Books] while then thinking to myself: “What type of Classical Books am I talking about? Greek? Roman? or what?”

The disambiguation hierarchy would be:

Books

Classical Books

Greek Classical Books

Roman Classical Books

This is just a thought about what I think can make Wikipedia even better.--Rujacgeh (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this proposal needs to go to WP:VPR, but nonetheless, if people want to finish a sentence before clicking the link, they can open the link in a new window or tab, or just finish the sentence. No need to clutter things up any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd vote against this, as would everyone else. Sorry, but the idea is awful, because it would destroy the ability to read the paragraph. There's a good reason that regular books don't use this notation method. Hypertext and footnotes are here to stay. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I know we should move this conversation to the appropriate talk page, but what I have done is this: configured my middle mouse button to open the link in a new window, but not switch to it. That way I can finish my sentence and only go to that other page when I'm done the bit I'm reading. Aaronite (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Or just right-click and select "open in new tab" or "open in new window". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this proposal either. Very often, I'm looking for some term or other that I've forgotten - so I go to an article that I know is closely related to it - and skim through it until I find the link I need. I really don't want to read any further at that point. It's pretty common for me to jump off onto another page partway through reading a sentence - when I realize (for example) that there is a more tightly focussed article with a title I hadn't thought of. For example, yesterday, I was struggling to remember the phrase "simulation hypothesis" - and all I could remember was that it was closely related to digital physics. So I hit that article - skimmed down to simulated reality - and in that article down to the thing I actually needed. I didn't want (or need) to read either of the first two articles to do that. Hypertext works and is a well-established concept across the entire Internet - I don't see a reason to buck the trend here! SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This question was also asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Possible Suggestion For Making Wikipedia Even Better. Buddy431 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Providing links within the sentence is standard internet procedure at countless sites, so wikipedia should continue to follow that approach. The whole point is to allow someone to switch to another article. They can always go back to where they started, by following their browser history list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP might be interested in WP:POPUPS. Nimur (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This idea would make it incredibly hard to just sit and read an article. You'd read one sentence, skip a bunch of links that you likely don't need/care about, then get on to the next sentence. Think of how many links you actually click on because you don't know what the term means. I bet if you averaged it, it would be less than 25% of the links in an article. For instance, taking the first sentence of a biography, "John Doe was an American singer and guitarist for The Blah Blahs". In that sentence, you'd have linked American, singer, guitarist, and The Blah Blahs. If you know who he was but just want to read the article, only the band name would likely be a 'click and open in a new tab' type link. After all, you likely already know the other three terms. Now think about having to see those words repeated after that sentence. And then in between each subsequent sentence. And again, those links would likely not be clicked on because you probably know what the terms mean. It's just silly. Dismas|^(talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts spring to mind: needless, obfuscated, redundant. Vranak (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical marihuana

This post[3] says "Let's be perfectly honest and clear: Cannabis prohibition has nothing to do with protecting public safety or human health, and it never has." Besides the inappropriate rhetorical introduction this post makes a categorical accusation that is insupportable (never ?). Other contributions by the same user contain a harangue promoting their viewpoint about cannabis prohibition. Whether or not that viewpoint is persuasive, a question to the Science Ref. Desk should never be exploited as a springboard for such opinionated rhetoric. A later post by the same poster reaches a new low in lecturing boorishness. Comments? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate topic.. And one that many people to have strong opinions (sometimes strongly opposed) on. Yeah, these sort of debates aren't what the ref desk is meant for, but I don't see anything egregious here either. I don't see that this requires any kind of action. Friday (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see the harm. A sentence of rhetoric here and there does not a soapboxer make. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just make sure the thread is well referenced, whatever claims are made. Nimur (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. I will note that our rhetorical poster actually is pretty good about providing references (whether they are always entirely germane is a separate and irresolvable debate). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical advice already banned - advice feeding addictions should be banned also

There are two current questions - one about growing your own tobacco, another about consuming cannabis. Tobacco is well known for causing cancer and heart and circulatory diseases. Cannabis I expect has the same problems with a risk of psychosis also.

Many people read there questions, not just the OP, and the info may also spread by word or mouth or secondary publication. Statistically, one or more of of them are going to be killed or at least given a serious illness as a result of the advice given.

Therefore, shouldnt information that helps feed addictions also be banned, as well as medical advice? 89.242.91.120 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for medical diagnosis, they're asking for the current status of research on these topics. There's a difference. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the advice is likely to kill someone. I note that Mr. 98 gave advice to those questions. 89.242.91.120 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not medical advice and it's not clear and present danger by any definition (at worst, these things have health implications that are some decades in the future). It's not even "likely to kill someone"—did you even bother reading the responses? Not one of them says, "smoke 'em both, they're safe!" They say things like, "both have their health risks, let's parse them out a bit." Informed discussion of risks is always better than blanket bans of discussion. In any case, it violates zero Ref Desk guidelines, which is the ultimately salient point here. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not even likely to kill someone" - that's nonsense! Tobacco is well known for killing millions of people. You must be an addict. 78.149.199.79 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the questions are in any way asking for medial advice (prognosis / diagnosis). Providing readily available, factual information on topics that could be dangerous is acceptable 82.44.55.254 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hasnt anyone read the question? I'm asking/suggesting that advice that feeds addictions should be banned, since its likely to kill someone, given the number of readers of the answers plus the diffusion of the advice given. Nobody wants to save someones life? 78.149.199.79 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are those rhetorical questions ? I've read the Tobacco thread (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Tobacco). Certainly not a medical advice question. Possibly a legal advice question. If you don't like the question then you can just ignore it - you are not responsible for other editors' actions. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is no law prohibiting the growing of tobacco for personal use, it's not our place to be nannies and tell the OP how to run his life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP may be an intelligent rational person, but the information is likely to diffuse to vunerable people who are neither of these things, and they should be protected. In the same way, information or advice about how to make a bomb ought to be banned. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Others would disagree, which is why wikipedia is not censored for content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are really that pliable then it won't be Wikipedia that does them in. (And it does not even begin to logically follow that banning all discussion of addictive things would actually have any positive effect, or that our discussions of such things in a rational and careful manner would actually encourage anyone to do them if they weren't already inclined to do so.) And Wikipedia as a whole does have bomb-making advice. Which would you prefer, plain-old ANFO or something special? --Mr.98 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking it farther, there "shouldn't be" anything about anything that can be addicting, including food and sexuality and prescriptions drugs and religion and television/radio/movies/etc. Nor anything connected with violence, which rules out guns, knifes, or any other kind of weaponry; or violent sports (which is most of them), or wars or nations that have participated in wars. Once you start down that path, you eventually end up with an encylopedia with 0 content. Which is at least part of the reason wikipedia is not censored for content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing "bad answers"

Revisiting this "Bite Removed" thread because TreasuryTag has been hassling me on my talk page about it, threatening he'll report me to the Wikipedia Police, etc. A while ago, I removed a sarcastic WP:BITE answer that Jayron32 had posted; my removal was reverted by TreasuryTag; I removed the bite answer again; then Nil Einne reverted my removal; then Jayron32 removed the comment himself. Obviously there was no consensus for removal, so I wanted to bring it up here to discuss a little to avoid some future flaming.

TreasuryTag's point has basically been that, per the guidelines, you don't remove others' posts from talk pages. My point has been that the Reference Desk is not a talk page, and removing others' posts is often appropriate. We do it all the time for medical and legal advice, and sometimes for nonsense or troll questions. My further question today, then, is: At what level of inappropriateness should we remove answers? I thought it might help me to understand what other RD editors would think about removing each of the following "bad answers" that respond to the question that started all this: What are the differences between arteries and veins?

1. You are a total asshole.
2. One carries blood from the heart, the other carries blood to the heart, you total asshole.
3. See artery and vein, asshole.
4. You're quite a moron.
5. One carries blood from the heart, the other carries blood to the heart, you moron.
6. See artery and vein, moron.
7. Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of online information source, an encyclopedia if you will, where people could look up answers to these questions. Oh please, someone come up with that! It would be most awesome to have an online encyclopedia where I could find answers to questions like this. Until there is, I guess we're just never going to be able to know! Darn.
8. Did you say what is the difference between arteries and veins? Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of online information source, an encyclopedia if you will, where people could look up answers to these questions. Oh please, someone come up with that! It would be most awesome to have an online encyclopedia where I could find answers to questions like this. Until there is, I guess we're just never going to be able to know! Darn.

I think all these answers are more suited to a place like Yahoo Answers than the Reference Desk, and I would remove them all. I would probably vote to remove #1 through #4 on sight, in particular. I would certainly think the position of "none should be removed" is an extremist position that would degrade the quality of the Reference Desk. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not remotely interested in reading all the above drivel, though I would welcome a diff of me using the phrase "Wikipedia Police"? The policy situation is, according to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, that WP:TALK applies. The relevant section of WP:TALK clearly states, "...appropriately editing others' comments [...] generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil."

This seems perfectly clear to me. If a comment is nothing but a personal attack (for example, your #1 and #4) it should probably be deleted, or at least, I'm not sure anyone would object. If it was an attack but also answered the question (for example, your #2) then perhaps the nasty bit could be struck out to indicate that it's not acceptable.

If it answered the question, was perhaps a little brusque but with a justifiable point, including the suggestion that the questioner should use their loaf (for example, your #8) then no part of WP:TPO mandates its deletion and it blatantly should not be.

I'm astonished that anybody can find such a simple rule this complicated. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a rule about this? In my opinion, removing a comment with such a high degree of, for lack of a better word, douchiness was absolutely the right thing to do. In a separate but related opinion, we (by which I mean Wikipedians in general) are getting too rules obsessed. Wouldn't it be great if humans had some sort of faculty for applying basic reasoning skills to issues like this? Almost like a special sense, but it would be common to anybody with white matter above their brain stem. A "common sense", if you will. Hrm... apologies in advance for my attitude: it bothers me profoundly when people are so astonishingly rude to total strangers who are just seeking information, even if the reply to their inquiry is somewhat obvious. There's really no excuse for such complete and douchebaggery; you should be commended for removing it, not threatened for being bold and ignoring "rules" when the situation called for it. Cheers. – ClockworkSoul 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, this is precisely the situation where you should not be ignoring rules, since it's clear there's no consensus the immediete removal was called for. And it bothers me profoundly when people are so astonishingly rude to total strangers who are trying to help strangers seeking help just because you don't agree with the way they are trying to help. In other words, I really don't agree with the continued advocation of the removal of someone's attempt to help an OP just because you don't like the manner in which it was done. You're right people are getting too rule obessed, sadly one of the reason's is because people advocate uncalled for actions without the consensus of the community and where many of their fellow contributors don't agree, which cause unnecessary tension and pointless arguments with your fellow contributors apparently because they aren't able to accept not everyone thinks like them or feels they have to follow some narrow ruleset in the way they respond to other contributors and in failing to do so, others are justified in removing their comments. If instead people would learn to let others do thing in their own manner, provided they do act in good faith, do try to help (or improve things) and don't do something which most others clearly agree was completely inappropriate, clearly damaging or unacceptable on wikipedia and perhaps give everyone includings OPs the respect they deserve allowing them to make their own judgements even if they don't agree with them, and don't think people are so completely thin-skinned they can't read a mildly brusque answer without imploding; and when people really do perhaps go slightly too far, dealing directly with the person in the first instance rather then causing unnecessary resentment and drama by an immediate removal and public discussion then perhaps we could all live happier. I do agree common sense is the best policy here, however obviously not in what is the common sense solution here. Note that I'm not saying I'm supporting unnecesary rudeness in replies, simply that the immediate removal of such replies rarely helps the situation and in fact in most cases the best option is just to let it be and if you really think you can't, the second best option would usually be to discuss it with the poster directly first. P.S. The funniest thing if you can call it that is the removed reply in question is hardly even close to the rudest thing I've seen on the RD. In fact OPs themselves can be quite rude. However even in such cases, I rarely would support the removal of an OP's good faith question, nor would I advocate an unnecessarily rude reply in return (but of course also won't normally support the removal of such a reply). Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I think you would, then, say that answer #2 is OK on the Reference Desk, and that the most that should be done is to have a conversation with the poster of that answer? Really? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

After another day's thought, I think I disagree even more with Nil Einne on this one, because in every conversation I've ever been a part of, when person A makes an "asshole" comment, by doing so that person abandons any expectation of being treated courteously when person B replies. When have you ever seen Person A in a real conversation make an "asshole" comment and then act shocked and repulsed when Person B replies in kind? Sparing the feelings of Person A by not deleting his comment is not a priority anywhere in the world, I think. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Entirely unhelpful answers, wrong answers, and jokes with no attempt to answer the question should all be removed in my opinion. Answers that are correct and provide links, but do so in a unfriendly / rude way are difficult. I am unsure if removing such posts is the correct thing to do, but I think that at the very least a subsequent comment should be made letting the OP of the question know that the attitude of unfriendliness is not shared by the majority of the desks contributors, and that they are welcome here and did nothing wrong to warrant the inappropriate response they got. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I had some time to think about this, and I think removing hostile answers is the correct thing to do. The whole point of the reference desk is to help people find the information they need, even if it's something really obvious or basic question. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Responses that violate WP:AGF are unacceptable and examples 1) and 4) are gross insults that should be deleted on sight. When an otherwise on-subject answer carries an insulting payload, I say delete the payload with a summary note "Edit can be raised on Talk page". The idea is to put the muck out of sight of the OP. The poster is welcome to try convincing us that payloads such as "asshole" etc. in examples 2) 3) 5) 6) are acceptable. Mild jokes are okay after the OP's question has been sensibly addressed. The sarcastic examples 7) and 8) are not shining witticisms but if someone takes the trouble to write them let's respect that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk, not the comments section of a YouTube video. It seems to me that all of the above examples, including number 7 and 8, come straight from their author's smug sense of superiority and serve no purpose other than to actively trying to belittle and humiliate the OP. Not only does such behavior run contrary to all the conventions of civil society, they contribute to the negative image of the insular Wikipedian society, potentially marginalizing yet another future potentially productive editor. In case anybody hasn't noticed, new editors haven't exactly been flocking in, and treating the RD like a Fox Network reality show isn't helping. It's harmful, and we shouldn't allow it, especially on the RefDesk. – ClockworkSoul 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For those who feel the rules allow certain protections, that's probably a good thing, because there needs to be some conventions that protect the integrity of the idea that 'anyone can edit'. That said, here is my suggestion: Let's redefine the Ref Desk as something other than article space or talk space. The rules should be different here because the purpose of the Ref Desk is different. Aaronite (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

All 8 comments above should be removed on sight, including the two which are versions of what I wrote. The ref desk is about answering questions and being helpful to people, and it is not the place to show off ones own smugness, mine included. Forget about WP:TALK. The most important in this case is WP:IAR. The ref desk is better off without such comments, and since it is, such comments should be removed because removing them makes the ref desk better. Period. I should only add that, before removing comments like this, you should directly confront the person that left them and politely ask that they remove the comment themselves. Deleting bad comments is appropriate, but good manners dictates that you directly confront someone when they screw up, and you give them a chance to fix it. But regardless, the comments should be removed. --Jayron32 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. I agree that it's only fair to give the author the chance to remove it themselves. After all, everybody has bad days and occasionally writes something they later wish they hadn't. I know I was feeling unusually cranky when I wrote the comments above! – ClockworkSoul 04:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical advice removed

Somebody posted an explicit request for the physiological causes and solutions to a hiccup problem that he has had for the past few days. I removed the question and said that we could not provide advice other than to see a doctor. Question and my first response (which I went back and edited slightly): [4] Falconus^{p t c} 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You might have simply referred the questioner to Hiccup, which seems to answer all of his questions. Perhaps I am being naive to think that nothing more would be added by others. Bielle (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing the article doesn't mention is what works for me, which is to lie back on the bed and kind of stretch out. That makes them go away almost immediately. In any case, referring them to the article would have been the best thing, along with advising him to go to the doctor because hiccups lasting several days should probably be diagnosed by a professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Has the policy changed? I was thinking that we were supposed to not provide any information (including links) in response to a medical advice request. Falconus^{p t c} 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to go back and forth like ping-pong. It doesn't help that we try to draw a fine line between overt requests for help and "tell me about..." kinds of stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya did good. Your actions were what the Ref Desk guidelines call for. This sort of case is actually illustrative of why we have the guidelines — it's a symptom that to a layperson can seem totally innocuous (hiccups are just funny, right?) but which may be indicative of more serious medical problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I shall keep on in the same manner then. Falconus^{p t c} 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Until the next one comes along. If the guy had said, "Where can I learn about hiccups?" he would have been pointed to the page with no problem. So you're going strictly by wording of the question to make your judgment, and that's dangerous ground. For consistency, anything about medical stuff should have a disclaimer like, "Here's the article, but keep in mind that we do not give medical advice." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see the problem — we always have to deal with these things on a case-by-case basis, interpreted in light of our guidelines. We generally assume that the original poster means what he writes, and writes what he means. Within the bounds of common sense, we tend to believe that people who post here are honest about why they ask their questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good in theory. Might not hold up in court, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's for lawyers to determine, I guess... They said no medical advice, and no legal advice. I take that to mean that we can say all that we want about a medical issue, just so long as we don't gear it toward an individual OP. By virtue of the OP asking for advice, that makes it impossible to discuss the medical issues without it having a personal bearing on that person. Maybe somebody else disagrees with that assessment, but that's kind of the way that I see it. Falconus^{p t c} 05:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the posters have likely figured out that they can ask a medical advice question as long as they don't make it sound like a medical advice question. Some have not figured that out. Maybe one of the rules up top should be, "Don't ask for medical advice directly. Ask it in such a way that it doesn't sound like you're asking for it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Our system is designed to protect against innocent mistakes by individuals acting in good faith. Deliberate acts of deception by editors experienced enough to know the rules but selfish enough to abuse the volunteers' trust here anyway are more challenging to deal with. You can't defeat ruleslawyers with more rules, and it's a mug's game to try. Their conduct (and our response) in those cases isn't necessarily governed by the Ref Desk guidelines at that point; they're handled under the broader umbrella of WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and WP:Disruptive editing. The largest problem at the Reference Desk has never been in the basic asking and answering of questions; it's always in how to deal with the entrenched editors who see this part of the project as a personal playground — and who throw tantrums when they don't get their way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Has wikipedia ever gotten itself into any significant trouble, legal or otherwise, beyond the recent porn brouhaha? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Ref Desk itself has never gotten into any sort of widely-reported trouble. For the project as a whole, our biggest public relations disaster was probably the Seigenthaler controversy. That led to the implementation of the WP:BLP policy and the creation of Oversighters. One of the big reasons for our policy on medical advice here is to avoid another Siegenthaler-type situation and the subsequent draconian response (if not outright closure of the Ref Desks). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like we're lucky that wikipedia wasn't shut down altogether, as Siegenthaler was much more forgiving of wikipedia than he needed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's no luck involved; as the Wikipedia biography controversy article states, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act basically immunizes Wikipedia, or any other web site, from most defamation lawsuits based on content contributed by the users. The site was never considered to be in danger of getting shut down. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So is there any reasonable fear of lawsuits from questionable medical advice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to the project, as far as I know. Individual editors may have their own problems; I can't comment there. But the issue with the Seigenthaler controversy (and all its fallout) wasn't that Wikipedia was concerned about a lawsuit. The harm done in that case was to the project's reputation. In order to do our work, we depend on volunteers, donations, and goodwill. When we get that much egg on our faces, when we look foolish, incompetent, malicious, useless, or just plain bad, it makes it harder to accomplish the good stuff. Because of one ill-thought-out action by a random nitwit playing a joke, Jimbo spent a week in front of the media defending the project and the Foundation had to impose a content policy from on high.

We learned – at least, I think we learned – from those mistakes when we established the Ref Desk guidelines. We try to minimize the risk of harm to our readers while still being helpful and informative, and we try to avoid situations where single editors can embarrass or otherwise damage the entire project. I've taken a somewhat tongue-in-cheek approach to the reasoning for our current policy at User:TenOfAllTrades/Why shouldn't I give medical advice on the Reference Desk?. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, individual editors can still get sued, even if Wikipedia is ostensibly immune from most liability; and yes, the principle of not hurting people is more important than the principle of avoiding lawsuits. By the way, why does the Refdesk header nix legal and medical advice, but not other kinds of advice that people would be stupid to heed from random weirdos on the Internet? Like that guy who was asking how to hang a heavy sign over a highway a while back. Or the people asking for investment advice. I mean, there would obviously be Trouble over where the lines would get drawn; but there is plenty of advice here that we could give but shouldn't give, on the same grounds. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think usually we rely on our own good sense and ability to hash things out on the talk page to deal with the less-common things, like when we warn people about the dangers of making explosives based on things they've read online. The medical and legal advice warnings came about because they were very common topics, and happen to be topics that a lot of people feel able to answer without actually knowing very much about them: hence we had endless cycles of the same discussions and conclusions on the talk page, and finally wrote them into standard advice. Hanging heavy signs seems to get fewer bullshit answers from people who know nothing about structural engineering, and people back down quicker from their bad answers. Plus, it doesn't come up that often. 86.178.73.218 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Troll question removed from Humanities. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And I zapped another one. Just another Elsie sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I did another which unfortunately already had a response but I've informed the responder Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Extremely pro-choice philosopher

The responses by Shadowjams and Gabbe (at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities) seem to address the original question. The others do not. Can they be removed before this forum debate gets out of hand? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not unless they cross the line from brief and reasonable commentary into outright soapboxing. Jeanne Boleyn's response is the closest to soapboxing so far, but even that could be regarded as a follow-up question (albeit a somewhat rhetorical one). Gandalf61 (talk)

more User:Vranak

Well, User:Vranak, after what seemed like a break or an effort to the contrary, is back with his useless contributions: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

These are not, by really any measure, quality answers. The range from being empty banalities through outright misrepresentations, falsehoods, and occasionally things that seem just to be attacks on the original poster. Some of them look like trolling attempts.

We discussed this user's contributions back in March if you recall.

I'm not usually in favor of drastic actions to get rid of Ref Desk annoyances, but I really do believe that this particular contributor does not help, is often highly incorrect, and appears to be making things up as he goes along. Have we come to any kind of consensus as to what should be done about this sort of thing? Because if we had two or three Vranak's running around, I think the Ref Desk would be pretty much useless. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point I think it should be obvious that discussions on the talkpage here do nothing about poor behaviour. Vranak already knows what the consensus is regarding his actions. If his posts are noxious, they should be removed and the usual vandalism templates can be added to his talk page. When... er, if he continues to post... whatever the neutral term is for what he posts after sufficient warnings, a post can be made to ANI and he'll be blocked like any of the other undesirables who've been blocked. It's a shame, but it's even more of a shame that we waste more time and drama than necessary. Remove, warn, block, get back to business. Matt Deres (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

His comments are almost certainly in good faith, so I don't think that vandalism templates are appropriate. And he has been trying for a while. Let's gently remind him of best practices on the reference desk (i.e. provide references and don't make up answers off the top of your head), and see how it works out. No need to piss someone off when we don't need to. More flies with honey, and all that. Buddy431 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified. His response isn't encouraging for this to be resolved amicably. Buddy431 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... from previous user page notes [18] [19] he seemed willing to adjust behavior when others expressed concerns, although he apparently has strong opinions on how things should be [20], on which he is apparently less willing to compromise. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

His beliefs may be in good faith, but his continued inability to work within the framework of a reference desk is very much "in bad faith". Insulting the OP on multiple occasions is working "in bad faith". Providing comments that are not only beside the point, but also clearly wrong is working "in bad faith". Saying that Steve Jobs deserved to get cancer is working "in bad faith". I did mis-speak however, in characterizing his edits as vandalism; there are other warning templates that would be more apropos - NPOV, BITE, POINT, BLP, among others. I think of them collectively as "vandalism" warnings because that's the most common set I use (e.g. with Twinkle). (forgot to sign) Matt Deres (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough. What I meant is that he may or may not be actively trying to disrupt the reference desk, though he's certainly succeeding, no matter what his intentions are. Even if he is editing in good faith, competence is required, and something needs to be done. I was hoping that he'd be more receptive to our calls for change (as he has been in the past), but right now it's not looking very good in that regard. Buddy431 (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do this today, actually, had someone not beaten me to it. He seems to care more about getting his opinion out than with actually trying to help the OP. He's not the only one, but he's the worst for it. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment — are those edits the totality of Vranak's edits to the Reference Desk during the time that they cover (looks like about a week), or are they part of a larger whole? That is, has Vranak made any significant positive contribution during that time, or are those – decidedly unhelpful – edits it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

His answer here[21] seems appropriate and seems to at least partially answer the question asked. That's the best one (in my personal opinion) that I was able to find that hasn't already scrolled off the boards. There are a couple other like here[22] that are relevant and appropriate even if they don't add much.

Simply searching for his name on the current boards will illustrate that these are outweighed by posts that are either simply wrong, off-topic, needlessly critical of the question-asker, or are inappropriate some other way. APL (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I could just list off some of his edits at random, without actually looking for bad ones. I'll go backwards through his ten most recent edits.

[23]; explaining he's completely uninterested in actually helping the OP and is participating only to analyse the OP for his own entertainment. [24]; a reasonable addition to a previous point. [25]; the previous point. Uncited personal experience...Unsure of the helpfulness with relation to the overall question. [26]; provides no evidence to back up his claim. Information provided appears questionable. [27]; seems to misunderstand the nature of suspension of disbelief; implies that because parts of Shakespeare's plays are unbelievable, no part need be plausible. [28]; a defence for a previous (incorrect) response; claiming that the de facto situation is that people turn a blind eye to how someone treats pets. [29]; (unhelpful) psychological response to a request for quantifiable information. [30]; justifying an uncommon opinion (which was, given the context of the question, a reasonable response) with his astrology (or something - Cancer Goat...?). [31]; irrelevant personal attack on Steve Jobs. [32]; claiming that the correlation of Steve Jobs' cancer and his decency are causal; correlation does not imply causation, but Vranak apparently doesn't know this.

So...I see only three of those ten as possibly being reasonable for inclusion on the Ref Desk. I didn't go looking for unhelpful edits, just went for the ten most recent. Is that a reasonable sample...?

I've debated with myself as to whether or not to save this, as it seems like just a list of attacks on Vranak's actions; in the end, I decided I would, to prove that we aren't singling out Vranak by deliberately finding his least constructive edits, but that his edits as a whole are the problem. Still, if someone objects to the way I've done this, it can be removed. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you did that well, and agree with your assessment of each of the ten edits.

In fact, you do it rather dispassionately, resisting the urge to comment on how ... out there some of these edits are. The suggestion (in that last edit) that cancer implies a serious moral defect tells me that Vranak exists (mentally) in a really weird place compared to the rest of us. It may not be possible to make him understand what the problem with his behavior is. APL (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As a point of interest, He appears to be intentionally avoiding this discussion. APL (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, this editor strongly disapproved of wp:consensus and stated that should the wp:pillars impede the editors efforts toward "Wikipedia being as good as possible", that the pillars must "accede". I opened a wp:WQA incident to attempt get more guidance for the editor, but since it already seems a number of people in a number of venues have tried, I don't see how WQA can help. I think that wp:ANI may be the next step.- Sinneed 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about how to approach off-the-wall responses within a thread, how repeated off-the-wall responses may affect the desk in general, etc.

Not to necessarily defend Vranak's frequently off-the-wall responses, but I wonder how 98's comments [33] help improve the situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Occasionally, a regular will get fed up with repeated comments of the type we are talking about and of the type we don't wish to see flooding the desks. Occasionally, he or she will snap and lash out a bit. No, it doesn't help the situation when we use ad hominem arguments, though it might help the querent to point out answers that are hyper-speculative or plain wrong. I have seen knowledgable contributors, scientists and scholars, leave the desks (or even the project), or take long breaks, because they had enough of speculative answers, opining comments, badly researched replies, and so forth. I would want to retain (and regain) as many expert colleagues as possible. Mr. 98 has been editing the desks for years, and his track record is consistently helpful and knowledgable. I don't blame him for calling someone out on an unhelpful answer once in a while, though I agree that ad hominems ("as usual") should be avoided for the sake of keeping the library a peaceful place. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The usual argument (as directed against Jayron recently) is that no one is forcing anyone to edit. Being sarcastic, rude, etc. - or not - is a conscious choice on the part of the editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think we both agree on the second part. I suspect Mr. 98 would agree as well. As for the first part (no one is forced to edit here), I can't disagree per se of course, but ... let me put it this way: One motivation to contribute here is to help people, another is to learn something interesting from other people's responses (including answers which challenge one's own view). When we get a wave of unresearched and shallow answers, however, as we do periodically, our motivation to contribute may decrease: It is tiresome to have to point out inaccurate replies over and over again, and, intellectually, there is nothing to be gained from them. One may feel that one is wasting one's time here, and seek other, more fulfilling channels. Also, a newbie may see the type of answer we are criticizing here, and think "Cool, it's a forum where I can rant and soapbox to my heart's content!" which would amplify the effect further. (I have seen this happen too). In the end, the reference desks are what we make them to be. I agree that the best approach is usually to simply provide answers (if possible in an informed and referenced way), and to ignore the noise. It just gets difficult when the noise becomes too loud and shrill. Again, I can't blame Mr. 98 for this atypical and minor lapse, and I see it as far less problematic than the repeated pattern we are discussing here, A number of editors have commented, editors, by the way, who normally don't go around policing (or nannying :) others. To me, this alone proves that something is wrong. Mr. 98's approach in that post will probably not help the situation, but I don't know how to persuade Vranak to cease this type of responding either. I made one attempt here, but I would only be repeating myself if I tried again. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The most obvious solution, as some have done before, is to box up something that appears to be unhelpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC) A quick point of order. Mr.98's edit is not an ad hominem argument. When someone has a history of posting in Greek letters, it is not an ad hominem attack to say that he does - it's a statement of fact. Vranak's posts are frequently - more so recently, it seems - bizarre, if not intentionally abstruse and besides the point. Bringing up his zodiacal signs, asserting that people get cancer because they deserve it... these are not things which most people would characterize as reasonable - all the more so because they were offered in threads that had nothing to do with those topics. Matt Deres (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Alright, I won't argue different defnitions of "ad hominem". I certainly did not mean it in the fallacious sense. I guess what I meant is that comments such as "Another hopelessly incorrect answer from Vranak." or "Well, you're still hopelessly wrong, as usual." belong either on this talk page or on Vranak's talk page, but not in a thread at the desks themselves. In this instance, I wouldn't be saying the same thing about answers such as "That answer is hopelessly incorrect." or "Well, you're still hopelessly wrong." In my opinion, we really should strive to focus on the contributions, no matter who the contributor is. If the contributor is the problem, and I certainly agree that this has been argued compellingly, then that should be dealt with elsewhere, not at the desks themselves. But my view may be that of a minority. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Ah, you're probably right; I just tire of the endless pussy-footing around. We gnaw on our livers over whether our statements are neutral enough and/or phrased in such a way as to not cause offense while allowing the inappropriate behaviour to continue - to the detriment of the project. We provide an endless stream of second-chances in the hopes that we won't have to take the next step of getting outside admins involved because we (and these wes are definitely inclusive of me) don't want to see someone topic-banned or worse. I agree that the desk itself also wasn't the best place to make the statement. Sigh. Matt Deres (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The conversation I boxed is fine, and somewhat relevant, and can be continued in the box. I'd like to try to keep the main thread from becoming too broad, though. Buddy431 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He said on his talkpage that he'll rein himself in a bit, which I suppose is a positive sign. Buddy431 (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I just removed a comment from him that offered medical advice to someone who was showing symptoms of hearing damage/loss. Not only did he conclude that the OP's tinnitus was definitely the result of his guitar playing, Vranak also explicitly discouraged the OP from seeing a physician or hearing specialist. Aside from being a flat violation of our rules, Vranak's edit may actually do harm to the poster. I have strongly advised Vranak not to do this sort of thing again, and to seek the advice of other editors before jumping in with his own interpretations of the medical advice guidelines in the future. I will be away from Wikipedia this weekend, however I ask that any other admins watching this talk page be prepared to monitor the situation and act in my stead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vranak's sometimes sarcastic, sometimes weird comments are one thing; but that is way over the line. No one here should ever, under any circumstances, advise NOT seeing a doctor. That's practicing medicine without a license. And even if he were a licensed physician, anything he might say would at best be a guess, until he's physically examined the patient. No. No. No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy. Now he's a Moral Crusader![34], or maybe not anymore [35]. APL (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

'Sup guys. How y'all doin' tonight.

Now, if you want any feedback from me -- and I'm sure you don't -- it's that you fellas are far too interested in protocol, and seem to be a little separated from good sense, reasonableness, and in short, a level-headed approach. I mean really, you want a guy to go see a doctor because his own guitar playing is hurting his ear? If this is truly what passes for wisdom in the 21st century, our ancestors would be laughing at us. Vranak (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We want the OP to make his own decisions about whether or not to see a doctor. If you explicitly advise somebody not to see a doctor and it turns out they had a condition that required urgent treatment then you could get yourself, and Wikipedia, into a hell of a lot of trouble (chances are you would win any court case, but just having to go to court to defend yourself is very harmful to yourself and the project in various ways). A lot of us avoid giving such advise for moral reasons in addition to the legal ones, but that is a personal thing. --Tango (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. I got the impression that it was solely his guitar playing that had caused the problem, and that he could, if it became too painful, stop at any time and just let his poor ear heal. That was my interpretation, and so I found the idea of insisting on a doctor rather a bit much. However, alright, maybe he has a serious underlying issue, and the tinnitus would bring it to light. So I concede the point, and will be more cautious in the future on questions of this nature. Vranak (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out that this is one of the reasons for "protocol". Although some of it does sound like nit-picking rules, almost every line of the Guidelines has been debated (often ad nauseam) on this page, and exists as a response to a genuine concern. Tango didn't say anything new - that's just a summary of previous Medical Advice discussions (one that crops up often enough that Tango can probably recite it in his sleep). While there is a place for Ignore All Rules, realize that there's probably a good reason the rule exists in the first place. Just because you can't think of a reason for the guideline, that doesn't mean that valid reasons haven't been extensively debated and vetted. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Well as with all things, civilized discourse should help smooth over any philosophical differences. Vranak (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just found that my comment was removed on this thread, regarding posture when learning to play a guitar. This was not medical advice, but advice on how to properly sit or stand when playing a guitar so you avoid physical problems. I've not been notified - indeed the comment just seems to have disappeared. Can someone please tell me why? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire thread was removed here. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, since I'm not alone on this, I will stand up to this overzealous conduct and say sure, perhaps a slightly different approach may be prudent on my part, but hey, what are we afraid of, really? Let's keep it real -- no one is going to sue Wikipedia over this. No one. I am firm on this. I may go along with your request to not dispense advice, but I must lodge a complaint against Ten's attitude and those like it. It strikes me as paranoid and, like I said, overzealous. I am most displeased -- although I will sit down and shut up now for the sake of harmony. That's the last I will say on the matter, unless someone follows this up with something egregiously offensive to my sensibilities. Vranak (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow up. Recently, Vranak, you have been lowering the quality of the Reference Desk as a resource. I have a proposal: For a week, could you provide a reference in every message you post? This is both because (a) we are supposed to, when possible, per our guidelines, because this is a Reference Desk; and (b) I've found personally that when I take the trouble to find references, I sometimes find mistakes in my immediate answer, so I refrain from posting it entirely. That's what is supposed to happen — it is better here to have 1 referenced, strong answer than 10 opinions from different points of view. I think that citing references will improve your posts greatly, and in turn this improves the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this proposed last time? I don't want us to just end up re-treading old ground and have this go round in circles every few months. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comet, you don't like me, and I don't like you, so I am going to do the best that I can just pass over your... words. Suffice to say that I am earnest in my desire to deliver zero-BS answers to those who come here. And I think that may be the problem that a lot of you are having. You kind of like BS, it's your forte, so when I speak up, it's an outrage! Shut up, you can't say that, just answer the question within narrowly-defined limits! That is my impression anyway. I regret that I find myself having to make an accusation of pervasive BS -- but that is the honest-to-God impression I have gotten over the years. I know it's all well-meant, sincere, and honest though -- don't get me wrong. Vranak (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to hear you don't like me; thanks. I don't dislike you; I don't know you; what I dislike is the fact that, as other editors have been noting, you have not been providing high-quality referenced answers. If you like defying the rules, then you should go hang out at Yahoo Answers or other answer forums that don't care about maintaining a high level of quality. This is a reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you disapprove, why do you participate? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I love the RD, it's awesome. There seem to be a few sticks-in-the-mud though, that don't quite seem to agree with my methods and putative insight though. But I am determined to stick with it and resolve differences. Vranak (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that only a few people object to your posts. I'd like to point out that it's not just a few. Practically all of the regulars here agree that your posts are about 90% wrong/inappropriate/against-the-rules and the other 10% are useless/unnecessary-repetition/annoying. I've yet to see a single one of your posts that was worth the effort to type it or which helped the OP in any way whatever - I've seen plenty that have actively confused or potentially hurt the OP - and there are many, many more that have caused our contributors more work than was necessary to answer the question or to revert your contribution. What you're doing here is causing all of the rest of us a heck of a lot of grief to correct your answers, patch over the inappropriate bits, etc. I don't like to say this - but it is undoubtedly true that both our OP's and our contributors would be better off if you simply stopped contributing here. You can't possibly enjoy having every single one of your posts criticized and having this level of antagonism? So just go away and find some other hobby. This one ain't working out for you. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this guy has been doing this sort of thing for years. I remember trying to get him to knock it off a long time ago. Maybe he did, for a while, I don't know. We could spend all day arguing whether he's a kook or a troll, but does it matter? Friday (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct Friday, this has been going for years. I will accept fair criticism and reform -- the question remains, will you? Can you? Vranak (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem though. You said exactly this the last time we tried fair criticism. Now you're back again with the exact same behavior. You DO NOT accept criticism (or at least, if you do, you don't do anything about it). Wikipedia exists for the benefit of our readers - there is no "right" to be here and to be allowed to edit. If you are more trouble than you are worth (which, at least on the RefDesks, you most certainly are) - then there is absolutely no reason why we should tolerate this junk...and (as I think you're about to discover) we probably won't tolerate it. SteveBaker (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who hates our system, not us. Why would we want to reform? Vimescarrot (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Honesty is its own reward. Vranak (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must humbly point out that even though Vranak and I have had our occasional tiffs, this comment of his[36] was "spot on". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ho ho. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for consensus

I think we need a consensus !vote about this. I believe (from reading previous discussions) that we have four options on the table:

1. Do nothing - let Vranak continue to do what he does - allowing individual editors to correct his responses via normal methods as they see fit.
2. Block - approach the admins and seek either a site-wide ban or a 'page filter' block to prevent Vranak from editing any of the Reference Desk pages in the future.
3. Revert on sight - ref desk regulars should remove all of Vranak's posts - no matter their content.
4. Revert as needed - ref desk regulars should revert Vranak's posts when they are clearly incorrect/inappropriate.

Since this is a complicated matter, feel free to respond with more than one of the above. Remember, this isn't a vote - it's an effort to reach a consensus, so please add brief reasons for your choice. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block or Revert on sight - we don't need this editor, he's vastly more trouble than he's worth. We need to discourage him from coming here. If the admins would apply a block (unlikely as Vranak is considered to be acting in good faith) then perhaps a 'page filter' could be added to prevent him from editing ref desk pages but allowing him continued access to the rest of Wikipedia. Failing that, consensus here to remove his posts on sight, and without further debate, should be a sufficient disincentive to get rid of this person. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Revert as needed - same goes for any editor. If they post something that needs to be removed, remove it. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block or Revert on sight; I agree with SteveBaker's points. References very rarely provided, mostly posts opinions, and when confronted, he has alternated contrition and defiance repeatedly, which means he's gaming the system. Way too much trouble than his contributions are worth. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block or Revert on sight too; if he's allowed to keep editing on a "revert as needed" basis it's just going to end up with yet more debates further down the line as he pushes the boundaries, much as happened this time. I think it's clear from what he's said that he disapproves of Ref Desk rules; he has no intention of going by the proper methods to discuss them, preferring instead to ignore them when it suits him. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block or Revert on sight I agree with that. No more discussions or arguments are necessary or desired. Chances have been given time and time again, and we've really got to draw the line somewhere. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is a good forum for discussing a block. We are only considering infractions committed on the reference desk and we are just a group of refdeskers, so let's keep to discussing solutions that are restricted to the reference desk too. I suggest the several "block or revert on sight" votes be interpreted as votes for approaching the admins for a topic ban, banning him from editing any of the reference desks. The standard enforcement for a topic ban is to revert on sight, with blocks being considered for repeated violations of the ban. --Tango (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would support a Block. We've been here before and it always leads back here. Vranak, for all his talk of "backing off" has not shown any understanding of the problem with his bizarre edits. The lack of logic they show coupled with a lack of actual references makes them useless, and often worse than useless. Combined with his comments to TenOfAllTrades that he is now a "Moral Crusader" and that he will "Never back down", means that he's just a liability. It's not clear to me what he's crusading against, but it's clear that he's not crusading for anything that the rest of us would consider an improvement. APL (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are seriously fascist, you know that? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Vranak (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What would you do in our circumstances? Also, I don't know what you mean by fascist. (No, the Wikipedia article doesn't help.) Vimescarrot (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I like for people to want to work things out, rather than take unilateral action, which is the hallmark of fascism. And what did I mean? From Fascist (epithet)...

oppressive, intolerant, dictatorial, aggressive are what apply to this situation. You cannot tolerate me, you will not 'put up with my anymore', so you ostensibly seek to have me permanently removed from the Ref. Desk. If that isn't fascist, I don't know what is. I am happy to keep working things out, while some of you lot are just 'fed up', 'can't take it anymore', etc etc. This is what we call intolerance. Vranak (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hereby invoke Godwin's law. You lose. SteveBaker (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Godwin's law being inappropriately applied approaches 1. Buddy431 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nazis. Fascists. How original. Is he saying that in addition being indef-blocked, the admins send vandals and trolls to Auschwitz? Somehow I doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "Fascist" being used as an epithet deserves an invocation of Godwin's law. As Vranak's link points out, it isn't necessarily applied to people who literally exhibit hallmarks of fascism. Plus, even if he was literally comparing to fascists (which I don't think he is), Godwin's law is specifically about comparisons to the Nazis and Hitler. Not all Fascists were Nazis. Buddy431 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think further comments can take place in the linked ANI discussion below. Note that Vranak has been blocked for 3 days due to incivility there. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have opened an ANI incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Vranak - disruptive editing and incivility - - Sinneed 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot

I just reverted a removal by ClueBot at the Entertainment desk. ClueBot's diff. I don't think ClueBot should be editing the reference desks at all, but I wasn't able to complete my report, although I tried follow the instructions at User:ClueBot/FalsePositives. If someone more savvy could do what is necessary to get the desks exempted from ClueBot's watchlist, I would be very grateful. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I added a bit at the discussion level. The section is here if anyone else wants to comment. Matt Deres (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Matt Deres! I had trouble making my report look right and, given the warning at the top of that page, feared it would be deleted without further inspection. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem in the page introduction

Visitors arriving with a question read "Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia". Unfortunately the recent changes have moved the search box from the left to the upper right, at least under the Vector skin. Wording changes may be needed. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk Scope

Hi, I was wondering if 'research' questions were acceptable here on the 'reference' desk..

Ages ago I started a page over on Wikiversity that was eventually intended to be a hub for 'research' questions, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/Wikiversity_All_Subject_Original_Research_Desk

This got me thinking, that presumably some of them could be answered here...

( One of the reasons for the page mentioned above being on Wikiversity is to allow for properly documented (or reviewd) 'research' undertaken directly by Wikipedian's to be used, as opposed to here where WP:NOR and WP:RS apply..) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiversity page you started says "Most questions will typically be of the Rating:Homework or Rating:Paper type initially." The welcome headers to the Ref. Desks are clear about the former: "If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

'Research' as in reading books, papers and websites to find the answer to a question is exactly what we do here. 'Research' as in doing our own experiments, etc., is out of scope (although ref-deskers do occasionally do it anyway and they are welcome to if they want - we would discourage questions which can only be answered that way, though). Your page seems to be aimed at the latter, although most of the questions on it seem likely to be answered better by the former. --Tango (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... The intent of the wikiversity page was to support the 'latter'. I suppose the reference desk side would be useful with the literature survey (and 'published' data), whereas the wikiversity page aims to be supporting the actual experimental work being undertaken by contributors..

Needless to say getting a 'good' answer for something on the Wikiversity page would take longer, and you would be expected to respond in a 2-way fashion. It would be no good asking something like ' How do I prove <X> effect?' unless you were willing to contribute back saying, 'Yes I've done the experiment you suggested, my results , seem to be widely varying from those you found, is there some tweak I've missed?'

By comparison this is what two questions on the pages might be answered as .. Question: ' What is the temperature of boiling water?' i) REFDESK: The boiling point of water is commonly taken to be 100 degrees celsisus (assuming standard atmospheric pressure). ii) Wikiversity page : According to current scientific standards, the boiling point of 'pure' water, is 100 degrees. This can be demonstrated experimentally, by heating an amount of water, and measuring the temperature just at the point at which vapour starts to form. The results obtained for this using calibrated equipment were <link to results> within agreed tolerances..

Questions at the Wikiversity page need not be answerable in the 'strict' sense that they are here. A valid answer on the Wikiversity side might well be ... ' This is an area of current research... There's no generally accepted theory at present..' Can anyone interested (or with comments) please leave a note on the relevant talk page at Wikiversity, as further discussion would not be on-topic here?

Of course if you want to link some kind of Research Desk (On Wikiversity) from the Reference Desk, I've got no objections  :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of having experimental stuff either here OR in Wikiversity is horribly dubious. Some idiot claims to have achieved some result - how do we know how careful he was or that he didn't just make it up or anything at all? To continue the absolutely trivial example: "I boiled water and measured the temperature and it was only 95 degrees celsius - so I'm going to write about that finding here":

1. Did you measure the temperature when the bubbles just started to appear - because gasses come out of solution before boiling point.
2. Were you doing this at sea level or at an elevation where the air pressure is lower?
3. Did you put the thermometer into the water as it was heating up - or just dunk it in quickly (thereby lowering the temperature of the water immediately around the thermometer)?
4. How long did you wait for the temperature to settle down?
5. Did you remove the thermometer from the water in order to read it? (Hint: Rookie mistake - seen it a million times!)
6. How pure was the water? Even if it was distilled water, could contaminants have gotten into it from the container or the thermometer?

Given all of the things that could potentially go wrong with even the simplest possible experiments - can we trust people to get it right? Even if a dozen people claim to have done the same thing - how do we know whether they are all sock puppets of the first person - or all happen to be members of the flat earth society or some other bunch of nut-jobs with a hidden agenda to get junk-science published on WikiMedia?

For scientific research to be considered valid, it has to be peer reviewed, published by trusted journals and independently duplicated (also with peer review and publish steps). Those are the only ways to be sure that everything is OK. Without those steps, you WILL (with 100% certainty) be overrun by people with perpetual motion/free-energy machines and things that make your car use less gasoline by putting magnets along the fuel lines. Pretty soon you'll be overrun with so much crap that the general public won't be able to tell true science from utter crap - and the reputation of Wikiversity will collapse. So I strongly oppose this move to do that - either here or in Wikiversity. It's a really spectacularly dumb idea. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, encouraging people to do their own experiments and learn more about the world is a good thing. No, it won't add to the body of knowledge or stand up to scrutiny in a scientific journal, and many of the results will probably be wrong, or at best unconfirmed, but it still has benefits. Maybe you will get overrun by perpetual motion cranks, but I don't see this as a foregone conclusion. Normal people can do science( i.e. learn about the world around them in a systematic way) without being a "scientist". I don't think it's a good idea to just have a knee-jerk reaction against the idea. Maybe it's outside of our scope here, but it could be useful at Wikiversity. Buddy431 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem encouraging people to do experiments - and especially, describing how to do them properly. Indeed I frequently encourage OP's on the Science desk to do exactly that. However, publishing the results of those experiments is problematic without properly referenced scientific papers...and that's what I'm talking about. So if someone says "Here is how to measure the boiling point of water..." with a lot of nice experimental technique tips - that's great and I'm all for it. (Indeed, check out my personal Wiki entries on exactly this kind of thing: "Measuring hard things with easy experiments". If you do that - then the free-energy nut-jobs can post experiments that they believe will prove their point - but without the results and conclusions unless they have proper references for the fact. This leaves people to draw their own conclusions about whether this stuff is true - and leaves more sane scientists to point out (and correct) errors in the science that goes into the experiments. SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely

For those who don't know, there is no "A" in "definitely"; the root is "finite". Hope this comment is not inappropriate here, but ref desk responders seem to be just as guilty as OPs, on all desks. Cheers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And anyone who needs a few hundred more corrections can get them at Commonly misspelled words. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Best. Article. Evar. (*ever.) 212.219.39.146 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another example of mocking bad spellers and typists is here. Aaronite (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Has there been any research on why people ignore the edit field's red underlines that appear under misspelled words? I wonder if it's because there are always many red underlines (on the RD, anyway), due to people's signatures, so the spellcheck just becomes a lot of noise for people. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience at work where I frequently have to help people on computers for various reasons, I find that most (average) people don't know or care what it means. I'm not saying are above average, just more familiar with computers, as a certain familiarity is required to use the Ref Desk. Aaronite (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get a red underline... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't catch misspellings until I notice that there right their with they're red underline. Its easy! APL (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to type "they're right there with their red underline" or were you obeying Muphry's law? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The red underline's are a function of the browser, aren't they? I have it on Google Chrome, but I'm not sure that I got them on Internet Explorer when I used to use it (that was a while ago; my memory could be bad, or they could have changed). Buddy431 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Buddy431. See Spellchecker#history, for example. Eye don't have a spelling chequer. It didn't come with my pea sea, so I can knot sea my Miss steaks. I hope Comet Tuttle and Shantavira will understand and forgive me. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I never nagged about it; I'm just curious about how people are using, or ignoring, the tool (the browser's autospellchecker). You're totally correct about how it doesn't catch some of the most annoying mistakes; though "chequer" is red-underlined in my Firefox; and I would never wish a grammar checker on anyone. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is browser spellchecking (i.e. in all text-edit boxes) truly a standard feature now? That one might reasonably expect the majority of web users to have in front of them? I don't get the impression that it is (BICBW). (And besides that, it's an observable fact that there are plenty of people who just don't care about proper spelling, whether or not it's pointed out to them.) —66.251.53.12 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What does BICBW mean? And Firefox doesn't come with it as default. Well, my Firefox, anyway. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think BICBW means "but I could be wrong", but ... ---Sluzzelin talk 05:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I use many British spellings, so I ignore quite a bit of red. Spelling is quite an arbitrary concept, especially in terms of little errors like "definitely/definately". I ask, if it's a distraction to reading, how did you read when you couldn't spell well? The only spelling problems I'd ever point out are semantically-confusing ones: "Old Timer's disease/Alzheimer's disease", "Eye/I", "Catch up/Ketchup", etc. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Riddle deleted

Just to let people know, I deleted some IP's drivel from the Miscellaneous RefDesk. Hope no-one objects! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That post appears to be from the OP of the thread ("OP, different computer"), and in that context it makes sense and should not have been removed. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my mistake. I've replaced it. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mockery removed

Here, I removed a response that had no content other than mocking the querent's poor English. I'll notify the rude editor on his or her talk page as well. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, please do not discourage our querents with oh-so-clever remarks on their spelling. Some are learning English as a second, third, or who knows how-manyeth language. If you want to educate them regarding their orthography or grammar mistakes, that is alright, but please don't don't do it at their expense. It's really not that funny either. Good removal, CT. --- Sluzzelin talk 22:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to England, where I imagine they are teaching them a new version of English that's based on phonetics rather than the way it's actually spelled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Vatz a teyenee bitt ov anne eksajjarashun... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I misread the source of the question. It was a registered user, not an IP. But the "rude" response was harmless, as the same poster seems to have learned a great deal about English since posting that previous item just a few hours earlier:[37] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch the above. I'm the idiot here today. Too much stress. I might just have to take a vacation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed post by TASDELEN

I have removed this post. TASDELEN has been trying to convince us of this nonsensical mechanics in his own question and hasn't listened to our attempts to correct his misconceptions and is now spouting it in answer to questions by other people. I don't expect anyone other than TASDELEN will object to this removal. --Tango (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A bot is not functioning (not properly, at least)

Scsbot seems to have mysteriously stopped adding archived dates here, here and to the rest of those pages. --Магьосник (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (PrimeHunter was just pointing that out on my talk page.) Fixed.

(The explanation, for the curious: when the default Wikipedia skin changed earlier this month, the bot barfed, and in cleaning up after it, I made a strictly-temporary change which I -- Doh! -- promptly forgot to reverse.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising my original post, by fixing an irksome grammatical error.] Cheers! --Магьосник (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Later today, I'll take care of adding the dates that are currently missing. --Магьосник (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Tonight I was going to try to figure out a way to retroactively reinvoke the bot to do that.

Not sure if it'll be more work for me to manually invoke the bot, or for you to do it all by hand. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did it. There's a date missing in the Maths desc monthly index, because no one posted a question on May 16. I supplied the deficiencies to the Help desc index for May, too. --Магьосник (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Personal information removed" and revision deleted

Resolved

 – Oversight or revision deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At WP:RD/M#BTEE is a question which, as I write, begins like this:

Hi, to who ever is at the other end. My name is <personal information removed>.

and ends like this:

...so needed assistance...Cesar Cardenas-Servat. <e-mail address removed>...Thank you.

Now the top of the page says "Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed." but I don't see anything there to justify the removal of the poster's name. Is that a correct practice or an improper edit of the original poster's content?

Also, I was curious whether the deleted name was in fact the same one that appears at the end of the item, so I looked in the edit history, but I was not allowed to find out -- all versions of the item without that redaction have been deleted. This is not the usual practice when removing inappropriate RD content, and it's not clear to me that it's justified here; is there a place where the reason for deleting the revision is logged?

Finally, is there a Wikipedia page about the deletion of revisions? I tried WP:Deleted revision but that wasn't it.

--70.48.234.151 (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Oversight might help. 86.163.213.191 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that it says "deleted" rather than "oversighted" I suspect (not sure, though) that Wikipedia:Revision deletion would be what you're after. Certainly one of the two. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He posted personal information in addition to his name, so I contacted oversight to get it out of there. I'm not sure what technically they used to do so. Buddy431 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I sort of wish the e-mail address was still available in the history, because someone should really contact him to warn him against posting so much personal information on the web. I think it's unlikely that he'll return to this desk and see that we aren't affiliated with the school that he wants. Buddy431 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Plagiarising" WP articles in response to questions

The issue raised by Tango here needs a little discussion, I feel.

Let me reproduce the discussion so far:

Why is Sarah Ferguson still a Duchess? Shouldn't she have lost the title after her divorce from the Duke of York? Mr.K. (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

See Courtesy title#Divorced wives. According to that, it's just convention, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Letters patent about it at some point. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Immediately after her divorce she retained the style Her Royal Highness; however on 21 August 1996 letters patent were issued which removed the style from divorced ex-wives of princes, paving the way for her to retain "Duchess of York”. A week later, on 28 August 1996, Princess Diana suffered the same fate, going from Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales to mere Diana, Princess of Wales. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No plagiarising Wikipedia in your ref desk answers! You copied that first sentence word for word from Sarah,_Duchess_of_York#Titles_and_styles! --Tango (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This thread isn't an article, and the rule of not using Wikipedia as a source for answers doesn't apply here. Was I supposed to have acknowledged my source? Or is that article not what you'd consider a reliable source? (Jack=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote marks would have been the best solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Where did these "rules" come from, where are they laid down, how long have they been in place, and why wasn't I informed? (Jack=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't "rules", just common practice (and not just on the ref desk). If you are quoting somebody else's work, you should say so. It both gives credit where credit is due and allows the reader to see the quote in context if they want to. --Tango (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, what Jack wrote was 100% clear, 100% correct and 100% fine. Don't fusspot about nothing. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree quoting or otherwise making it clear the answer was copied is good practice and common courtesy. I don't think Tango intended to make a big fuss about this, it was a fair comment and may have been more of a joke then anything anyway however Jack asked so Tango correctly replied/explained. Then of course you replied so... Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(discussion continues now) I too was wondering if it was meant as a joke, or at least a friendly reminder, but the exclamation marks and absence of any smileys disabused me of that idea. I saw it as distinctly unfriendly, in fact; quite stern and didactic in tone, which is not the culture we have around here. And particularly surprising between colleagues whose paths have been crossing for a number of years without any sort of rancour. But I leave that to one side and get to the substance of the issue.

I have to say that fair comment is one thing, but an accusation of plagiarism is quite another. The definition is "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work". I did cut and paste the first sentence of my reply holus-bolus from our article; I've never denied it, and I've never made any overt claim that I came up with those words myself, nor was I covertly wanting readers to come to that conclusion. In hindsight I admit the absence of any link or other attribution could have led a reader to assume they were my words. But “plagiarism “ to me suggests an intention to deceive or mislead; using it where there’s no evidence of any such intention is just a little over the top. This was no more plagiarism than saying “Henry VIII was a king of England who had three of his six wives beheaded” – an exact sequence of words that one could doubtless find previously published in any number of places.

Also, there's a long and hallowed tradition of using WP text in responses to questions here. Sure, often it's attributed, but just as often it's not, and nobody starts waving "plagiarism" flags. Until now. So maybe we need to have a corporate chat about this issue and agree on procedure for the future.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines say:

For those questions, make a serious effort to locate a Wikipedia article or an outside reliable source that supports your assertions, and include a link to it in your answer.

I think this needs a little expansion to cover cases like this. Just linking the whole Sarah Ferguson article would not have done the trick. Just quoting the relevant text – well, it’s clear this does not sit well with at least one editor. Quoting the relevant bit and giving a link to where those words came from seems to be the minimum requirement. Clarityfiend suggest we use quote marks. Necessary? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking the relevant section of the Sarah Ferguson article would have been helpful, but let's not make this minor quibble more than it is. Deor (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I'm sure Tango can/will speak for himself, but I didn't find anything unfriendly about Tango's reply, rather more like hyperbole for comedic effect. At least that's how I would have taken it if it was directed at me - if he was serious, it wouldn't be in small text and it would probably be on the the user talk page. Obviously, your mileage may vary! I'll comment later about your proposals regarding the guidelines, but I have one quick quibble I'd like to raise regarding your personal reaction: you say that you did not overtly claim authorship of the remark. That is false - you signed your name at the bottom of your post, which is specifically done to mark attributions correctly. Please understand that I hold you and your contributions in high regard and am utterly certain that it was done for expediency rather than any kind of real attempt to steal someone else's work. But the fact remains that you signed the words and therefore claimed authorship. Matt Deres (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It was intended as a friendly reminded and I regret any offence caused. Pretty much anything I say in small text is intended as a friendly comment to my colleagues - stern warnings go on user talk pages, and Matt says, but I didn't think what you did was serious enough to require that. I intended the exclamation marks to make that clear, but it seems they had the opposite effect - I'll have to be more careful in future. That said, I stand by my comment - it was plagiarism and isn't a good way of answering ref desk questions. It doesn't take a significant amount more work to include the link. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, Tango, and I'll be more attentive to this in future. Just on the exclamation marks - using them in the way you did was the next best thing to writing in all caps. It really did come across as you being quite short with me, and distinctly annoyed. I wasn't addressed by name, and your second sentence came across very much like a courtroom accusation - so it was missing any overt signs of friendliness or courtesy. I don't usually associate exclamation marks with levity or humour - quite the reverse. But there does seem to be a general change happening in the way exclamation marks are being used, which is quite likely to put old fogies like me off side. (JackofOz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The definition of "Plagiarism" (according to Wiktionary) is "The act of plagiarizing: the copying of another person's ideas, text or other creative work, and presenting it as one's own, especially without permission."[38] - so quoting a chunk of an article into a ref desk response IS plagiarism. However, while the word 'plagiarism' has all sorts of negative connotations in general usage, here at the ref desk, it's not really a terrible thing. After all, you're certainly not infringing on copyright or copying without permission. Wikipedia positively encourages people to grab chunks of text from the encyclopedia and use as needed - and we here at the ref desk encourage contributors to use Wikipedia articles in response to questions. This is truly a victimless matter - the OP gets a better answer, the authors of the article don't "lose credit" because Wikipedia doesn't explicitly credit authors anyway and the respondent doesn't have to mess around rephrasing the text into his/her own words and can instead simply cut/paste. Having said all that, I think it's better to enclose the snippet in quotes and italicise it - along with a link back to the original article so that the reader can find it in its' original context (as I did with my Wiktionary quote). However, I will confess to having occasionally cut/pasted a sentence or two out of articles in order to save typing - and I may have forgotten (or been too lazy) to stick in the quote marks and the reference. I think this is a case where we should ask people to use quotes and italics - but we shouldn't come down heavy on people who don't do that - because it harms no one and helps a few. SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about the copyright pronouncements. It's important to remember that the history and contributors to each page on Wikipedia are tracked separately (through the associated history tab) and that each editor retains the copyright to his own contributions — the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the copyrights for the text of Wikipedia articles. In other words, it is possible to infringe an author's (editor's) copyright by copying their writing from one location on Wikipedia to another. That's one of the reasons why we have to have extensive administrator instructions on How to fix cut-and-paste moves, and why we offer the guidance at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. That said, I imagine that most of the infringement that goes on here at the Desk is probably of a de minimus scale, and any sort of damages awarded would be tiny. Still, it's the principle of the thing — why should we expect other people to respect the terms and conditions of our licence – that which sets us apart and makes this project free – when we can't be bothered to do so ourselves?

It's also important to remember that the purpose of Wikipedia – its mandate, its official goals, its sole aim – is not to create a Reference Desk. It's a free (gratis and libre) encyclopedia first, last, and foremost. We at the Reference Desk exist on sufferance, as long as we prove to be a net benefit to the encyclopedia itself (or at least as long as we don't cause sufficient harm that they take official notice of us — hence the medical advice guidelines). It's important to remember that we're a part of that project, even the editors here who don't work in article space. By copy & pasting text out of Wikipedia articles and not giving credit, we're shooting ourselves in the foot in any number of ways, and we're needlessly missing out on opportunities to help the readers and the project.

• If a response doesn't link back to the article it was copied from, the reader may never know that there is a Wikipedia article on the topic. We've missed a golden, easy opportunity to demonstrate the comprehensiveness and usefulness of Wikipedia; we've failed to build some goodwill for the Wikipedia brand. We've sent someone out into the world who will – innocently and mistakenly – say, "I don't know if Wikipedia is any good as an encyclopedia, but their Ref Desk is okay."
• By failing to identify the source of the information, we have deprived the reader of the opportunity to answer his own followup questions. They may be back the next day (or give up entirely) with their subsequent query, never knowing that we have a detailed and thorough treatment of their topic of interest. We shouldn't just 'give a man a fish' when we have the chance to 'teach a man to fish'.
• We risk pissing off the editor whose writing we've (mis)appropriated. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't edit the Ref Desk, and most of those probably don't even know it exists. Still, what happens when they notice we're blithely copying their material without giving credit? "Who is this TenOfAllTrades fellow, and why is he nicking my writing? I know that other websites do it, but I expected better from a fellow Wikipedia editor." In article space, the authors' names are humbly credited on the history tab; at the Ref Desk, we get our full signatures in bright daylight. With that added recognition there comes responsibility.
• We miss the opportunity to improve the encyclopedia. If the copied text is incomplete, misleading, awkwardly-phrased, or contains errors or subtle vandalism, we can't fix it if we don't know where it came from. Providing quotes and a link means that other Ref Desk responders can and will visit the linked article looking for more information, adding references, cleaning up text, finding sources. It's also a way of covering your too-smart-for-its-own-britches ass, if it turns out that the copied text is wrong.
• Someone's probably going to add the Wikipedia article link eventually, why not do it up front? If a question can be readily answered by a Wikipedia article, someone will almost certainly get around to adding a link to that article. Save that second responder the trouble and just give us the link now.

If asked "What's a polygon?", it is trivially easy to say

From our article polygon, "a polygon (pronounced /ˈpɒlɪɡɒn/) is traditionally a plane figure that is bounded by a closed path or circuit, composed of a finite sequence of straight line segments (i.e., by a closed polygonal chain). These segments are called its edges or sides, and the points where two edges meet are the polygon's vertices or corners. The interior of the polygon is sometimes called its body. A polygon is a 2-dimensional example of the more general polytope in any number of dimensions."

It only costs a handful of words and a little bit of markup; there's no reason not to be doing it, and we should make every effort to educate our contributors on this point. It doesn't matter if it's quotes, italics, or a block quote, as long as a reasonable effort is made to distinguish copied text from original writing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

World War III

[39].—eric 06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, seems slightly draconian. There's plenty of information that could be (and, indeed, was) explained to the OP with regards to the situation as it is now which would help him. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing the need nor justification for arbitrarily removing that much text, nor the need or justification for not noting in-line that you've done so. — Lomn 13:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the high handed action, which exhibits a degree of "ownership" of the Reference Desk. Discussion here first would have been appropriate. A note on the talk pages of the editors whose contributions he deleted would have been appropriate. Much of what he deleted was accurate and referenced or referenceable information which was quite responsive to the question. A note left inline that he had deleted the material was called for. Edison (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

While the question and the responses both call for a certain amount of crystal-ball gazing, and in such situations there is certainly an awful temptation to go all speculative and Tom Clancy-esque, but I don't think that this is an egregious case. The posted responses appeared to be quite brief and generally on point, and I didn't see any sort of badly-extended multithreaded discussion, interpersonal bickering, or trolling that might otherwise justify the amputation of a discussion. It would be very helpful for EricR to share his reasoning here in a bit more detail; at first blush, it appears that the removal was not necessary and that it fell outside of our usual guidelines and practices. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notified user:EricR on his talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

When he posts here to start the thread, it is not necessary to inform him the thread exists. Yet he does not respond. Edison (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I also disagree with this removal. I was amazed at how on topic and referenced that thread had stayed. That's probably the best we could have hoped for for a question like that. Buddy431 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am in full agreement here. To remove pages and pages of text like that without discussion on the talk page is a bit unilateral, wouldn't you say, especially considering a large number of people contributed to it. Fair enough, a certain amount of it was speculation (something which we are not allowed to do, but do anyway to a certain extent so long as it is still meaningful), but there was actually a lot of real information in there. I think that EricR should have at least sought a consensus first rather than getting rid of that much text. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The removal should be reverted. The OP's question was still being answered. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what happens now? Do we wait for input by eric (who sometimes goes days if not weeks without editing) or do we restore the thread, since consensus seems to be against the removal and, more importantly, the original poster might have lost interest (plus the question might be archived) by the time eric has had his say? ---Sluzzelin talk 21:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The bigger picture is what to do with "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events". Clearly we do allow discussion about hypothetical future events in some circumstances. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be rephrased. What the reference desks can deliver are referenced opinions and predictions (by academics, journalists, governments, think-tanks, etc.). What they shouldn't deliver are opinions and predictions by us. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone assert that no war games have been run by the war colleges of major powers, and no scholarly books written about entanglements and scenarios which could lead to a third world war? Studies by NATO and the US and the former Soviet Union may well have been published. Whether there are treaty obligations four country X to declare war when country Y is attacked can be a referenced answer rather than a "forum" or an "opinion." Edison (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asserting that in this discussion, no. We have articles on topics such as World War III or human extinction. Just because a topic is speculative doesn't mean it has no place at the desks. Volunteers have dismissed questions that can only be answered speculatively before, possibly also because of the sentence quoted by Jack. I don't think we should dismiss these questions, which is why I believe the sentence needs rephrasing.

To be fair to EricR, the replies he removed didn't reference any notable speculation, but included analyses made by us volunteers. I lack the knowledge (and also the will) to qualify the removed replies separately. Our emphasis probably shouldn't lie in our own educated and informed speculation (and definitely shouldn't lie in our own poorly informed speculation), but per Lomn's comment in this thread it is part of what we do, and part of what the desks thrive on, like it or not (and I sometimes love it, sometimes cringe). Everyone is going to draw the line somewhere else, and stuff should only get removed in egregious cases. There is no consensus that this was an egregious case, quite the opposite. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with yahoo answers

This desk looks similar to yahoo answers. --TylerDurdenn (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a similar concept except that here we try and provide referenced answers instead of random opinions and gossip. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, we can refer you to Yahoo! Answers#Criticism, as well as a study of the accuracy of this Reference Desk. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Marx meta discussion removal on the Science desk

[40] SteveBaker reinstated it and asked to discuss it on the talk page. Basically I agree with -User:TotoBaggins /Sean . This was the question [41] My honest opinion is that Mr.S.Baker is emitting a lot of gas (sorry steve) - but who knows? 77.86.47.199 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep and collapse is what I prefer. I'll do it now. Buddy431 (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's IMHO difficult to collapse only part of an answer without causing confusing (although I agree better then removing outright). However if it has to be done, it's probably better to leave the signature uncollapsed and if other posts need to be collapsed, do them seperately. I've done this now. I only skimmed thorough the post and so don't have any view on its appropriateness. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to collapse only part of a post. Seems like it should be all or nothing to avoid inadvertently changing the intended meaning or tone of a post while still leaving the original author's signature attached.

To take a rather extreme article, what if I had taken a paragraph to summarize a conspiracy theory and then debunked it in a second paragraph, but did so in a way that made someone feel that my second paragraph was inappropriate for the reference desk. In that case the meaning of my post could be radically changed by hiding only the parts that were objectionable. APL (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time I've seen an overly defensive stance taken from an interpretation of a question. I'd remind any editors that feel they have to defend themselves or their views in this way to WP:AGF - the person hasn't come out and directly criticised anything - maybe they have no intention to. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Steve's answer may have been passionate, but it answered precisely what was underlying in the question - and what was underlying should be painfully obvious to anyone who has spent more than five minutes reading Creationist silliness on the Internet. (Besides, if you look through the OP's contributions, another question s/he asked a couple of months ago is: "What proof is there for evolution? How do I know it isn't just an atheist hoax?" [42]) TomorrowTime (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with vimescarrot, but that at least explains in part stevebakers response. BUT we're not here to read between the lines, or infer meaning where non is expressed in the text of the question. 77.86.47.199 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A link to the contribs would satisfy me that it's not good faith, but he could quite easily have been asking this particular question out of simple curiosity. Also, if we WP:BITE every time someone asks questions about their own views - that's less reason for them to change sides. Also, everything the IP above me just said. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The question was almost certainly asked due to the questioner having heard creationist attempts to discredit science. There is nothing wrong with answering the broad question. Friday (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible Problem with answer

Removed this [43] from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Crocodile_Poo

The question has already been answered quite clearly, and even more clearly by Nil Einne

Whatever follows is suitable for this talk page.77.86.47.199 (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I oppose outright removal. It was a valid point; what does crocodile poop look like? Google images is woefully unhelpful. I see a couple of fossilized specimens, but nothing that looks fresh. If you think the discussion's off topic, I'd far and away prefer it be collapsed, rather than removed entirely. Buddy431 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time this has ever happened to me. My first comment may have been snarky, but I put effort into that answer. It's not a simple yes/no question - why else would others complain about a google link that only showed coprolite results - give OP and the other editors some credit. Even so, I answered the actual yes/no question of excrement in more detail by pointing out that urination does exist (notably with almost no urea) as was incorrectly denied beforehand. This looks more like bad blood to me. I am undoing this deletion while removing the snark. And... this is really just very sad and upsetting. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly as said below I disagree with the removal so I'm with you on that one...

As for your points. The only one who complained about the Google link is the OP (not others as you stated), and it's not clear to me why. They just said it was unhelpful.

I'm also confused why you're saying the result only related to coprolites. Perhaps your results are significantly different from mine. But if not, then this is only the case for images. But the OP never asked for images anyway and it's not clear to me that's what they wanted. Their question seemed to me to be, 'do crocodiles have solid excrement?' (Even more so if you read their first question [44].) The answer to this is yes as IMHO amply demonstrated by the Google search which includes plenty of discussions of living crocodile faeces as I showed in my response. The OP has not further explained why they feel the Google search was unhelpful so as it stands, we still have no real idea if the OP wanted any more detail like picture or just didn't for whatever reason understand from the results that the answer is yes.

Of course, while not as detailed as your responses, one of the sources I mentioned [45] from the Google search the IP linked does say:

Before a visit, try and obtain a faecal sample. This isn't always easy with crocodilians as they often defaecate in water. You need to collect the stool sample, rather than the watery urine and milky white urates. The stool can often be very soft and difficult to collect - a croc's digestive system is very thorough.

And a simple search on the milky white urates does find some brief descriptions of these in other reptiles [46] [47]. In other words, while the other respondent may have been wrong, and you were right to correct that and in general your information helpful if the OP was interested in those details (which even if it had not been their question, they may have been), it's not like they couldn't have found some basic details themselves if they'd spent a bit of time, either from the initial Google search or the links I provided from the Google search. In other words, while I'm in no way trying to discourage anyone from answering further, I don't think an answer is bad simply because the information is lesser then other answers.

In addition, one of the links [48] was to a web journal of someone who'd actually seen crocodile faeces. I looked and none of their images appeared to show this (did you?), but I've now asked if they have any since you at least seem to be interested.

In terms of why you can't find pictures of crocodile faeces, well other then the obvious fact that humans do tend to be fairly speciast, the above quoted text IMHO suggests what's probably one of the reasons (although you'd probably think the same thing just by thinking about it). Crocodiles spend some part of their lives in water, so unsurprisingly they may often defecate in water.

And all of are stuff discussed above are from links in my original post, which was taken off the first page of the IP's Google search. It is of course often expected that people will read what is written and in particular, click the links if they want more info, and preferably research themselves based on what's provided or come back and clearly ask if they have further confusion.

But just to re-emphasise from my intepretation, the OP wasn't even particularly interested in such details anyway, one of the reasons why I didn't bother to provide them (I did actually briefly check the links). If you believe this intepretation is incorrect, you're welcome to point this out as you did, preferably offering some additional info based on your interpretation as you also did. (I would discourage the snarkiness in your initial post, but as I'm probably often guilty of it I shouldn't call the kettle black.) That's part of the way the RD works. Ultimately unless the OP comes back, we're unlikely to know who's correct.

P.S. As an aside, I also found [49] which has some discussion of iguana faeces and [50] which has images of snake faeces (ironically during a search for iguana faeces images). Unsurprisingly, those reptiles most likely to be kept as pets are the easiest to find images for, although again unsurprisingly still a lot harder then common household pets like cats and dogs (where faeces can be a big issue too). On a personal note, coming from Malaysia, I always have a fair amount of familiarity with Common House Gecko droppings, such as shown here [51].

Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Change to layout

OK I give up - where have you hidden the button for small text? It's not on Advanced, or Special characters! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Selecte Advanced >> then use the A^- button Small text Can you see the A- button ? 77.86.47.199 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Or just use the tags like <small>text here</small> 82.44.55.254 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks for pointing this out to me. I'd assumed that the A keys had the same function that I was used to on MS Word - wrongly as it turns out. And I'd completely forgotten about the tags! If I knew how to stick a Resolved tag on I'd do it! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please please don't forget that closing tag < / s m a l l > (without spaces) because without it the rest of the ref. desk shrinks. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A resolved tag looks like this {{resolved}} , - it's actually a template , see Template:Resolved . I've added one for you.

Resolved

Attacking the OP

The OP asks a question. An editor posts an answer. The OP says "that's not what I meant, what I want to know is this". The editor replies by "By your original question you clearly meant what I responded to. We volunteer our time here at the desk and don't like being told that our interpretation is wrong when it is clearly correct and you just decided it's not what you want to hear."

Looking through ref desk answers, this seems to happen all too often if the OP ever questions an editor's response. Really, once that happens, we gotta tell the editor to take a break from answering on here, because people who take the effort to post questions on WP are people who will take the effort to constructively edit WP, and it never helps to be a jerk about it. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some links, because I can't quite imagine the scenario you're talking about. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are specific editors involved, but when an editor responds to enough posts fast enough with even a bit of this kind of hostility, it reflects very very badly, even if the comment can be justified (of course the lack of civility cannot be justified): "It is you who have derailed the question" - to the asker. Would he really do this test? You can say that he needs to double-blind, but you're mocking him now - like you don't "feel" when you aren't getting enough protein to wake up in the morning? The OP specifically defined that he/she was not looking for a generalized soap, but a specific hydrocarbon bond. Taking things personally - this poster seems to definitely need a break. Part of the crocodile poo debacle. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It may actually be mostly one editor. But I still think we should encourage repeatedly uncivil or cranky people on these voluntary help desks to take a break. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was not mocking the OP. (I do find it somewhat ironic that you complain about my behaviour and then make accusations about my intentions without asking me for an explaination.) I'll freely admit I have my doubts that the OP will try what I suggested. However I see no reason not to WP:AGF and assume that the OP would be willing to consider useful suggestions. I sometimes partake in places like Hydrogen Audio, and where there are people willing to test their assumptions, if the OP is not willing to do so, well that's up to them. I wasn't the first, nor am I the only one to suggest it's unlikely the OP can feel any difference, in a few days, on their multi-vitamin pills. But it is indeed my genuine hope the OP will consider such a thing. And yes, I'm somewhat of a sceptic, so I do believe that the world in general would benefit, if people are willing to test their preconceptions when possible, and have no qualms about recommending it.

As for the soap thing, you seem to be missing the point I was making. The OP said there are specialised detergents to bond to both oils and water. I pointed out that while there may be, regular soap does that (so it isn't something that's exactly very hard to do). The OP apparently misunderstood what I was saying, so I explained my point.

As for the speeding thing, while I have significantly modified my response (and in fact I have a tendency to edit my posts after posting significantly, as several people may know, so many of the original versions you link above are not what are on the RD now), I don't really regret it. Yes I should have gotten my point across in a different way, but if you openly admit you are putting others lives in serious danger and come up with silly excuses for why it's okay, I have no qualms about pointing out how silly the execuses are (and the excuse was silly). And yes, it something that I feel very strongly about because of the way people like the OP can affect me personally. Not that different from the way SB feels about large-scale copyright infrigement.

Finally as for the crocodile poo thing, my interpretation of that question, as with apparently several others was the OP wanted to know if the crocodiles had any form of solid excrement. The answer is by all accounts yes. If the OP wants to know more details, then they are free to ask again, as it stands, they have not done so, so perhaps they are satisfied with the initial responses. If you believe we are misinterpreting the question, you are free to offer further responses. That's the way the RD works. There's no need to get annoyed at other people who believe they are answering the question (although I disagree with the removal of your original responses).

Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read all of this but calling someone a "fuckhead" is clearly inappropriate. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should read all of it. The OP in that particular case was quite unashamedly asking the refdesk to help him in committing an in the least illegal act, and a quite possibly deadly dangerous one as well. If we don't give out medical advice on the merit that we cannot take responsibility for the health and possibly lives of strangers on the Internet, why should we be expected to provide helping answers to the question of someone who is intent on not only risking their own life, but also the lives of innocent bystanders? And what would you call someone who is obviously quite willing to possibly kill people just to get a thrill? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling people names in any circumstances is not the hallmark of adult behaviour. It may be appropriate to comment on the behaviour, but ad hominem attacks are not the way to go. Either here or out there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nil, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, or how you justify it - it is the very fact that you attempt to justify yourself against the OP's stated aims or intent that is troubling. If this is indeed for helping, then arguing that you are indeed being helpful when attempting to give help is not helpful. It's one thing to offer clarification, but it's quite another to argue that it needs no clarification. But again, this isn't just you - it was just easier to cherry-pick your answer after browsing the first page of history (unfortunately). SamuelRiv (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

ok S.Riv ; ... It's practically impossible to see why you have found issue with this [52] or this [53] both by NilEinne. This [54] is a question asking for advice on breaking the law .. frankly no-one should be responding to it - it should be ignored and the reason why we are ignoring it clearly stated.

I think you've formed a false and overly negative viewpoint probably based on a small sample of edits.

I agree that occasionally editors are impolite to question askers, and I don't like that behaviour. But I'm not seeing it here.94.72.235.30 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also quite of few of these questions are coming from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tom12350 who is getting close to the border of what is not acceptable. (see post below).94.72.235.30 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Easiest answer to that one? Don't do it; it's illegal. Short, simple, and we can't be accused of giving legal advise that someone could sue us for. Advising against stupid behavior rarely carries any risk. Name calling is pointless, and so are long rambling answers. Remember the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupi-- well, you get the point. Aaronite (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tom12350

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tom12350 I've left a message on this users talk page asking them to stop. Specifically their questions are just getting dumb eg [55] and they do little else (see edit history). A good fraction of their questions have not been the reference desk's greatest hour.. I think they are being dumb - but it's getting towards trolling.

I removed the last question. [56] 94.72.235.30 (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)