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.

List of Lists of Lists

I know many of us might already be aware of it, but I'd like to plug List_of_lists_of_lists as a great tool for finding WP articles to use on the ref desks. It's surprisingly broad and deep, and a good way to find that WP:WHAAOE article whose name might be a little different than you thought. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE is also an excellent textbook example of overlinking. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Related: User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house and User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If anyone finds "article whose name might be a little different than you thought", please consider creating a redirect. If anyone isn't comfortable with creating redirects, just drop a request on my talk page and (if the redirect is plausible) I will create it for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are easy to create once you know how it is done, but, as User:Guy Macon notes, some editors just don't know and find it easier to ask than to learn, and editors who are comfortable with redirects may find it easier to do than to explain how. Sometimes an inexperienced enthusiastic editor will do a copy-and-paste create of a new article with a different form of its name because they don't know how redirects work. Of course, redirects are the proper way to give an article multiple names, far better than creating a copy-and-paste. (Also, editors who understand redirects are much less likely to engage in move-warring, because they know that an article doesn't have to have only one name, although it has one primary name.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. To add to the above, redirects are a great way to improve Wikipedia search. If I search for an article and don't find it, I ask myself if anyone else might plausibly do the same search. If the answer is yes, I create a redirect so that the next person who searches for that phrase finds the right page. Template:R template index is a good place to find the proper "R From" template, Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages#List of redirects by function gives you more details. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Monkey butt

Baseball Bugs, is there more going on behind the scenes here regarding your edits to WP:RDS#Chimpanzee#Anatomy_and_physiology? I can't understand why you would snap at a questioner who has demonstrably made the effort to try to find their answer in our articles. Please WP:DNB. -- ToE 21:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Chimpanzees are not monkeys. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I really wish to respond, "So? What does that have to do with my choice of epithet for BB?", but while I trust that BB has enough of a sense of humor to distinguish between a joke and an insult, I shouldn't risk the misunderstanding of others, so instead I will say, "Thank you Robert. Fact duly noted." -- ToE 00:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I was snapping at the OP. I was merely repeating what I've often seen here: When someone asks, "Why doesn't such-and-such article talk about such-and-such facts?" the response often is to invite the OP to improve the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the difference between the following responses:

• Hi Romanophile! You are correct that our article on chimpanzees doesn't seem to cover this, and it is an interesting topic that probably should be in the article. If you get a good answer to your question (either here or elsewhere) I would encourage you to jump in and edit the article to include the information or to post the information on the article talk page and let someone else add it if you aren't quite ready to jump into editing.

• If the article doesn't have the info, then someone needs to research it. There's no reason you couldn't do that work, unless someone turns out to be willing to do it for you.

They both basically say the same thing, but the second one (yours) is rather snarky and a bit rude. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and off-topic comments. Dragons flight (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not nearly as "snarky and rude" as openly fantasizing about murdering another editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. I just checked every post by the editor you were snarky to[1] and found nothing resembling "openly fantasizing about murdering another editor" (and even if he did, that would not excuse your behavior) If you believe that one on my 25,000 edits to Wikipedia over the last nine years shows me "openly fantasizing about murdering another editor", please provide a diff. (And again. even if I did, that would not excuse your behavior). I have a novel idea: What say you stop making lame excuses and try a little harder to avoid WP:BITEing the newbies, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC) It was YOU, some weeks ago, who was openly fantasizing about murdering an editor. Here's a novel idea: Never talk to or about me again, and all will be swell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC) It was ASCII art of a missile attack. Blew the stickman/Bugs to pieces. More of a "drawing" than a "fantasy", I'd say, but it wasn't exactly the nicest thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, June 29, 2015 (UTC) [BUGS DETECTED] [TARGET AIMING] [TARGET LOCKED] [NOBODY REPLIES] .---------------. .---------------. .---------------. .----------------. | o | | | | | \ o / | | \`. || .'/ | | /( )\ | | -- + -- | | --(+)-- | |--- *IGNORE* ---| |______/_\______| | | | |______/|\______| |_ _/_'_||_'_\_ _| '---------------' '---------------' '---------------' '----------------' Today we learned that Baseball Bugs cannot tell the difference between NOBODY REPLIES / IGNORE and "murdering an editor". Good to know. Explanation for the clueless (or those pretending to be) The above (purposely) snarky ASCII art advocates not responding to Baseball Bugs when he becomes disruptive. This is clearly indicated by the word "IGNORE". I still think that this is good advice, and I have no regrets regarding expressing that opinion with a bit of humor. Nor do I believe his "I am OUTRAGED!!!: song and dance. Good job deflecting the conversation from how Bugs treated the newbie, though. He certainly is not without skill. Wikibird says: Responding just encourages them! \ >') ( \ ^^` I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha! I just realized that BB was probably confused by the title of the question -- which was a link to the section of an article -- into thinking that it was more of an article talk page question than an independent question with a link to where the questioner had expected to find the answer. I still think he could have been more gentle, but that does explain a bit. Otherwise we'd just tell everyone to go look it up themselves and hang out a permanent Out to Lunch sign. -- ToE 00:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We may interpret questions differently, but this one struck me as just the sort of well formed question the reference desks are intended to address. They were not saying "Here is an interesting fact. Why isn't it in article X?", but instead saying "Question Q? I looked in article X but didn't find an answer." Isn't such a question an improvement over plain "Question Q?" with no indication of what effort, if any, the questioner expended seeking the answer? In this case the answer was, "Your question is indeed answered in Wikipedia, but in the species specific articles Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, not the genus specific article Pan in which you were looking." I would also suggest that when we do receive the "Why isn't it in article X?" questions, we are gentle in our suggestion that they either boldly make such an edit themself or take it up on that article's talk page because there is often an unspoken context to the question of "I expected to find this fact discussed in article X. Am I mistaken about this fact, or is there a more appropriate article Y in which I should be looking?" -- ToE 00:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This answer stuck out to me as hilariously bizarre/useless as well. Not because it was bitey, but what exactly is the point of a reference desk that tells people to go research things themselves? How was that answer any more helpful or applicable to this question than it would be to literally any other? And your explanation here makes no sense at all...people only give that kind of response when people are demanding to know why certain info, presumably already known to them, isn't included in an article. This guy was just asking for info and references beyond what the article provided...in other words, exactly what the reference desk is for. Seriously, what?? -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the two bold, basically identical responses above, I prefer the second. The first one is wordy and overly polite. We don't want to bite people, but don't want to fake smile them too hard, either. That's for the Teahouse. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, my overly polite post in the question in question was purely in response to what appeared to me to be BB telling the questioner to get lost. In general, I wouldn't expect any early non-answer response to such a question. -- ToE 21:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

To save time here, let's review a few things about Bugs.

1. He will never go away, unless formally banned by some kind of AN/I action. And no one is going to file one. So he is here to stay.
2. He will never change his ways. He is one of the most stubborn, obstinate editors I have ever met.
3. If in his bluster he should chance to offend you, he will not apologize. He is one of the most unapologetic editors I have ever met.
4. If you criticize his behavior or argue with him in any way, he will resort to one of several tactics. Though they are simple and obvious, he is startlingly good at employing them. In fact, he is much better at employing them than you and I are at defending against them, such that he will almost always prevail (which is one reason he's still around).
   1. Say something outrageous which is marginally on topic but mostly off topic and which will thoroughly derail the conversation. Guy Macon calls him out on this just above.
   2. Accuse you of personally attacking him. (We'll see an example of this shortly.)
   3. Whine about an alleged double standard such that trolls are coddled but upstanding editors are abused.

So: complain about him here all you like, argue with him all you like, but nothing, nothing is ever going to change. Ignore him if you can. (Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that I have a tendency to raise issues that many of you would rather not address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The best response to this sort of behavior is no response at all:

   |                                             .--.
   |                               ______.-------|  |
   |         __                   (_____(        |  |\\\\|
   | __..--  ``--.._                 __/ `-------|  |---,
   |         __       ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
   | __..--  ``--.._           |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
   `                  ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
   The plug is pulled.          `--.|_/          |  |  ||
   Ignored is the disruptive one.  ____\ .-------|  |---`
   Feed him I will not.           (_____(        |  |\\\\|
   ,                                     `-------|  |
   |                                             `--`

The one thing they cannot stand is when folks stop paying attention to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's one sorry cord. I doubt it would work, even if plugged in. Is this important? Of course! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Aren't serial cables pretty much obsolete anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not for this purpose, apparently. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Please confine this to personal talk pages, it has nothing to do with the ref desks, Guy Macon warned hereμηδείς (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)}}

I should comment that if you ever see chimpanzees in a zoo, they do indeed look very strange - the structure doesn't look like the kind of thing you would think could be healthy. I can't even begin to guess how they handle being out with the flies, anywhere but in a glassed in monkey house, with something so... exposed.

I should also note that the use of "monkey" as a paraphyletic term seems archaic to modern ears. If we can say that birds are dinosaurs, we can say that chimpanzees are monkeys. As a general rule of thumb, when a fact is so widely reported that every classroom has a pedant who will correct you contemptuously for being wrong if you don't acknowledge it, it's probably wrong. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Medical advice?

Concerning this thread: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Possible to stop eyes from watering?.

Clearly Count Iblis and I have very different understandings of what constitutes medical advice -- and the extent to which it is appropriate. Rather than continue to go back and forth in the thread I'm here to ask for other people's input. Am I misunderstanding something? To me this seems about as clear-cut as it gets. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Iblis believes he should do whatever he feels like, without regard for norms and rules, and also without regard for whether or not he does any good. He just acts on impulse. He says so on his own user page. --Jayron32 03:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice and User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So is trying to enforce refdesk standards a futile enterprise? Make things up, give medical advise, and earn the resentment of other regulars but no other go ahead and keep doing the same thing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, the OP is being unclear about what's going on. It sounds as if he cries at emotional movie scenes, despite "not wanting to". So what is the real problem, if any? Only a doctor can tell him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well sure, but regardless of what the question or background is, saying that an SSRI will fix it is always going to be medical advice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. That's why he needs to see a doctor if he thinks there's something wrong with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of the medical advice disclaimer is to make sure we're not going to stand in the way of people getting the appropriate medical attention they may need. In general, it's not going to be a problem to point to certain classes of medicines that are likely to alleviate a problem, if those medicines are only available on prescription and a doctor would carefully have to evaluate a patient to see if such medicines are appropriate in that particular case. Saying that SSRI type medicines can fix it, may prompt the OP to read the Wiki article on this and may cause the OP to visit the doctor (suppose e.g. that the OP also has premature ejaculations which is also mentioned in the SSRI article). Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Or it may prompt the user to take / steal some their cousin's prescription, which could have bad consequences if the OP has certain medical conditions or takes certain other medicine that they didn't bother telling us about. Doctors have a chance to see a fuller picture than we do. Seriously, don't recommend specific drugs for random people on the internet. That's not okay. Dragons flight (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's worse than "not OK"; it's absolutely unethical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the SSRI advice (and the comments immediately following it). Dragons flight (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and some other answer on another Ref Desk may prompt someone to rob a bank, commit suicide, poison his neighbor, start a fire or do something else that is a priori well known to be criminal/irresponsible/dangerous. So, why not just close down all the ref desks? Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I brought this thread up at WT:MED#medical advice on the refdesks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If you advise taking medication, knowing nothing about an OP's actual condition, you might well be aiding in an (unintentional) suicide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying that X can help with Y isn't medical advice to take X, as the sale of X is restricted, it's only available on prescription. Children are already educated about not using other people's medicines, in the discussion with the OP it has already been mentioned that the OP could seek medical attention, I made it it clear that the mention of SSRIs was in that context (discuss this with your doctor). if all of this isn't enough, then I don't see why the Ref Desk should exist at all, because you can always raise the same one in a trillion exceptional possibility of extremely stupid behavior where something we write here leads to a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So it still comes back to the same conclusion: The only proper response is, "See your doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it can then help to put the issue in a context where it is clearer that there are actually non-trivial medical issues associated with it that the OP didn't know about. Otherwise the OP won't even know that this is something you should go to the doctor for. E.g. suppose your friend has mild arm pain while exercising that goes away when he stops. He tells you about that, but he doesn't seem to consider this to be a potentially serious medical issue. So, he isn't inclined to go to the doctor based on what he is experiencing. Then simply telling him "See your doctor." would lead to the response "why would I go to the doctor about this funny feeling in my arm if I'm not bothered by that feeling". I then doubt that you would not mention the potential of this being the sign of the heart not getting enough oxygen during exercise that he should check out. Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the FDA, 1 in 5 US high school students reported having consumed someone's else prescription medication [2]. This is not a "one in a trillion" problem. Also, I don't think you made it at all clear that your comment was in the context of seeking medical attention, since your initial comment was essentially without any context, qualification, or warnings. You added some context many hours later, but not enough to excuse a clear violation of the no medical advice policy. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But, Count Iblis, that is a very different context and circumstance. The friend was just mentioning his arm pain, he wasn't asking for your opinion or your advice. You might well say nothing; or you might empathise but say nothing else; or you might tell him to "man up" and get on with the game; or you might ask a question about it; or you might have a chat and finish up with suggesting he have it checked out, because although it isn't bothering him now, it could be a sigh of something serious. Many responses are possible there.

What we have here is someone who has explicitly asked for information about his watering eyes. (A) We are in no position to know what's really causing his problem, but even if we were in the know (which we're not), (B) we are explicitly prohibited from giving medical advice, other than "see an appropriate health care professional about your problem". If the OP considers that response and says "Nah, it's not a problem I'd want to see a doctor about", or "OK, I'll make an appointment today", then either way THEY have made the call about their own well being, which is the proper state of affairs.

To be mentioning specific remedies, such as SSRIs, presupposes there is a medical condition that requires that specific medication. ONLY a doctor can make that call, which is actually 2 complex decisions: (1) After examining the patient's physical, mental and emotional states and discovering more about the background to this issue, I conclude based on years of special training that there is a medical condition that can likely be ameliorated by medication; (2) I conclude based on years of special training that Medication Z is appropriate in this case, and I will prescribe it. Getting to that point is the LAST part of the process. You have made it the FIRST. For a Ref Desk person to idly mention SSRIs or any other medication or any other specific form of treatment for a condition of which they know NOTHING, is as wrong as wrong can be. All it does in this case is display that you, Count Iblis, are aware of things called SSRIs and what they can generally be used for, and in this case that is nothing but an ego trip on your part. Imparting that knowledge to the OP does nothing for them; it could harm them. Consensus is dead against you on this one, so please don't argue any more. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, we are not acting as doctors here, but we can give information, pointers etc., the OP can go to a doctor for professional medical advice if he/she thinks that is appropriate. Your account of what I did wrong reads a lot like the admonishment you could get from the Communist Party in China for not sticking to the small print of the Party Doctrine. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no valid information we can give to that OP except, "If you're concerned, see a doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And if he dies, he dies. We're safe, because we technically didn't tell him to see the particular doctor he did. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

We are in no position to tell anyone what particular doctor to see. If his GP advises him to see a specialist, then that's what he should do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you. Keep it vague and our hands are clean. I just think we could protect our collective Wikiconscience slightly more by not advising a doctor at all. In a way, it's as reckless as simply saying "take pills" or "get surgery", without specifying the kind. But recklessness at least makes us irresponsible. Lesser of two evils. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

I would have considered this to be obvious - is the OP asking for a "diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice"? Yes, they're asking how to stop their eyes watering. We therefore _should_ have replaced it with the template. But it's probably too late for that now. Tevildo (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have in the past been critical of a regular editor at the Reference Desks whom some of us think is too quick to hat or delete questions or answers. However, at least she believes in following the guidelines, sometimes too strictly. What we now have is an editor who has a stated policy that he will ignore the rules (and ArbCom precedents), and follow his own judgment. Everyone else here and at WT:MED is in agreement that the editor was quite out of line, and that editor continues defending his action. I now see a reason for hatting, templating, or deleting questions, which is that an editor might actually give medical advice and argue that it is harmless. See this reply from WT:MED:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=669088627&oldid=669083129

I suggest that this thread be closed with a warning that if User:Count Iblis makes a single post in the future that even marginally contains medical or legal advice, the next stop will be WP:ANI for a topic-ban from the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. My opinions of that editor are probably not dissimilar, but in this case... I've replaced the thread with the template. It, of course, can be resurrected if consensus is against me. Tevildo (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sticking to rules in a mindless, rigid way led to the holocaust (this required the participation of hundreds of thousands who were indoctrinated to mindlessly follow the rules) and here on Wikipedia, bad things have happened in the past because of that. I was caught up in an issue and was almost banned due to stupid rules that had nothing to do with editing content here, and User:Likebox kicked out of Wikipedia because of that as if he was the worst vandal ever seen here. As a protest I put up that banner on my userpage and was hauled to ANI because of that protest. I was blocked but then that block was overturned. I decided to keep that banner to prevent the consensus (which tends to favor dictatorial rule here) from changing.

So, it should be clear that I will continue to answer any questions anywhere in the way I see fit, regardless of any restrictions. I'm open to discussions why an answer may not be ok. but the way the medical advice policy is invoked here is just stupid. No one is going to be harmed, but you can always pretend that people may be harmed using convoluted reasoning. Imagine that we had a policy about sexual content that said that we should abstain from discussing topics of a sexual nature to prevent teenagers from engaging in sexual behavior. You then could not answer any question about condoms, because that could promote teen sex. If someone like me were to challenge that by arguing that no harm could be done, you would have the party line consensus choir here trotting out how it actually could be harmful, the condom could burst, teen pregnancy, AIDS, blah blah blah.

If this means that I will be banned from Wikipedia, then so be it. Because if you can't contribute in a reasonable way somewhere because of a bad climate where the other participants are playing stupid games, then most likely that place isn't a productive venue for making such contributions. Indeed, the ref Desk isn't all that prominent, something I raised quite a few times before here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you intend to continue dispensing medical advice, you would be best off leaving immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a word for people who continue to associate themselves with organisations they hold in low esteem, while still refusing to play by the rules of that organisation. What could possibly be the point of acting that way? What ever happened to that other Wiki place you were exhorting us all to migrate to, some time back? Going well, is it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm dispensing medical advice here. Now Bugs, as you see that place is far more prominent than the Ref Desk, so what are you doing here?

:JackofOz, as you can see here, I'm a lot more active there than here. But a question is a question whether posted here or there... Count Iblis (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to be associated with a ref desk that allows dispensing medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What then is the whole point of being against medical advice being dispensed? If you feel so strongly that some action is bad and it happens infrequent here but much more frequent at some other site, then what's the point of investing a huge effort to put a stop to it here while totally ignoring what happens at these other venues? Count Iblis (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So I should go to your ref desk and fight a losing battle? No. If you want to be unethical over there, that's your problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that some action is bad and it happens infrequent here but much more frequent at some other site, then what's the point of investing a huge effort to put a stop to it here while totally ignoring what happens at these other venues? -- ..... Because Wikipedia is not Stack Exchange? It's a totally different kind of website with a totally different purpose. Why on earth would we say "oh, well if Stack Exchange allows it, why even bother?" On 4chan people insert reaction gifs and porn into every thread, but we don't allow that. On Metapedia every article can have a white supremacist frame, but we don't allow that. On Google they display ads on every page, but we don't do that. On Silk Road they broker[ed] drug deals, but we don't do that... Not even infrequently. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course we are different, that's why this person and this person contribute there and not here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sticking to rules in a mindless, rigid way led to the holocaust. I'm not entirely sure if you're serious with this, the communist china comment above it, talk of censorship, and so on, but it's as offensive as it is inane, and clearly you're not convincing anyone. If another holocaust starts because of rules about medical advice -- or other rules put in place by the evil censoring nazi hitler communist dictatorship khmer rouge nickelback jeffrey dahmer Wikipedia gestapo -- you'll have a fine "I don't you so" coming. Otherwise, there seems to be a very clear consensus that (a) what you're doing is giving medical advice (b) you should stop doing so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The preceding edit is 911 bytes. Ask your doctor to do the math, sheeple! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion be closed with a warning. It appears that there is consensus that our existing rule against providing medical advice should be observed and was violated, and that the subject editor is in disagreement, so that further discussion is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, while the Supreme Soviet needs to discuss and vote on the proposals of the Politburo, since that's only a formality, we can skip that step. Count Iblis (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure

Would some uninvolved editor please close this thread with a warning so that it doesn't just continue to be one editor spouting to the effect that restrictions on medical advice amount to totalitarianism? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I again request an uninvolved close, although this time not with a warning but because the discussion has been transferred to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends. There is no willingness to debate the fundamental problems with the way the medical advice policy is implemented here, all I hear are stupid arguments that make no sense given the way real people deal with their problems in the real world. On the other hand, the regulars here are willing to expend extraordinary amounts of time and effort fighting futile disputes (Medeis and Baseball Bugs being the lead actors in the daily soap operas here). So, I think if this thread stands in the way of the soap opera threads here, then it's perhaps best to close this one and start fighting your more favorite battles in another thread, take your time to draw some nice ascii paintings, or whatever else you want to do here. Count Iblis (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for keeping this thread open

The problems I raised have not been addressed using rational arguments. So far only hyped, emotional arguments have been used. I may have contributed to that too, so I'm not putting all the blame on everyone else here. The fundamental issue as I see it is that the way the medical advice ban is imposed here is very subjective, it's done on an ad hoc basis, and that paradoxically allows people to give their medical advice by invoking this policy. So, what happened here was that you have people who are dead set against doctors prescribing SSRIs except perhaps for the most severe depressions. That can be a legitimate private opinion, but by any reasonable interpretation of the "no medical advice rule", there should be no interference in medical interventions.

Now, suppose then that someone comes to the Ref Desk and asks a question about condition X, and someone else responds that Y could work. But whether or not the poster will end up using Y for condition X is then solely dependent on what the doctor would decide. However, the mention of Y could have an effect of whether or not the OP would visit the doctor in the first place (no mentioning it may remove a potential medical dimension of the issue). Clearly then, the whole motivation to flag this as "medical advice" primarily comes from those people here who would be against doctors prescribing Y to treat X. But that is precisely the sort of medical intervention that we should not engage in. Of course, they don't admit that, they (perhaps without doing this consciously, purely as a result of a cognitive bias) play the "dangerously ignorant OP card" who needs to be protected by censoring information to make sure he/she doesn't take dangerous action like using someone else's prescription.

So, if this happens again in the future, say someone asks about premature ejaculations, I see no valid reason not to simply mention Dapoxetine (e.g. simply saying that this can work, giving the wiki-link without giving any medical advice about whether or not the OP should actually use this), leaving it 100% up to the OP to inform himself using the refs given and to discuss things with his doctor. The only reason to block mention of Dapoxetine would be to keep the OP dumb in an effort to steer the OP away from potentially being prescribed this drug by his own doctor by the anti SSRI people here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Giving out medical advice here is unethical. Only a given OP's doctor is qualified to give the OP medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not medical advice. Not sure where the hypersensitivity to all of this come from. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Telling someone what to do to fix an ailment = medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not tell the OP to take SSRIs to fix his problem. All I said was that SSRIs are likely to remedy this problem in general. That's quite similar to looking up things on the internet, you can e.g. suffer from an allergy and read a wiki page that says that antihistamines are likely to help to alleviate symptoms. But that's not medical advice, anyone over the age of 6 will understand the difference between this and medical advice. Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You're making assumptions about what the OP's problem (if any) actually is. That's against the rules. And anyone over the age of 6 would laugh at your hyperbole about the Politburo, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd laugh at any six-year-old familiar with the Politburo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia: Medical disclaimer. It was explained to the subject above that the reason not to say that an SSRI might work is that this could be an encouragement to use someone else's SSRI. The subject dismissed this, with a rhetorical flourish, calling it "one in one trillion", or something bizarre like that. The disclaimer is clear. A statement that: "Your physician may be able to prescribe an appropriate medication" would be in order, but not to identify a particular one. The subject editor is being tendentious in wanting to keep this thread open. Do we need to go to WP:ANI now? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When you start to assume that the OP may act in a stupid way, then all bets are off, as that allows you to argue any way you like. The argument that "this could be an encouragement to use someone else's SSRI" is such a stupid moronic argument that it should be ignored, no matter how strong the consensus here is in favor of such an argument being valid. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we do. We have a dual problem here on the help desks; editors who delete or close things where there is a broad consensus not to do so, and editors who post things that pretty much everyone agrees should be deleted. This is clearly in the latter category, and Count Iblis has declared his intent to continue telling people what drugs they should take for various disorders. Clearly a case for ANI, in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's at WP:ANI now. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that I've never ever told what drugs someone should or should not take. In fact, it were a few regulars here who played the "no medical advice card" who argued why SSRIs are a bad option, instead of leaving that to the OP's doctor. So, they were themselves guilty of violating the very same policy they accused me of violating. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are assuming that this has something to do with SSRIs when it doesn't. If you had recommended Viagra or Penicillin or Lipitor, we still would have told you that recommending specific drugs to a specific person on the reference desk is not acceptable. While there are some gray areas when it comes to the "no medical advice" prohibition, there is wide agreement that recommending a specific course of treatment to a specific person is not one of those gray areas. Continuing to do that here is likely to get you blocked and/or topic banned from the reference desk. You are, of course, free to disagree with the policy and argue against it, but I wouldn't recommend ignoring the prohibition unless you are eager to be blocked. Dragons flight (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have strong evidence that it does have a lot to do with being against SSRIs, because there was no problem when someone posted why SSRIs were a bad option, when that should be left to the doctors. I didn't recommend anything, other posters here did gave medical advice, in clear breach of the policy. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your description suggests you have no evidence. Instead, your assuming this has anything to do with SSRIs seems to suggest an apparent lack of imagination or perhaps failure to WP:AGF on your part, which you probably should deal with. For better or worse, there has always been far more tolerance of people explaining why it's a bad idea (including possible side effects or risks) to try random drugs to resolve problems without competent medical supervision than there has been of people suggesting such random drugs without competent medical supervision. It doesn't matter if both includes stuff that can be considered medical advice, people have generally tolerated one more then the other and I don't think this is particularly surprising. (Although most of the time, the end result is it's all deleted.) I can't recall any specific drugs where this sort of thing has come up before, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't SSRIs. But to use the same examples as DF used in their earlier comment, it'll likely be the same whether it's Viagra or Penicillin or Lipitor that's being referred to. In fact, I think this has even come up with non prescription medicine before. (Although we do tend to worry more when the suggestion has more serious possible implications.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Eyes watering excessively for physical reasons is a medical problem. However, eyes watering for emotional reasons (or when irritated) is not. This is a normal human biology. This appears to be the later case. Therefore, the Q should be restored. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what it seems like, but the user is being vague enough that it's not certain. And either way, he's still asking for medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Material

Please do not delete material without a good reason, such as that it is medical advice or a request for medical advice, and please do not delete material without an edit summary. If you simply disagree, state your disagreement. The Reference Desks fall within Talk Page Guidelines rather than article guidelines. (Unsourced or incorrect material in articles should be deleted, but edit summaries should be used.) If something really needs to be deleted, such as medical advice in response to a question that wasn't a request for medical advice, an edit summary is important. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The user in question, Agent of the nine (talk · contribs), has been here a few weeks, and doesn't seem to be interested in explaining any of the various deletions he has made. Some of them look like he's deleting trolling, but the comment at the Science desk didn't look to me like trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's supposed to be "she", as per the improper update the user tried to make to my comments just above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature discussion

(Moved here by me, thought it was out of place at an otherwise completely reasonable thread. Original question here [3] SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Please note that "space ghost" is yet a nother alias of User:Russell.mo. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

μηδείς: I think Wikipedians are cleaver enough to acknowledge the facts, you don't have to insert/create a narrow minded thought/problem in their heads using your words... -- Space Ghost (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also note that this is the second time Medeis is retrying to recreate a problem. -- Space Ghost (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• You really shouldn't be using a signature that has nothing to do with your ID. A more truthful yet semi-clever signature would be "Shoeless Joe from Russell-dot MO". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: @Russell.mo: @Baseball Bugs: The signature is perfectly allowable, as per Wikipedia:Signatures and Wikipedia:Username_policy, which explicitly also covers signatures/nicknames. Bugs' comment has no basis in WP guidelines. This has exact issue has come up before, and you were told before that it is allowable. I have personally asked Russel.mo to change his signature less often in the past, as I knew that some people would see it in a negative light. That being said, it's his prerogative, and nobody has to go out of their way to discuss it here on the ref desks. The username behind a sig is entirely obvious to anyone who cares to look. Please use any of the various talk pages in the future, or if you want to continue to discuss the present thread. As I know Bugs has said before, we should not put such off-topic discussion into a question thread. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The more transparent way to handle it is the way Andy Mabbitt does it, by including both his name and his user ID in his signature.[4] And if Russ doesn't like his original user ID anymore, there is a process to get it renamed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And I concur that the entire discussion (from Medeis' observation on down) could and maybe should be moved to the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Russell.mo's behavior has already been the subject of discussion at ANI and elsewhere, my purpose here is to connect his obscure signature (which will not show up when you search his user name) to his user name. If that is something Russell.mo is opposed to, then this should go to ANI. But I assume Russell.mo has no such motive, and does not actually want to obscure his actions intentionally. μηδείς (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There have already been some users called "Space Ghost", qualified by trailing numbers. There is currently no User:Space Ghost, but that page could be created with a redirect to his actual user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Medeis' behavior has already been the subject of discussion at ANI and elsewhere, and it would be very rude of me to point that out every time I felt like it. Do you guys not realize that if you hover the mouse over a sig, the username pops up? You're both so good at equating an IP to some troll from years ago, but this simple signature change confuses you?! Give it a rest. I'm moving all this to the talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Any objections to creating a redirect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I don't think that we're supposed to create redirects for other users/usernames. Of course a user can choose to do so for herself if she wishes. Also, given this unnecessary drama and past patterns, I expect Russel.mo will change his sig to something else within a few weeks anyway. You don't have to like it, but unless you can demonstrate that he's using his sig in a disallowed manner you'll just have to deal with it. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with his approach is that a user might come along and actually choose "Space Ghost" as his user ID. Then you've got a dilemma - two users with the same visible ID - a dilemma that can be pre-empted by creating a redirect, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you're right - we wouldn't want anybody to impersonate another account, and that is already covered by our username policy under "real names" an "similar usernames". But that is not what is currently going on here, and it's still not our call to make a redirect. If someone does register User:Space Ghost, then there would be grounds to ask Russel.mo to change his signature. Please don't do that though, that would be transparently very WP:POINTY behavior. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone said this had been discussed before. Was it discussed on ANI, or only here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to a discussion here on the talk page, that also involved Russel.mo and his sig. After a few minutes of searching I was unable to find it. I recall someone posted the sig/username guidelines. I recall someone (maybe Jack of Oz ?) mentioning several examples of well-respected users who sign with a nickname. I recall that you and I had both made comments to the thread, and probably Medeis as well. Maybe it wasn't on the talk page but in ref desk space, or maybe I was mistaken I still can't find it. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was unaware of the discussion taking place here, I take time to write and have wasted a lot of time to discuss about a petty matter. What I wrote is as follows:

Repeating myself yet again (rewriting basically)!:

If you two (μηδείς & Baseball Bugs) have an issue with my name changing, then change the 'preference' page option rather than mourning at me and trying to make me look bad. Its perfectly allowable however. What's the point of performing a satanic activity knowingly?

Bugsy, you are well aware of the 'preference' page, knowingly you have (for the 1st time) trying to back it up with the 'searching' problem. Knowing of you (as much as I would think to have known till now), I think that 'you are aware' of the article SemanticMantis stated, yet you've made an unsuitable comment. Lets assume that you are unknown to the article, tell me, what will you say/how will you find me, if I create different accounts all the time, using different computers, all the time/every-time when I'm bored? Nothing, you'll sit back and assist as you are doing now, without a clue!

This matter was discussed a while ago, it was clearly stated and concluded, and was clear enough that Medeis was trying to resurface the matter intentionally in order to create a problem (I insist Medeis to insert the link of the 'talk page' where Bugsy, Medis, Sementics and Jayron were discussing because she was noisy enough the last time to find out about the ANI; please insert the ANI's link too), to create an issue which both (Bugsy & Sementics) have avoided as it was clear enough that 'she neglected'.

The last time I did not say anything because she helped me a few times. This time I am and I will, though with WP:Civility, because 1) I have begun considering myself as a Wikipedian (some time ago), and 2) I hate people who perform satanic activities.

Medeis: Your intention is clear as water i.e. wrong - purposeful intentional action. The problem is not mine, you are the problem creator here, I suggest you take this to ANI, and link this post. Note: Whatever I stated in this post, I had stated before, I'll state again, and again. You can't neglect the truth by camaflouging it. Also note: You are here to make WP better, not pick on people because 'you thought it was inappropriate', with/without knowing the facts.

My behaviour (if you strictly mean the signature issue, still its not a different story) was a subject before because people 'like you' were trying to create problems towards me, because they knew who I was, because my name was there, because I 'did not consecutively create a different account' and sought for my benefit, because I was too friendly, probably extremely angelic behaviour as the words 'extreme civility' was used, otherwise they would not have said anything, would've sat behind their desk and assisted instead of creating a problem towards me. That person however, stated his intentions thereafter to me, which was not clear at first, however, I neglected the facts knowingly because he helped making WP better, helps making people like me knowledgeable in other words (created many articles, also helps in the 'Ref Desk' and in the 'Tea house'; I would've inserted his name, since I'm talking bad about him, I won't).

Bugsy: I don't want to lose respect for you, I believe you are knowledgeable enough to assert right and wrong appropriately (not wrong as right), the reason why I gave you a medal once.

Anyway, if 'searching' is the case, since both (Medeis & Bugsy) are backing the 'searching' statement, I suggest one of you state it in the help desk, I suggest you both to make WP better by stating in the help desk, after tossing a coin of course, to insert/amend a function in order to keep both the facility i.e. 'name changing' as well as able to 'search' with 'names' and 'nicknames' otherwise people won't become a member and will only create/not create account, just use the service... Now, I do not wish to give a guarantee in advance, at this very moment, that none of you two will send a post in the 'Ref:Help desk' about it.

O, forgot, I have no problem with my name, sorry for trying to be friendly with Wikipedians.

Remember, you guys have/are with the problem, there is no point of 'telling me' to take this matter here and there. Now, I've insisted a solution, which will also make WP better, what you both lacked in understanding/concluding, let me know who's cleverer, who's performing a satanic activity/acting on a whimp because they know me, who is thinking of WP the righteous way, who's feels vulnerable because he/she is not knowledgeable enough therefore supporting WP however he/she could, and so on.

• I don't wonder 'why' anymore now, why people would seek benefits, not create a login name, and so on.

Space Ghost (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, I'm not finished yet, First of all, thank you for your support Sementics. This is the last message for tonight so I'll be quick.

Don't listen to them, they don't have a base to stand on, they are just trying to make the wrong as right, I won't have any problem with another user who comes up as 'Space Ghost' because of some of the things you stated, also because when you have to search for the user 'Space Ghost', you have to type either 'User:Space Ghost' or 'User:Russell.mo' then 'Space Ghost' along. Another thing to note, no two user can have the same name in WP. Its a pointless conversation with people I never thought I would argue with. Like you said once, people will always have a problem with it, and like I say now, only because they don't know the facts... Once again, thank you for your support and respect. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, I left a note at the thread but I should have left a link. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The mistake was mine, careless indeed. It takes a century (lol) to write a meaningful thing... Anyway Goodnight/Good day. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned Preferences. I don't have access to your Preferences. Only you have access to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You have access to yours. You also advice me once something about the 'preferences' page? Therefore you know what's what... Anyway, I'm upset with you. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As you should be. You are being hounded and berated by two users for having done nothing wrong other than, evidently, being someone they don't like. (Perhaps you've done something else wrong, but not this.) Furthermore, few other editors have spoken out against their improper criticism, which unfortunately may make it seem like their actions are considered acceptable. They are not, but frankly we've become tired of saying so, and in fact their actions so border on trolling that we're trying not to respond to them at all. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Chill, bro. If the name is valid under the rules, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to upset you. I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If you two (μηδείς & Baseball Bugs) have an issue with my name changing, then change the 'preference' page option - One possible interpretation: If a certain usage is to be forbidden, the software should make it impossible, and the user is suggesting that those opposed to his use of signature customization should work to get the software (the 'preference' page option) changed to that end. That of course is a pointless argument given current guidelines, as SemanticMantis pointed out. For better or worse, the usage is clearly supported by guideline and that should have ended this debate long before now. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If Paul Diamond can be Kato and Max Moon, Mr. Mo can be Space Ghost and Supergirl's Vibrator. If another Space Ghost comes along with a more valid claim (like a matching username), he can then become Super Space Ghost, just like everyone else had to be Super Destroyer (or Super Parka), lest The Plain Old Destroyer decimate them (or La Plain Old Parka hit them with a chair). But the "real" Space Ghost doesn't exist. Just this harmless apparition. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

If the name is valid, then it's fine, and you could close this box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to let you know, I won't be contributing to the Ref Desk anymore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given all the feedback I've received about the incident I was involved in, this is my final statement:

I have already moved to another venue, much more prominent than the Ref Desk here. You all have been misled by Robert McClenon into thinking that this was some sort of a big disruption of the Ref Desk, when in fact it was just a minor incident compared to the almost weekly infighting there which unlike this case does involve hugely disruptive reverts on the main ref desk pages. I did not edit war, and while my comments on the talk page might have been polemic, that was in the context of the older dispute where many have taken the very unreasonable position that you can't even tell an OP to go to the doctor because the issue may be more serious they think it is. Robert McClenon painted a false picture of me wanting to push dangerous medical advice, what happened is that people there are engaging in a faux outrage to get me banned because they much more prefer fighting their own battles.

Much more prominent sites like StackExchange that unlike our Ref Desk don't have the almost daily infightings, the content of which does turn up on Google searches, also have a Medical Disclaimer except that they won't hyperventilate over irrelevant issue. If there were any truth about what Robert McClenon and others are saying about this being dangerous medical advice, then such far more prominent sites where people like Peter Shor, Terrence Tao contribute, would pretty much all have adopted the same rules. The reason the rules on the Ref Desk are what they are in this case has little to do with preventing dangerous medical advice, it is just that it keeps the peace there. So, by making a subject taboo you can get from a big fight every day to once every few days.

I have pointed out the problem of the lack of prominence of the Ref Desk during the last few years, made the link to the very frequent fights, pointed out that StackExchange could serve as a better model to make the Ref Desk more prominent. My position made me very impopular among the regulars at the Ref Desk. That's why notorious edit warriors from there typically don't end up here at AN/I for their huge disruptions, and when they do get to AN/I, they still get support against the proposed sanctions. For me, things are different, not because I have created much disruption there (any disruption from my part is infinitesimal by the usual Ref Desk standards), rather because I don't belong to any of the gangs there.

It is this behavior of the regulars at the Ref Desk that has caused it to go down the drain. That also motivated me to stand my ground a bit more on this particular issue as a last ditch attempt to get people finally thinking there. Unfortunately that did not happen, they decided to get me railroaded over a non-issue here (non issue because when my contribution was hatted and removed, I did not edit war about that and the comment wasn't a big deal in the first place).

Fine, I'm gone, but the Ref Desk is nothing more than a big stinking cesspool. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A lack of ethics on those other sites is not a compelling reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If that were indeed true, but is it? Is there scientific research that has considered the best way non professionals should interact with people on medical issues to prevent problems? Is the Ref Desk following guidelines based on such research that these other sides are so unethical in rejecting? Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

To quote from the American Library Association's "Health and Medical Reference Guidelines" (2015 revision [5]):

1.1 When asked health or medical questions, staff should make their roles clear. These roles are

1.1.1 To provide complete and accurate responses to users’ questions when possible.

1.1.2 To provide assistance with identifying and finding relevant, credible, and authoritative sources to answer users' questions.

1.1.3 To provide instruction in the use of these resources.

1.1.4 To provide information referrals when appropriate.

1.2 Staff are not healthcare professionals. At no time should staff interpret or make recommendations regarding diagnoses, treatments, or specific health care professionals or health care facilities.

Emphasis added. There are books on librarian ethics if you want to find a more extended discussion of the issue. Depending on the nature of the advice, one might also risk exposure under laws governing the unlicensed practice of medicine (though such legal challenges are rare). Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong about this, but these guidelines don't seem to be based on any real scientific research; there is no hint that it aims to maximize positive health outcomes in case medical issues come up. Count Iblis (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the ALA guidelines exist more to minimize harm and comply with legal restrictions than to maximize benefit, but you are free to research the issue further. Google gives some places to start [6]. Dragons flight (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am arriving late to the party, but singling out an easy target for ostracism is a travesty when the problem was the question itself, which should have been closed or deleted, and which was almost certainly just trolling. I see we have no action towards actually enforcing the guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Medeis No, that is incorrect, or at least inconsistent with our guidelines here [7]. Our guidelines specifically state that we should prefer to sanction responses that give medical advice, not the question itself. I've told you this several times before. It's not clear to me if you're not reading the guidelines, or if perhaps you just don't remember. I will put this quote in bold just to make sure it's very clear to everyone: "removal of questions is discouraged" - "When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice, outright removal of the question is discouraged. " Also: "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions ... removing the whole question is discouraging for new contributors. Therefore, most of the time, the responsibility lies with responders not to give medical advice, regardless of the question. ". Is that clear now? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice." μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying you now agree that Count Iblis's answer was a bigger problem than the question, which wasn't even a clear cut request for medical advice? Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Poll

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And in this very last posting by me on this talk page, I refer to the section below that where I formally announce to not post here again. Participating in the poll is thus a WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

See you, then. --Viennese Waltz 14:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Count Iblis: Please don't leave, who's going to help me become smart if you leave?

A lot of people have supported you. Ignoring them is nothing but foolishness. We respect you, your help, assistance and existence. No one blocked you, WP did not block you, you are blocking yourself intentionally because you are upset, stabbing yourself emotionally, its not the right way, or is it for you?

Are you a woman?

Robert will win if you leave, so 'man' up!

Some guidelines you just have to follow. (Excuse my language, its late and I've to go to sleep) If you said something that sounded like shit to others, fair enough, a dog won't bark without a reason. Robert however is a smart person, like you, whatever disputes you two have, you both took it too far. Anyway, you won!

Remember, we don't need you, but we want you, to be with us because you are awesome. A lot of people have supported you, including myself. There were comments here, in this post, to make you feel like an 'arse hole', but I think user:Baseball Bugs or someone took it off, all because we honour people like you, for being with us for long and for everything you've done so far. Hope to see your comments Don't give me/others the satisfaction that you are a loser! Take care! -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Count Iblis: I'm sorry I didn't lift the lid on this toilet of a talk page since June 26, or I'd have given an oppose vote. In general though, I think that the free volunteer projects people have set up all across the web are suffering the same problem: when they get powerful enough to have a genuine economic impact on the pros, the pros come and undermine them. Whether you're trying to work with a document with more than 65536 columns in OpenOffice or trying to deal with awkward work flow in Gimp, you always wonder if some man from the Company must have wormed himself high into the free project hierarchy to make sure that such a sabotage would never be lifted, that the product would never really quite stack up against the commercial alternative. And when you buy that alternative, you're paying his salary. The situation on Wikipedia is no different: medicine is a powerful cartel, one whose practitioners wish to be seen not merely as experts but as divine and incapable of error, to justify their right to collect every last dollar in your possession, then turn you over to a death by neglect that the whole world will not merely accept but take righteous pleasure in. Some of their lobbyists on Wikipedia are known, some are not ... and most are simply unpaid labor duped by vague claims of legal limitations that they do not even understand, let alone resist. Had I been in the position to make your response (I actually know nothing about SSRIs and eye watering) I would have been more cautious, citing a source with my answer and perhaps mumbling an incantation like "not a recommendation but in general", but still, telling someone if you know the requisite biological activity exists is not a crime. Ethics is just somebody's word for profit; you should scarcely be able to read the one without seeing the other. Wnt (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you ever get appendicitis, forget those money-grubbing doctors, and instead just ask random strangers on the internet for a cure. Then let us know how it worked out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not so bad, considering that the standard surgery may be unnecessary, can be replaced by antibiotics, and "Dr. Livingston also found that most appendices that perforate have already done so by the time the patient shows up at an emergency room. Those that have not perforated when the patient seeks medical help almost never do so." Physicians have mostly continued a tradition of appendectomies since 1886 because it's a reliable money maker. Now to be fair, doctors did this science and it's even published in JAMA, but that doesn't take away from the main point: you'd be about as well off with the random stranger - especially if he had internet access and did a Pubmed search or two. Wnt (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Medical care is about a lot more than medical information and advice. The money-grubbing lobbyists for the money-grubbing doctors have managed to get laws passed preventing random strangers on the Internet from prescribing medications, performing surgery, etc, so I guess we're stuck with the money-grubbing doctors. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, when the colonial powers send their gunship to frighten the people of our peaceful little island and convince the chiefs to sign over their land and sell off their most beautiful daughters, there are two places they can put their money. They buy a gunship with a loud, impressive cannon, and they send agents around telling people it's a battleship ten times bigger than it is, capable of blowing you up from far off shore if you think something bad about them, carrying the power of satanic damnation with every kill. Well, obviously, they do both. They may have a law, but as other sites evidence, that law isn't generally effective at stopping people from giving really bad medical advice, sans references, whenever they want. Those are the sites to which people turn after Wikipedia tells them to fuck off. But I suppose the proponents think that if they talk a big enough game, eventually they'll have so many people afraid to comment that they can actually try to pass a legal prohibition as stringent as they pretend. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• More important to all of this is Wikipedia is a privately run website which, the trustees of which are free to establish their own rules and are under no obligation to allow you to do whatever you want on this privately run website whose servers you don't own. If you don't like the rules here regarding whether or not you can give medical advice (or any other rule for that matter), any argument about why you should or should not be able to give medical advice based on ANY rationale is trumped by the following immutable rule: it's not your fucking website. Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and the policy underpinning it is Foundation-dictated policy. If you don't like it, your recourse is to a) take it up with the Foundation lawyers and get them to change it or b) go away and start giving medical advice elsewhere. You don't have any immutable right to do anything here. If you don't like the rules the people who own this website have set for you to use this website, go somewhere else. Arguing with us, or explaining why the policy sucks to us, or anything else is completely impotent because we have nothing to do with this rule. Go tell the Wikimedia lawyers you think you should be allowed to diagnose people's medical problems and prescribe them medication to take. We're not the ones who said you can't do that. --Jayron32 02:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That would be a great argument, if (a) the trustees did not rely on the volunteers you denigrate for all of Wikipedia's value, creating a social contract of sorts to promote the freedom of the volunteers, and (b) the Disclaimer were not written with a distinct absence of "thou shalt nots", or in some format other than a mere disclaimer of Wikipedia's liability. The trustees' "thou shalt nots" are in the list of activities to be 'refrained from' in the WP:Terms of Use. Though that document has already been notably abused in a handful of cases in a way that has alienated and driven away several productive volunteers, it nonetheless says nothing about banning people from talking about whether a medication stops eye watering. So in the world as it is ... you are completely off base on this one, citing a completely specious argument and a disinterested higher power. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Good open-access academic bird resource

In the process of researching a question today ([8]), I came across the Searchable Ornithological Research Archive here [9], thought others might like it as a source for providing references or personal use. Everything is freely accessible, so no need to worry about who will be able to read it. @Kurt Shaped Box: might find it especially useful :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Some pages already link to it.—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There is also Avibase - The World Bird Database. See external links.—Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the wikipedia reference desk an suitable place for me to ask mental health questions?

[moved here from misc desk- μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)] See I have aspergers and borderline personality disorder. Is asking for mental health advice appropriate here? Venustar84 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you can't ask questions about your specific case, but you can ask Q's about those disorders, in general, like when those conditions were first recognized. StuRat (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If a question is directly about those conditions, it's not appropriate to ask for advice as it would fall under medical advice.

However, it should be appropriate to ask for WP:MEDRSs about the subject. It would also probably be fine to indirectly get answers by asking questions about related topics, such as social interaction, especially if it focuses on other people. It should also be fine to ask for WP:RSs by or about people who have Aspergers and/or borderline personality disorder.

For example, "how could someone with borderline personality disorder deal with their concerns about abandonment?" would be an inappropriate question. But "are their any autobiographies by authors who dealt with concerns about abandonment, especially authors with borderline personality disorder?" would be appropriate, as would "are there any case studies about the effectiveness of different therapeutic techniques to deal with concerns about abandonment?" Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians who edit Wikidata

Hi, I'm curious to know how many Wikipedia editors also edit Wikidata and vice versa? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.33.29 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You might ask that on the Ref Desk proper, versus here on the talk page. The Computer Desk might be the best choice. StuRat (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'll differ with my ole pal Stu and suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). For one, your question isn't about computing. For another, RDC (like all RDs) tends to be about matters unrelated to Wikipedia. One would be hard pressed to find web sources to support/supplement an answer to your question. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a partial answer, but I do not wish to post it here. If you post your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, then you can look for my partial answer there.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Squabbling @ Misc desk

OK, so User:StuRat has a long and ignoble track record of spouting stuff without benefit of references (not that he's the only offender). He's been called out many times, but refuses to change his ways. We have the power to do something about that.

But can whatever we do please not take the form of a very public catfight on the Misc desk (@ Cases of Addiction and Counselling in USA)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. My bad. I've redacted my distraction from the discussion. It was unnecessary and did not answer the OP's question in any meaningful way. --Jayron32 07:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your deletion and with Jack's comment. There was nothing wrong with your condemnation of StuRat on the desk – that (not his talk page, and not this page) is the right and proper place to call him out on his ridiculous assertions. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we need to have a discussion, because I have long been under the impression that we have a consensus to confine such inter-personal debates to this talk page. "Citation required" or equivalent obviously belongs with the thing that requires a citation, but when the conversation diverts off to discussing the editor's pattern of behaviour, or anything else not directly related to the OP's question, that comes back here. But I also note that it's a consensus that has often been more honoured in the breach than the observance, so maybe this is an opportunity to revisit the consensus and either re-affirm it or establish some other protocol. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-affirming that we don't argue in front of the kids. I could be wrong but I think we're unanimous on this with the above single exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hat the whole thing and start over. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Take him around back and then deal with him. Nice and professional-like, without witnesses. But like, not in the way some professionals "deal with" rats with a history of spouting off. That would be uncivil. And illegal. And virtually impossible online.

I just mean make him an offer he can't refuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Suggested username change: Comeditor. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No sir, I don't like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:15, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

I mean I don't like it for my username. It's some fine wordplay. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

I suggest Brainier, Brainiest, ItsMeHaters, ReferenceProvidedAtRequest, RequestForReferenceDon'tpullmyBallsBeforeIt and so on. -- Space Ghost (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just stick with what I've stuck with this far, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

Jack of Oz, There is a strong consensus to not carry on "such inter-personal debates" to the main help desk pages. The consensus for confining "such inter-personal debates" to this talk page is far weaker. Some editors (I am among them) think that criticism of other editor's behavior should happen on that user's talk page and then on ANI if that doesn't work. Can anyone name a single case where criticizing a regular refdesk participant on this talk page has ever had any positive effect? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe, first in this page, then in the 'user's talk page', then to ANI or wherever. Note: More or less than 20 vote is sufficient to take it to the second stage, and to the third after warning the 'user' using the 1st method 'three times'; after three strikes. -- Space Ghost (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone point to the Wikipedia policy that says that we can't respond to people posting unsourced crap on the ref desk by pointing out on the refdesk that their crap is unsourced? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a "citation needed" is sometimes appropriate, but let's not get carried away. These are refdesk questions, and nothing is ever as appreciated as a well-referenced correct answer. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to toot my own horn, but I think this was nice. No attack on the poster or post, just a simple request which led to the source. The whole thing was later hatted, but for other reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, July 9, 2015 (UTC)

• OK, let's begin with the basic facts. Nobody here can name a single case where criticizing a regular refdesk participant on this talk page has ever had any positive effect. So what is the basis for supporting the practice? It clearly isn't because it is effective or good for the encyclopedia. Is it because it feels good to do it or see it done? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • VW's rationale (as suggested earlier above) has been that if you take a complaint to the user's talk page, or to this page, that the user won't pay attention to it. Hence, showing the user up in front of the OP is allegedly the best strategy. The ill will it causes, he apparently regards as irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
    • And of course there is that other basic fact; there has never been a single case where criticizing a regular refdesk participant on the refdesk itself has ever had any positive effect. What's that word for doing the same thing over and over again even though it never works? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
      • • In this case, deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That would seem to depend on your definition of "positive effect" and "criticism". Definitely commentary on behaviour on the RD, this talk page, and editor talk pages has changed behaviour.

To give personal examples, I take more care with it's/its, than/then and some other grammar issues after commentary in various places. Also, while I haven't really reduced my post length, I do paragraph more than I used to. I believe I sometimes give more references even when I feel they aren't really needed for a variety of reasons including commentary (but also my own criticism of others). I've also sometimes considered commentary from others about how people are too quick to respond even when they don't know the answer (and similar stuff), in choosing whether to respond, or what to respond. A related example, I've mellowed a bit and changed the way I respond to questions which can easily be answer with a simple web search for vaious reasons including commentary from others. I'm fairly sure I've changed my behaviour in various other ways in response to commentary in various places that I can't remember off hand.

Ultimately, while I can't say for sure what my behaviour would be like if people had offered no commentary of other editor behaviour, I do believe it would be different. In my opinion it is mostly better, but not everyone may agree. (Note I'm not just referring to commentary directed at me in particular.

For an example which isn't me, to give credit where credit is due, μηδείς does seem to have changed their behaviour, even if it isn't enough for many. I presume this is at least partially due to commentary and criticism they've received at various places.

I'm not saying it's always a good idea to discuss behaviour here or on the RD, sometimes a person's talk page is better. But I wouldn't say the RD or here are always inappropriate, while there is a risk of it being see like a "lynch mob", there is also the possibility it helps people see it's a wider concern than just one editor. And people also have the opportunity to explain things in a different way that may get through to a person better. Plus other people also have the opprtunity to contradict or disagree with the commentary/criticism, so perhaos the person who offered it originally, rather than the person who offered it simply getting more and more annoyed, perhaps they will see things from a different perspective.

The other issue when it comes to the RD proper is that the commentary may help not regulars see a problem, that may not be obvious to them, but which will add perspective to their reading of answers. (On the flip side, I think most agree long discussions about behaviour don't belong on the RD proper, and there is a risk that when discussion starts there, everyone will just continue it there. In particular, it's perhaps mostly fair to let the person who was criticised respond on the RD proper if they so desire.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the record shows that Medeis/μηδείς has never changed her behavior after being criticized on the refdesks or refdesk talk pages, but has only done so after being reported at ANI. I am still of the opinion that talk:Reference desk is a spectacularly bad (and toothless!) behavior noticeboard.

Of course we could try my idea and, for a limited time criticize users on their talk page, then ANI if needeed. That experiment would prove me right or wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I am now inclined to agree with User:Guy Macon that discussion of Reference Desk behavior at this talk page is not useful. It is better than going directly to ANI, and so I have favored it in the past as a way to dispel anger, but discussions on user talk pages should be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

How about a limited-time experiment? Perhaps the entire month of August? On September 1st we could examine how well it worked and then decide where we want to go from there.

If there is a concern about having more eyes on a problem we could allow a link without commentary to the talk page or ANI discussion here.

Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

None here. I've long said Wikipedia should be more open to "try it and see" in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• User Venustar84 has been indeffed. Last week she had asked whether the ref desk was the proper place to ask for medical advice. This was closed and redirected to talk. The question is about to age of the ref desk. Since there's no point in archiving it, since it will point nowhere once the link ages, I removed it as clutter. Apparently StuRat wants his response retained for some reason, and has reverted the deletion, advising me to comment here. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Re the link, see Help:Permanent link. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Who is Venustar84 a sock of? Or is that confidential? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can understand Medeis's desire to cleanse the archives of her crusade against Venustar84, but that is not a valid reason to falsify the boards as preserved in the archives. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Internet Serials

Can someone please please please 'tag me' or let me know in my talk page (by providing a link) wherever there is a 'WikiInternet Serial' going on?

Please please please?

My life is boring (I don't watch television much because rubbish programs are showing 24/7, hate talking to human beings, started talking at wikipedia but my advises and English, both are R=Rediculious), it just suddenly got interesting e.g. "view post Just to let you know, I won't be contributing to the Ref Desk anymore" and "Squabbling @ Misc desk".

Please please please notify me, I love the way how a WikiInternet Serial goes on. How, you guys hate each other, for each others smartness, how you guys take a simple thing in such a big way, how you guys can't say things to someone who don't give a fuck about 'Wikipedia', who's not in a 'Wikiproject', who doesn't help out in the 'Ref Desk', and can say to someone who gives a fuck at any one of the quoted 'page'.

I also love the way you guys swear at each other, makes it interesting, brings out the dilemma, because of annoyance or anger, especially when you provoke the other instead of understanding why the person is annoyed or angry, without evaluating the reason appropriately. I love it love it love it.

The is the best part, when I could grasp the , Ooooooooooo the awesome suspense! Also please please please use hardcore/old/posh/formal English words/sentence/paragraphs, please please please. its the best way for me to learn.

I'll have popcorn tomorrow with me, so please disrespect each other while you respect WP, by not respecting its builders/helpers who are just like you...

Don't forget to think you are better than another and you are tough!

Best wishes for you all in your WikiWars.

Space Ghost (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

O, I forgot to say, 'find solutions later, fight first'...

Once again, best wishes!

Space Ghost (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking for someone to let you know when there's some argument or dispute on this page? You can just add it to your watchlist (Help:Watchlist), then you'll get notifications when there's activity. Or if you like the drama you can read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, lots of people arguing there. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I checked the names, I don't know anyone there. Beside, I like you guys (Ref Desk people), you all (most) are like my friends, brothers and sisters girlfriends and wives , always help me too...so I'll stick with 'my WikiFamily' -- Space Ghost (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

SemanticMantis: I owe you a 'medal' for showing and proving respect, honour, help and support for others (all that proved your own self worth) for as long as I've known you via WP. I was free the last two days but I forgot. As soon as I become free I'll give you one. Keep up the 'goldie self worth!'. -- Space Ghost (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

How to lose weight...

I've removed this edit as IMHO it veers uncomfortably close to offering medical advice. Rojomoke (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. I boxed up the rest of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"You may find [wikilink] of relevance" is not advice of any sort. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It points the OP toward a medical choice they may not otherwise have considered. I personally am not comfortable with that. Rojomoke (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And of course, the OP is going to be able to access Liposuction without any consultation with a medical professional. My intention was to educate the OP a little, and obviously I agree with SemanticMantis or I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but I apologise for the misjudgement.

So, if as well as not offering medical advice (with which I entirely agree), we also cannot "veer uncomfortably close to it", how close are we allowed to get? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The question "are there ways for people with heart and kidney disease to lose weight?" is certainly answerable in terms of general knowledge about the field without making any specific diagnoses. We should not assume the OP has all these problems, or that it is a request for advice. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the OP's question. And in any case, if someone wants to lose weight in a safe way, they should consult their doctor first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And if that doctor visit kills them, turning into an 85% lighter skeleton is painless, good for the environment and possibly fun. Foolproof system. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, July 10, 2015 (UTC)

Black Gays gone Wild

Since my comments were anecdotal in nature, although I could get references for most of what I have said, the Black Gays thread seems to have become a forum for soapboxing, with religious pronunciations now amounting to walls of text. I suggest it might be time to close and collapse this discussion. μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The thread is here [10]. The fact that some people chose to spout random unsourced opinions does not invalidate the question, nor the highly appropriate and informative reference that I posted. I found the question very interesting, and I think many people were informed (and perhaps surprised, according to the news covereage) by the poll results.

If you don't like people going off on opinionated tangents and not citing references, try setting a better example. Starting out with a bullet point and the controversial opinion that "there is no such thing as being gay" amounts to baiting [11], or pissing in the punch bowl if you prefer an evocative metaphor: [12]. Not to mention that that's not really germane to the question. Whether or not being gay is a biological or genetic condition, we have many many people in the world who say they are gay, and it shouldn't be too hard for anybody responding to understand that the OP was talking about the thing we call gay.

If you could have posted references to support your claims, then I suggest you should have done so if you wanted to keep the tone professional. In fact, you could still do so if you want to give some credence to the things your wrote.

I had hoped perhaps someone would find references discussing these patterns in other areas of the world (the gallup poll I posted was only USA), or perhaps speaking to the urban/rural split that you hypothesized, or trends over time, etc. Probably no chance of that now that it's a day old and full of derails.

Feel free to box everything starting with your post; the question and my initial response are fine. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My sole concern is that we have a user saying he talks directly to god adding walls of text to the thread. I have no opinion pro- or con- his points, or yours, but this is the definition of soapboxing, and unlike mine, his comments are drawing heated disagreement and ongoing debate. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree at least some of those are out of line. I think the best course of action (other than just ignoring the soapboxing) then is to box the specific comments that you think are WP:SOAP (and link that in the collapse header so everyone knows why you did it), and leave the rest alone. No need to Throw_out_the_baby_with_the_bathwater :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What's worse than people talking on the Refdesk? Them not talking on the Refdesk. I'd have like people to stay closer to focus, but, hey, every one of them has the right to post a brand new question if they want, and if we can infer a gap in knowledge to fill then let's just go with it. Wnt (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the preacher wasn't trying to give anything close to a factual answer. Most of that section needs to be boxed up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I didn't take part in that exchange and so was uninvolved until now. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've undone the collapse - it was a tangent, but not disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)