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.

Deleting comments without reporting at Talk

asked 'n' answered; WP:DENY - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

‎Big science equipment - rolled on wooden trunks?

I just removed this section from WP:RDS due to the nature of the username block on the OP. It's a shame, as it was a good question, but the new user posted it using the name of the perpetrator of yesterday's Las Vegas Strip shooting. It takes more than that to offend me personally, but I though it best for the public image of the ref desks that it be removed. I have no problem with the section being restored should that be the consensus. Cheers. -- ToE 19:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent block and removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography previously declined as a Wikipedia article

I updated my draft with outside references to publications where I have been published and to the two published books I have written. If I am notable, it is for what I have written about outside subjects, not what I have written about myself. Please review my updated draft and tell me whether it comports with Wiki's criteria. Jim Zirin (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)October 2, 2017

I added the title. Here's the draft: Draft:James_D._Zirin. This isn't the right place to resubmit it, but maybe others can help you with that. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages autobiographies, but you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and add some in-line references to establish your notability in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Rule of 10 and 5

In my head somehow I started thinking about the Reference Desks as having a Rule of 10 and 5. If a Desk regularly gets 10 questions a day, a split should be considered, if it regularly goes 5 days without a question, then a merge should be considered. Do other people have numbers for this?Naraht (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that I do not. I do think other factors come in as well, such as topical reasons for and against splitting and merging. As an example: I think it is a good idea not to split up the Science desk any further (Biology, Chemistry, Physics e.g.), even when it gets a lot of traffic, because questions there tend to reach into more than one of these fields and a number of volunteers understand several fields of science too, as well as their interactions and overlap.

5 days in a row without a question does sound extreme, even irregularly ... and yet this may have already happened, does anyone know? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No desk achieved ten questions a day in September (I didn't look further back). If one other than science did, what would it be split into? 92.8.220.234 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, the Mathematics desk went through a recent dry spell, with no questions asked during the five days of August 16 through August 20, but that is the only time it happened to any of our desks this year. -- ToE 21:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 92 and ToE. I couldn't find a day with 10+ questions on the Science desk during the past 2-3 years (I checked 2015, 16, 17). I didn't check the other desks (I did see one day in the Humanities desk archives carrying 9 questions, so it might have happened at WP:RD/H, though probably not frequently or regularly either). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I found that through the first nine months of this year, ten or more questions per day have been asked twice on the Computer Desk, seven times on the Science Desk, and eleven times on the Humanities Desk.

RDC: 10/May14 10/May15

RDS: 10/Jan19 13/Jan24 10/Feb03 14/Feb19 10/Mar17 12/Apr19 10/Jun11

RDH: 10/Jan19 10/Jan20 10/Jan25 10/Feb08 10/Feb23 11/Apr09 10/Apr14 12/Apr19 10/Apr20 12/Apr30 12/Jun06

I don't feel that any desk is in need of splitting at this time. -- ToE 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank, ToE. I used "10." as a search term, not knowing the search function would leave out the questions' index numbers. Ignore my research, and thanks again. I see no need for splitting either. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Same think happened to me on the first pass. -- ToE 19:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Original poster here. So even if we did have 10 and 5 as guidelines, neither guideline has been reached on a regular enough basis to cause split or merged discussion. Thanx to all!Naraht (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD Removal of question

A user has removed this whole thread [1] without any discussion, claiming a reason of medical diagnoses or legal advice. I have reverted/restored, because I think that is ridiculous. If something must be removed, our own guidelines encourage removal of offending responses over removal of questions. For example "outright removal of the question is discouraged" and "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions. " [2].

As I understand it, if you're reading this, you should not remove or alter the thread (other than good faith discussion there) unless consensus is reached here.

Thanks for your input, SemanticMantis (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I knew exactly who had done the removing before clicking on the link. 95% of our bogus removals come from the same username, plus a few by a couple of editors who occasionally imitate the bad behavior.

This has the same simple answer as the last twenty times this has happened; topic ban Medeis / μηδείς from editing, hatting, or deleting anything written by any other editor on any reference desk. There are plenty of other editors watching who will remove any actual problem posts. Just make the request at WP:AN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, except we can do it ourselves. Just automatically revert all deletions by Medeis, as she has never demonstrated the competence to know when to delete Q's. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO bullet 4: Off-topic. Irrelevant to this thread, also pot-stirring. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, you're talking about banning Medeis, and at the same time you've been trying to get Betacommand unbanned - a user who did exponentially more damage to Wikipedia than Medeis could even think about doing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Bullshit. I am NOT talking about banning Medeis/μηδείς. Medeis/μηδείς can make plenty of useful contributions while topic-banned from deleting what other editors write. And my !vote regarding Betacommand was neutral, not support. Arbcom has spent five years not making a decision. My RfC asks them to make a decision. I really have no strong feelings on what that decision should be -- whatever Arbcom decides is fine with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) If they reinstate him, it's not fine. You started the RFC. Why couldn't you just leave it alone? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) I am not going to discuss this with you here, because it has nothing to do with the reference desks. I advise other to likewise ignore your off-topic comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Until Maoon withdraws and disavows his attempt to get Betacommand reinstated, he has no moral authority to demand that someone else be banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Macon should withdraw his call for any ban on Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Just let it go, ffs. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Macon first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Don't listen to Jack; he's becoming increasingly tiresome with his foolish insistence on decorum and adult behavior. By all means, continue with the irrelevant remarks and nyah-nyah namecalling. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Of what value was that deleted thread? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the wrong question to ask. That's a bit like saying: "That person's value wasn't immediately apparent to me, so I killed him." Or if I went to your talk page and removed everything I didn't consider valuable. Talk page contributions such as the Ref Desk can't be removed just because you see no value in them. They need to actually violate some policy. And, even then, boxing them up is preferred unless they are really bad. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It had considerable value. People do get diarrhea, and sometimes have to clean off in a shower. Should you clean the shower afterwards? I would use a spray bottle with a bleach solution myself. Also, the part about copper pipes and microbes was helpful, and the part about Islamic customs was pretty fascinating.

None of this changes the basic fact that WP:TPOC forbids removing what other editors write except in certain well-defined situations, and this wasn't one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there is some interest and value to both the question and the responses, but the issue of value is also completely irrelevant to the removal of the question and all responses.

We have no rules that questions or responses need to be valuable, none whatsoever. If anyone doesn't like to respond to questions of idle fancy, then I advise them to simple not do that. As you know, we are all volunteers here, and nobody is compelled to read or respond to anything on our ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is another: [3] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) Sign your posts, whoever you are; and (2) that was an obvious trolling question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's so "obvious" why did StuRat revert the deletion and why do I agree with his revert? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat is notorious for not recognizing bad-faith or trolling questions when he sees them. And he also restored that nonsense about the all-salmon diet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a guy who's trying to get Betacommand reinstated. Maybe you're unaware that trolling questions are subject to deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Liar. I !voted "Neutral" on that RfC. I am through talking to you until you cite a policy or guideline that supports your false claim that "questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't you start the RFC? As to your question, you already answered it. See the ref desk guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς

Note: the reference desk talk page cannot impose a topic ban. If there is a consensus here, a request will have to be made at WP:AN (not ANI) to see if there is a consensus among the administrators.

Straw Poll

Should Medeis / μηδείς be topic banned from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user on any of the reference desks?

Note: Because certain refdesk regulars have a strong tendency to WP:BLUDGEON and because this discussion may become heated, the straw poll section will be limited to one !vote per user, with no threaded replies allowed in the straw poll section. All users are free to make as many comments as they wish in the threaded discussion section. Any user may freely move any threaded reply posted in the straw poll section to the threaded discussion section. Please try to keep them in chronological order.

• Support As proposer. We have a large number of editors watching this page, and they can easily remove or collapse any material that needs it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Macon's hypocrisy is showing, big time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are thread that do require removal ASAP and no evidence has been presented to convince me that Medeis should be prevented from doing that. MarnetteD|Talk 06:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Too many of her deletions are fundamentally flawed. She does not seem interested in discriminating between content in violation of guidelines, versus content she personally doesn't like. The fallout from her deletions is all too often significantly more disruptive than the allegedly-inappropriate, deleted content was. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The desks need more regulars working together and respecting collaborative process and consensus, and less of what amounts to shoot-from-the-hip vigilantism. Years of attempts to reason with Medeis have produced little improvement that I can see. It's her way or the highway, and that never flies with me (never mind that it violates Wikipedia policy). While her policing actions are not all bad, they are a clear net-negative in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Scientific inquiry has its own norms. The verbal imagery of diarrhea and food and licking are outside of those norms. Medeis can correct me if I am wrong but it is the lack of effort to make a question presentable that prompts one to remove the question. This is the question asked: "If you dip a cube of metal, plastic, glass or nonporous ceramic/rock in diarrhea infected with the hardest to rinse deadly germs, how long would you have to rinse it with a showerhead before the top becomes food-grade clean and you could lick it?" Any question (just about) can be spruced up to look respectable. There are questions based on that question that acknowledge the scientific underpinning of an area of discussion but the disregard for any effort at formulating a presentable question warrants that question's removal. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - She seems to decide to remove a Q because she doesn't like it, then, maybe she tries to find an excuse, and maybe she doesn't even bother. Absolutely unprofessional application of her own personal opinion of what belongs and what doesn't. -- StuRat (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2017‎ (UTC)

• Support For as long as I've been coming here, there have been issues with Medeis hatting and deleting questions and replies. Given the amount of effort that has gone into discussing her actions, it would seem that she, over the long course, is more disruptive than any of the content she is objecting to. Given the numerous issues, it is my opinion that deleting or hatting should be left to other members of the community. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose procedurally. A straw poll in a low-traffic area where one can easily gather friends to pursue grudges is about as kangaroo court-esque as one can get. Take it somewhere where more eyes with less bias can weigh in. TheValeyard (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Despite repeated pleas to follow our community guidelines (over several years), she has consistently closed threads whenever she wants, usually well against our consensus, and the process of reverting these simply builds ill will and negativity. We have plenty of people who do understand what needs to be removed, and do so. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per SemanticMantis above. Deor (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per SemanticMantis. SteveBaker (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Baseball Bugs. Six and 7 eighths (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per SemanticMantis. --Viennese Waltz 08:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

This would in no way interfere with Medeis / μηδείς answering questions or paricipating in any way that does not involve editing other user's comments.

Again and again we have seen Medeis / μηδείς deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing comments posted by other users, and again and again we have seen the community push back with reverts and complaints. There are several other editors who delete or collapse with pretty much zero pushback, because they do it in situations where everyone agrees in needed doing. Whether it is a competence issue purposeful, Medeis / μηδείς simply does not have the ability to judge what should and should not be removed. There are plenty of other editors here who will do the job and do it right. We don't need Medeis / μηδείς doing it poorly. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think that question about trying to live on an all-salmon diet is worth anything? And wasn't there a recent similar question about another type of food? What was done with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the exact policy or guideline that allows you or Medeis / μηδείς to delete things because you are of the opinion that they are of no value. I couldn't find one, but it would be convenient if I were allowed to delete anything you write that I don't believe to be "worth anything". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Why should garbage questions be allowed to stay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. You have not cited any policy that supports your assertion. You are advocating violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies, specifically WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You're the one evading. Questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion. Maybe you weren't aware of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite the policy or guideline that says that questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion. Please keep WP:LOCALCON in mind when answering. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

[EC] If you were thinking of citing WP:RD/G, don't bother. That page clearly says When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply. The usual talk page guidelines include WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Where have you been for the last 5 or more years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. I am through talking to you until you cite a policy or guideline that supports your assertions.. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines say that the ref desk is not for debate. And many other users have deleted questions that were obvious calls for speculation, debate, or just plain trolling. No wonder you're trying to get Betacommand reinstated - your sense of proportions is radically warped. But I guess I should expect no less from someone who once openly fantasized about murdering another user.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What's worse than hyperbolic overreaction to a humorous cartoon? Repeated inane hyperbolic overreaction to that cartoon, still ongoing 2+1⁄2 years after the fact. Could you perhaps find some other mindless mud to sling? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing worse is trying to get the notorious user Betacommand reinstated, while at the same time trying to get a ref desk user banned for deleting garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. My comment was about you and the first question was completely rhetorical. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What evasion? You asked, I answered. And maybe you think fantasizing about murdering someone is funny. Maybe you wouldn't think so if you were the target. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What evasion? You failed to respond to the criticism of you, instead deflecting the discussion to someone else's completely unrelated action. Whether you realize it or not, that's an evasion tactic. And you once again demonstrated your inability to hear what was said to you, simply restating the ridiculous premise that Guy Macon drew a cartoon because he was fantasizing about murdering you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

My response is that I've got it right and you've got it wrong. Is that clear enough? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

To Mandruss; Alas, sometimes you get what you ask for. :) You asked "Could you perhaps find some other mindless mud to sling?" and indeed he did. Saying "One thing worse is trying to get the notorious user Betacommand reinstated, while at the same time trying to get a ref desk user banned for deleting garbage" is about as mindless as mudslinging gets. First, it contains at least three complete fabrications. [1] Topic banned is not the same as banned. Medeis / μηδείς has no need to delete what other editors write in order to continue participating on the reference desks. [2] On the Betacommand RfC I !voted "neutral", not "support". [3] An RfC asking Arbcom to make a decision that they promised to make four years ago, and which includes propositions like "keep the ban in place" and "lift the ban" is not trying to lift the ban. In fact, if Medeis / μηδείς gets topic banned and requests that the ban be lifted after a year has gone by I will strongly support lifting her ban per WP:ROPE.

The bigger problem here is that Bugs has completely ignored my request to cite any policy or guideline that supports his false claim that "questions that call for speculation or debate are subject to deletion". Instead he brings up multiple unrelated (and also false) accusations. He is being rude and disrespectful to the community by assuming that we will fall for such a transparent debating tactic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And, Guy, he is not going to stop. Arguing with Bugs about this sort of thing is like feeding a troll, is like wrestling a pig in mud: all it does is get you covered in mud, and the pig enjoys it. So, please, take your own (repeated) advice and be done with it. (Which is logically equivalent do being done with it until Bugs cites the policy you keep asking him to, because he's obviously not going to do that, he's just going to keep evading.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wise words indeed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The next time someone else deletes a thread for being debate or speculation, are you going to yell at that user too? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This,[5] for example. Are you going to yell at that user too? Or do you only yell at users you don't like? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat—in response to this, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The "rules are not the purpose of the community". Bear in mind that "[w]hile Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and Medeis regularly misuses them to delete things she doesn't like. Or, at other times, her only rationale for deletion is "this doesn't need to be archived". StuRat (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And you're notorious for restoring threads initiated by banned users. Stop it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

[in response to StuRat's Support rationale mentioning unprofessionalism] And restoring threads initiated by banned users is likewise "unprofessional". (As a penalty, your pay here will be reduced by 25 percent.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Bus stop, you say "There are questions based on that question that acknowledge the scientific underpinning of an area of discussion but the disregard for any effort at formulating a presentable question warrants that question's removal", but I do not find that listed under the list of material that we are allowed to delete at WP:TPOC. I also don't find any support for such a removal at WP:RD/G, which says "Don't edit others' questions or answers" and "When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply" Needless to say, WP:TPOC is part of the usual talk page guidelines. Can you cite any Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your claim that "the disregard for any effort at formulating a presentable question warrants that question's removal"? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You just can't seem to let this go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• When a question involves a real life circumstance it is understandable that objectionable details may be included, but when one is posing a hypothetical question it is the norm that a sort of "translation" into an approximation of scientific terminology is made. For instance a science question would not aim to be titillating or induce revulsion. Science is understood to hold objectivity in high regard. So a choice is usually made between relaying an actual circumstance and posing a question relating to it, or on the other hand formulating a question including the objective points that one deems necessary to inquire into some area that one is curious about. This, I think, is Medeis' motivation for removing the question. I could be wrong. That would depend on input that might be provided by Medeis, but let me call your attention to Nimur's response: "What a spectacularly scientific question..." Nimur knows a thing or two about science. I'm not so knowledgeable about science but I understand the language used in ordinary scientific conversation. The question as posed is smart-alecky and not geared toward productive responses as the question seems more like a prank. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

But you don't dispute that no Wikipedia policy or guideline allows you to remove a question because it is smart-alecky and not geared toward productive responses, right? And you don't dispute that existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines expressly forbid such removals, right? (If I am wrong, please cite the policy that allows such removals). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I dispute your assertion that the question was objectionable (while noting that even if it was, deleting such questions is not allowed). People get diarrhea. They soil themselves. They clean up in a shower. They may even lose control of their bowels while taking the shower. It is reasonable to inquire if the normal action of a shower and warm soapy water is sufficient to disinfect the shower after that happens. A related question would be whether the normal action of a washing machine is sufficient to disinfect it as it cleans the soiled clothes. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say it's not allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

1) WP:TPO lists 5 good reasons to remove other users' comments. While it says they are merely "some examples", I've yet to see (in over 4 years of very active talk space participation in many venues) a case not in that list that was judged by the Wikipedia community to be a good reason to remove another user's comments. Can you cite one? Clearly the community views that as a comprehensive list and sets a high bar for removal. Removal of questions you find objectionable is not in the list.
2) That page says it applies to article talk pages and "other namespaces", and any claim that RD should live outside the standards applied to every other talk space in the project—because it doesn't say "article talk pages and other namespaces including the Reference Desks"—can be nothing but bad-faith wikilawyering.
3) In my view, one can reasonably argue that RD has special requirements and needs some special rules. These should be viewed as local amendments to WP:TPG, not replacements for it. Where is the special rule, supported by community consensus, that says an editor can remove questions that they find objectionable?
4) Given your hearing disability I fully expect that your response to all of this will be: "Where does it say it's not allowed?" ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You're funny. Now tell me where the Nazi troll's posts fit into the scheme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO bullet 3, perhaps? Have you read much of TPG? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And there you have the answer to Macon's continual question. "Harmful posts" are allowed to be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Using that logic, then, you won't object to my removal of about 90% of your comments on this page because I feel they are unconstructive and therefore "harmful" to the operation of the desks? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And likewise yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt, which is not the point. The point is that there is very significant good-faith objection to that application of TPO bullet 3, from multiple very experienced editors, and that means You. Need. Consensus. To. Do. It. That's how Wikipedia works. You do not have that consensus, nor does Medeis, nor does anybody else. That bullet 3 does not grant anybody license to remove anything they feel is harmful, which is why I have not removed your posts. I understand and respect TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So whenever the Nazi troll posts his garbage, insteading "wp:deny"-ing it, it should be brought here for discussion??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon—may I call your attention to Nimur's response to the question posed by Sagittarian? Surely you can concede that there may be reason for Medeis to act as she did. Or do you think that the Ayatollah Khomeini is relevant to sterilization (microbiology)? Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in Nimur's response that supports violating any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Again, please cite the policy that allows you to remove a post because it isn't relevant to sterilization (microbiology). Please stop adding on examples of things that you think are bad and should be removed. We get it. You want to remove things for reasons that are not allowed as reasons for removal. We don't care what those reasons are. I am not going to discuss every post that you don't like in detail. I am simply going to tell you that (shouting) YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE POSTS THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE!!!. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon—Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Please see WP:BURO. Please maintain an open mind and engage in conversation rather than, or in addition to, demanding to see in writing where something is permitted. I'm going to ask you again to shed some light on your understanding of Nimur's response. Bear in mind that Nimur is well-versed in the area of science and is well-respected on these Reference desks. Do you think Nimur used the Science Reference desk as it should be used? Did his response vary in any way from the normal or expected use of the Science Reference desk? Does Nimur generally ridicule questions asked on the Science Reference desk? We are talking here about community standards. I contend that community standards are reflected in Nimur's response to the question posed by Sagittarian. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not about standards, it's about not liking certain individuals. If it were Medeis instead of Nimur, Macon would be screaming about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, I am going to stop responding to you now. Go ahead and hold your opinion that we are free to violate WP:TPOC. Go ahead and hold your opinion that Nimur criticizing a question is a valid reason for deleting it. You are free to have your opinions. I would strongly advise not acting on those opinions by deleting any comments that meet your criteria, because editors who do that tend to be blocked. Feel free to have the last word. I am done. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

First you're not responding to me, and now responding to another user. Keep up that childish trend, and with any luck we'll never have to hear your hypocrisies again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Actual Question is, do we give legal advice "is it legal to burn off fluff" or medical advice "when is it okay to lick diarrhea covered objects" against our own guidelines? Certain people seem to think there are simply NO GUIDELINES. If you want to address this, then lets ask, is any editor able to hat or remove questions the guidelines and other policies (like re banned users)? I will abide by any rule that applies to all alike.

I don't edit war, I don't edit based on POV or "what I like", I don't curse people out "Bullshit!". So if you've got a case with diffs bring it to arbcom, and the GIF of Guy Macon's sniper assassination of User:Baseball Bugs retooled to take me out will certainly make a strong argument for his case. The simple fact is, I edit here a lot, and do a lot of cleanup, and the people who enjoy the it's a forum where anything goes atmosphere don't like it. But all the standing rules still apply. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole thing really has nothing to do with rules or guidelines. It has to do with Macon bearing a personal grudge against you, even as he initiated a process to try to get the infamous Betacommand reinstated.[6] Macon should ban himself from Wikipedia for a year or two, and reflect on what his real priorities are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Medeis / μηδείς, several editors have told you that you lack the judgement to determine what is and is not a request for medical advice. Your most recent deletion is a case in point. Asking a question about whether a surface is clean enough to eat off of is not a request for medical advice. You need to be stopped from deleting other people's contributions and leave the decision on what to delete in the hands of editor who are competent. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You lack the judgment to determine when a question is trolling. You need to worry about your own lack of competence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• At the top it says that "If there is a consensus here, a request will have to be made at WP:AN". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well aware, but it should start there. Not in some dusty Star Chamber. TheValeyard (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis
• Block Log

--Guy Macon (talk)

• Discussions, sure, but where's the consensus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• 

  Caution: Court in session ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The notion that there's "consensus" against Medeis' strict interpretation of the guidelines is a fiction. There has never been any such consensus. That's why this same debate occurs every few months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll: Ban Baseball Bugs from the Reference desk

WP:DENY User:Vote (X) for Change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposing sanctions against Medeis is a fool's errand. Any consensus has to be ratified at ANI and numerous discussions there have never produced any agreement. That's unsurprising - there's no reason why any offending hat/deletion can't simply be reverted by someone else. There are far more complaints about Baseball Bugs - this is a WP:CIR issue and reverting him won't make the problem go away. The matter has been discussed at ArbCom despite Baseball Bugs' attempts to stop it by suppressing the evidence [7]. This was followed by a diatribe accusing an editor of again trying to get TRM into trouble by pretending to be TRM logged out. [8]. See also the evidence headed Baseball Bugs is incompetent and should have been blocked years ago [9]. We know he is old - he says his age is 33 1/3 rabbit years - God knows what that is in human terms. He rants about the garbage spewed by a banned editor called "Vote(X) for change". He uses open proxies, so wherever he geolocates to is unreliable. [10]. Baseball Bugs and Jayron32 identify a troll who posts material such as [11] as "Vote(X) for change" [12] yet regularly remove constructive editing from people who they claim are the same person. Baseball Bugs tried improperly to influence a decision of the Arbitration Committee with this rant on the clerk's talk page: The IP posting that stuff is the ref desk troll - an IP-hopping, Jew-hating, Nazi-loving banned user. He's trying to get TRM in trouble by posting stuff that TRM has complained about in the past - trying to make it look like TRM is editing while logged out. ← Baseball Bugs → 20:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) This led to sexist comments by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi User talk:Favonian/Archive 40#Troll. Support as nom. 2A02:C7F:BE12:F800:2189:3B2:1BFD:424 (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Before making highly controversial proposals attacking established editors, I suggest you (1) register a Wikipedia account and (2) establish a solid editing and collaboration history of at least a year and 5,000 edits. You have no visible standing to forward such a proposal. Bugs, while this is a clear candidate for collapse or removal, I suggest you let someone else handle that for appearance's sake. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That section is a nice summary of the ref desk troll's various tactics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)