Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 117

Archive 110

←

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Personal attacks: what they are and what they're not

I understood we'd agreed to confine personal disputes to this talk page, and not hang out our dirty laundry for all comers to see, such as this.

Since you've raised the issue, B. Bugs, you've been around here way long enough to know that a comment on someone's actions or behaviours cannot possibly be construed as a PERSONAL attack on them. The word "personal" in the expression "personal attack" refers to an attack on an editor personally. It does NOT refer to anything the editor has done or said. People and their actions are not the same thing. Hence, any comment on an action or a behaviour is NOT, repeat NOT, a personal attack.

For example, "You're an idiot" is a personal attack, clear and simple, because it's about what YOU ARE or ARE ALLEGED TO BE.

But "You've just made up or guessed what you just wrote there" is just as clearly NOT a personal attack, because it's not about YOU but about WHAT YOU'VE DONE. The difference ought to be starkly obvious.

(If you're so insecure that any less than glowing commentary on anything you post here is taken as an attack on you personally, then I can suggest some good therapists.)

If there really is a personal attack, don't edify the attacker (not to mention dragging the desk down to their level) by having it out with them on the front page, but bring it back here if it's worth the community's attention, or take it to their own talk page if you want to keep it between the two of you.

Please signify your acceptance of these basic tenets of human and wikicommunication, and please undertake never to disrupt the desks again for spurious reasons. Please try to set a better example to the younger ones, who are so badly in need of shining examplars exemplars in this sorry world of ours. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you can't possibly know that they are guessing, that doesn't seem like an appropriate comment, in any case. Also, if you said "You always/often/tend to guess", then you are commenting on who they are, rather than what they did in a particular instance. And, of course, any such complaints about a reply belong here, not on the Ref Desk. We don't need to fight in front of the kids. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The frequency of someone's repeated action has nothing to do with who they are; it always remains a property of the action itself, albeit within the editor's control. It may be tiresome that someone often guesses when they really ought to be providing a reference once in a blue moon, but any comment on that is a comment or even an attack on the behaviour, not an attack on the editor personally. Now, if I were to say "All your relentless guessing does is demonstrate just how stupid you really are", or "You are the most awful person I've ever dealt with online", that's stepping over the line into a personal attack. As for guessing, there are often clues such as "I think", "I believe", "I feel", "It seems to me that" etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the generalizations that become a personal attack. Saying "You didn't give a reference in these cases..." is a statement of fact, while "You often don't give references" is your opinion, since what constitutes "often" is pure opinion. And expressing negative opinions about people is a personal attack. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I still disagree. An opinion about one isolated case is no different, in essence, from an opinion about a generality of cases involving the same editor. As long as whatever negative aspects of the opinions there may be, remain on focus on the behaviours in question, and not on the editor personally, they do not get into the area of a personal attack. It's really quite easy to separate the two. I accept that "often" can be a judgment call; but if one can provide links to multiple cases where an editor has engaged in undesirable behaviour, that cannot be contested. That takes a little work, and most of us are too lazy/busy to do that detective work, so we opt for the fallback of saying "you often/frequently/tend to ... do X". That's still not a personal attack. A mature editor on the receiving end will not automatically treat it as a personal attack, go into knee-jerk self-defence mode, and deny everything without incontrovertible proof, or hit back with some counter-claim - but will accept there is at least a grain of truth in the other editor's point, and will work to improve their modus operandi. We all do better when we accept genuine feedback from others, because how we intend some post, or some way of expressing ourselves, to be, is often not how others receive it, and we need to hear that. It works both ways. Of course, if one is not interested in ever improving oneself, then that's a different story. I guess such people exist, but they're not on my Christmas card list. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're still insisting on making the same unsubstantiated claims that you accuse the other editor of. Not to mention polluting the Ref Desk with arguments rather than focusing on giving an answer. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To what "unsubstantiated claims" do you refer? To what "arguments" do you refer? Where have I "polluted" the ref desk? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

1) 'most of us are too lazy/busy to do that detective work, so we opt for the fallback of saying "you often/frequently/tend to ... do X".' That's an unsubstantiated claim.

2) Criticizing other editors is likely to start an argument.

3) Neither arguments nor criticizing other editors belongs on the Ref Desk proper. You should instead put your efforts into answering the Q, or perhaps making the Ref Desk a more enjoyable place by adding a bit of humor. But not answering the Q while making it a more unpleasant place is definitely not helpful. StuRat (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: It is unarguable that anyone who posts "You often do such-and-such" has NOT gone to the trouble of tracking down each and every instance of the editor doing that thing and providing all the relevant diffs. I really don't get why you're making an issue out of this. The reasons for their making that statement could be many, but laziness and lack of time would certainly be right up there. To be clear, I am NOT supporting people making such general statements about other editors. I was simply explaining the background to such a statement, in an effort to justify my belief that, no matter how undesirable it may be to make posts like that, it is still not a personal attack.

Point 2 goes to the very purpose of this thread. I was reminding people that responses to personal criticism/attacks should not be posted on the ref desk proper (that's aside from the fact that personal attacks shouldn't be made in the first place, either there or anywhere else). I agree with point 3. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not the attacker's place to decide that the attackee should not take a givn comment personally. As you should know, per a discussion we had some months ago. Whatever it was I said, I didn't think it was a personal attack, but you did, so I apologized. I expect the same courtesy back from others. If the editor had said "that is incorrect" or "citation needed", instead of making a snippy and condescending comment, this whole deal would have been avoided. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What tangent are you on? Who ever said that it's "the attacker's place to decide that the attackee should not take a givn comment personally"? That is a total perversion of what this thread is about. All I've ever said is that, IF - repeat IF - an editor feels personally attacked by something another editor writes, and they want to seek redress or take it further, that should occur either on this talk page or either of the parties' own talk pages, but not on the Ref Desk proper. This is hardly the first time this call has gone out, and I thought that you would be more aware of that protocol than most, having been a denizen of these pages longer than most. That's why your reaction to what Alansplodge said got my attention. That was the first thing (the discussion taking place in the wrong place). But on top of that, I am also arguing that what Alan wrote was not a personal attack to begin with, not by any definition of that expression I'm comfortable with. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree that the editor should not have made his snippy comment to me in front of the OP. And if I don't get to decide what feels like a personal attack on me, then you don't get to decide what feels like a personal attack on you, either. I withdraw my previous well-intentioned but apparently scorned apology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, Bugs!!. You seem to be not reading anything I say. Am I speaking in Patagonian or something? Let me say it again.

* If an editor feels attacked personally, he CAN - repeat, CAN - do something about it, just NOT on the Ref Desk proper. Somewhere else.

How on earth does that become "I don't get to decide what feels like a personal attack on me"?

I'm saying you do get to decide that, and you do get to do something about it. What you just wrote is is yet another total perversion of anything I have ever said, written or thought. Your Grand Deflection to personalise this by withdrawing an apology you issued to me months ago really feels like a deliberate campaign to do anything but actually accept that the rules of this Reference Desk apply to all of us, including each of us.

I don't hold grudges, hence I've forgotten what that earlier exchange between us was all about, but I do remember it commenced on this talk page and continued on our own talk pages, certainly not on the Reference Desk. That's all I'm saying. Have these sorts of discussions behind closed doors, out of the spotlight. You were happy enough to abide by that protocol back then. Why do you have such difficulty accepting it now? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My proper course of action would have been to delete his snippy comments and re-post them on his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

When we phrase our insults like that, we go from personal attackers to personal attack weasels. I believe that seems to sound much worse. No source for that term, but Googling found something relevant at the top, so that'll do. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just commenting on StuRat's statement that we don't know when people are guessing. In fact, we often do. An absence of a reference is usually prima facie evidence, then there are the other tell-tale clues I mentioned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"An absence of evidence (sources) is not evidence of absence (of knowledge)". You are just guessing that they are guessing, which is just as bad. If you can provide evidence that they are wrong, that's one thing, otherwise it's just your guess against their statement, which may or may not be a guess. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guessed you'd know I understood, and would guess that I was branching off. If I know someone's an idiot, and say they "seem to be" an idiot, or "I believe you are an idiot", they can guess what I'm saying, even though I'm technically talking about me, not them.

And no, I'm not even vaguely hinting that I think you are an idiot. But by saying I'm not saying it, it still makes you guess whether I am. So we shouldn't be weaselly, even if we're not trying to attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I haven't read the first link and don't know what specific thing we're talking about. I'm just about the general question of what is and isn't an attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It can be tricky in real-life communication. If someone says "I don't trust you", that can be received by the hearer as an attack on them, in the sense of being told "You're untrustworthy". But on the surface it's a statement primarily about the speaker, and only marginally about the other person. If challenged, the speaker can deny they meant anything other than the literal meaning of the words they spoke. Whether the hearer believes them is up to them. So, where we have all the additional information that the non-verbals (voice tones, eye movements, etc) bring to the table, it can be easy to misconstrue the speaker's real intent, and that's just a property of the inherent complexity of RL spoken communication. But here, all we have is the words, and no non-verbals. So, it's just that much more impossible to presume to know what was really in an editor's mind when they typed whatever words they typed. Statements that are undoubtedly personal attacks should be given short shrift. Some other statements may be attacks in the mind of the writer, but it's impossible for the reader to know that, based solely on the words they post. We cannot ever get into the situation where people are punished, not even for their actual thoughts, but for what others presume to know what was in their minds. Just because A does not trust/like B because of some earlier interactions, that does not mean that whenever B says X, they're really meaning Y. Those who think they know better, usually don't. And that includes me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's assume that the personal attack included in the above was merely for illustrative purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see the correct spelling at wikt:exemplars.—Wavelength (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC) and 23:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the quality of personal attacks on Wikipedia is declining. I created a web page to address this situation: [ http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html ]. I hope this helps. :O --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to have missed DuncanHill's "fucking useless fucking hatters" 'edit summary', Jack. Now that's a classic. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I don't have this page on my watchlist, but someone seems to have mentioned me. "Fucking useless fucking hatters" was a general expression of frustration with the sort of people who fuck up the formatting, and hat loads of threads where one was hatted before. At the time I typed it I wasn't sure who had screwed up. I found out shortly after. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but I was raised on "Sticks and Stones", so anyone's free to call me (or my momma) any filthy thing, if it makes them feel better. Just do it on my Talk Page, where innocent people don't get offended and/or distracted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Eva Perón, saying somebody uses weasel words is not a personal attack. According to me, weasels are impressive, so not a personal attack to call someone one. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying that someone is prone to error is not a personal attack either, since that is something that all humans have in common. But saying "You are incapable of doing anything without stuffing it up" is a personal attack. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Even if it's true. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor who made that insulting comment has since apologized, so you can close this whenever you're ready. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Had you not raised the spurious issue of a personal attack, this thread would not exist. Would you be good enough to acknowledge that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Had he not raised the spurious issue of "guessing", nothing would have happened. It didn't occur to me that I needed to explain to the OP what "third person" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alansplodge's apology ("Apologies everybody, I picked up the wrong end of the stick") was, as I read it, for misconstruing the question and providing information in good faith (links and all) that turned out to be irrelevant to the OP. He apologised to "everybody", not to anyone in particular, and particularly not to you for mounting a personal attack on you, because, guess what, there was no personal attack on you, or anyone else, by anyone, including Alansplodge. But, as I pointed out at the start of this thread, even if Alan or someone really had attacked you personally, as unacceptable as that would have been, it's just as much of a crime to wage the battle with the offender right there on the front page. It'd be like 2 RL reference desk librarians having a bickering match right there in front of their clients and colleagues and other library users. It's just not on. Little kids come up with "But he started it". We don't do that. We take the offending party aside and have words behind closed doors. This talk page counts as closed doors, as does either party's personal talk page. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If he apologized to everyone, then he apologized to me. I do agree that the proper thing would have been to delete his attack and re-post it on his talk page, with a warning not to make comments like that in front of the user. But he apologized, so it's moot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Baseball Bugs: I think you're also getting carried away with your BLP complaint at "Who collects the reward?" I mean yes, it is technically correct to say that Roof is 'accused' of committing the killings, but of all the cases to go to the wall for, you want to pick this one? There is very little debate about this case in reliable sources. This ought to be a forum of reasonable people, not bureaucrats playing Policy Battle, and that's what complaints like that tend to make it into. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• • It would be a BLP violation to call the guy "the shooter" on his article, and BLP rules apply everywhere, hence it is also a BLP violation to call the guy "the shooter" on a ref desk. If you think BLP rules are "bureaucratic", take your argument to Wales and see what he has to say about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I wonder if it's a BLP violation to say that Matt and Sweat escaped in the 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape. I mean, it's only an allegation, hasn't been proven in court; maybe we should make sure to hold open the possibility they're both still in their cells and everybody just missed them. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying "they escaped" should be fine - to escape is to fulfill a fine and noble instinct. To claim that they committed any kind of crime in escaping would be a BLP violation in the absence of a specific conviction reported by a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say they escaped. When and if they are captured, their additional punishment, if any, will be determined according to state law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oops, late to the party. The bigger sin in the diff IMO is that Bugs either failed to respect WP:INDENT/WP:THREAD or thought that I was making a personal attack on him. I can tolerate rudeness, give and get hurt feelings, but we should at least format it all correctly!

The bigger issue is of course a pattern of behavior. I will freely admit to chiding other users here for not using refs to support their claims. Sometimes I have chided the same user on more than one occasion, but never for a first (or second, or third) offense.

is not a personal attack! It is the Wiki way! - Use liberally at your discretion (you are not responsible for any feelings that may result from use of this template. Please consult your ethicist or manners maven for further direction. Yes this is advice. ). While I'm sure each of you is an expert at something, please don't ask me to trust you. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but it doesn't matter if you can muster citations to support your claims. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It should really be for a certain percentage of unreferenced answers, not absolute count, as any ref desk regular, yourself included, is sure to have given over 3 unreferenced answers. 1000 unreferenced answers and 9000 with refs isn't that bad. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not even about ratio, it's about when a claim needs support and when it doesn't. Here is not the place to debate the philosophy of WP:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue compared to Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue, but as I think I have made abundantly clear, I will admit that I fall much closer to the latter approach. I have indeed posted many comments without references, but I doubt you can find many that constitute an "answer" to any question. Usually any un-referenced comments from me are discussion-oriented or clearly marked WP:OR. But I will live by my own medicine. If you or anyone else wants to call on one of my responses, I will not take it personally or call it an attack, but rather I will my best to either support the claim with a citation, or redact/flag as OR as appropriate. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

On the reference desk, all earnest attempts to answer a question should be referenced. Exceptions would be requests for clarifications, or simple comments that aren't intended to fully answer a question. Any attempts to provide a relatively complete answer should always be referenced. There are two possibilities 1) an answer is so obvious it doesn't require a reference (a claim StuRat frequently makes when called to task): if this is so, then it shouldn't even be provided: if it's that obvious, it doesn't need anyone to point it out. 2) An answer is not that obvious, and thus needs a reference. There's no reason why a person should ever answer a question with any kind of attempt at a real answer, without citing the source for their information. None at all. "citation needed" is not an accusation of lying. It's a statement that any answer which is not obvious to the question asker needs to be presented alongside references where the question asker can check the reliability of the answer. Any answer which is so obvious it doesn't need references doesn't even need to be typed out in the first place. --Jayron32 01:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's say the Q is how many days are in September. I can quickly give the correct answer. Yes, I could go find a reference to prove it, but why is that necessary ? Certainly if somebody doubts the answer a source can be easily found, but since that's never going to be an issue, looking up a source just seems like a waste of time. And we do get plenty of questions where the answer is obvious to most, but not all. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the answer was obvious enough to the OP, they wouldn't have asked. If it seems obvious enough to you, you should still provide a reference. If the OP didn't need a reference for the answer, then you have no reason to answer it. Obvious to you is not obvious to the OP, and the four extra keystrokes necessary to type [[September]] instead of merely September is not too much of a burden for you. If you can't even do that, you shouldn't be answering. This is not the "demonstrate how much smarter I am than the person who asked the question desk". It's the reference desk. Give a link. --Jayron32 03:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would provide such a link, but, as you know, Wikipedia is not consider to be a reliable reference. So then, I'd need to read through the sources for our September article to determine which contain reliable sources on the length of the month. If none of them did, then I'd need to find other sources. That's more time than the Q is worth. "If the OP didn't need a reference for the answer, then you have no reason to answer it" is just plain wrong. Unless they specifically ask for references, it's safe to assume what they want is the answer, not the sources. In that case sources are only necessary should their be a dispute about the answer. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't worth your time, don't answer it. It's that simple. --Jayron32 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I could say the same to you, where you provide lots of refs, apparently without reading them. If somebody on the Language Desk asks for a word with a specific meaning, I suppose I could just provide a link to an online dictionary, too, and say "your answer is in there". StuRat (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, Stu, your actions don't magically start being correct because you invent some reason to discredit the person who is pointing out that you're wrong. It is the reference desk still, and not the "make shit up first, then create fake reasons to discredit people who call me on my bullshit" desk. --Jayron32 02:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also not the "throw a dozen unread refs at them and hope one happens to support what you said" Desk. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read every reference I've ever put in a response. All of them. --Jayron32 02:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Really ? So when you provided 9 references in 10 minutes here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#.22Bringing_out_flavour.22, you read every source ? That seems impossible. Maybe you mean you just read the abstracts, which really isn't enough to know if the source answers the Q. And, since many of those sources were behind a paywall, you're really saying "Go buy all these articles, on the chance that they might answer your Q". I'm starting to see how you can provide so many sources so quickly. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So that means you can continue to provide no sources? Interesting argument. And we're not supposed to answer questions. We're supposed to provide references that could help a user answers questions. Whether or not I did or did not do anything is entirely unrelated to the idea of whether you should be encouraged to continue inventing answers and hoping no one calls you on it. You shouldn't. Give refs. The appropriateness of your actions is unrelated to whether or not I read abstracts or full articles. And I stand by my actions 100%. This is the reference desk. I provided references. What have your unreferenced, speculative, pull-out-of-your-ass answers done? --Jayron32 03:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What have your unread, paywalled, pull-out-of-your-ass refs done? StuRat (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You still don;t get to make up answers and avoid provide references. --Jayron32 03:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Alansplodge made the initial erroneous "guessing" comment, and then you added to it. Maybe I should have said "you all" instead of "you", in order to clarify matters. I really didn't think it necessary to go searching for a reference on what "third person" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you're just willfully misconstruing my comment there [1]. Please don't do that, that is a classic way to argue in bad faith. I asked you two questions, and made two statements. The fact that somebody can google things does not magically make your statements references. You writing "google [a phrase]" is not a reference. You can argue with the previous two sentences if you like (or the final two sentences of my comment in the thread), but you'll only make yourself look silly.

And you're still missing the point. Maybe Alan was wrong. Maybe you weren't guessing. I will put this in bold caps to make sure you read it. IF YOU DON'T POST REFERENCES WE HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW IF YOU ARE GUESSING, LYING, OR EVEN JUST CORRECT BUT TOO LAZY TO LINK TO A REFERENCE. This is a reference desk, Bugs. It's kind of our thing. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying I should have linked to an explanation of what "third person" is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I wasn't, but honestly, it's not that hard to put in some brackets so it becomes "third person", and that might be helpful in many similar cases. But that's not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is that if you had included any links or references with your very first comment at that thread, then probably nobody would have accused you of guessing. BTW I did google /your majesty third person/ and the first hit was wiktionary [2]. "Your majesty" is a second person construct, and the third person form is "his majesty". But none of that is relevant to the claims you made in the comment 1) that these are "indirect" forms of address, 2) that something is customary. Actually, this is all sort of irrelevant considering that none of that was even really addressing the question.

I only jumped in because in this case you made claims with no refs, then got all insulted when someone reasonably implied you were guessing. Just earlier today, you posted some good info on the confederate flag in Charleston. But no refs! The key thing in my mind is that we should always cite something if possible. So when you see me put below comments in the future, please understand that it is not a personal attack on anyone, it's my way of requesting that we all put out better effort to make the reference desk a more useful and helpful place. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a third-person form with a second-person function. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Jayron32:@StuRat: I don't think that we should require people posting responses to give references every time - though beyond doubt it is better to have them than not. Making a reply without references is like showing up to a party without a food item - better than missing it, but a faux pas regardless. But when you answer without giving references, you should at least be reasonably confident that you have seen some kind of reference somewhere in your life, and aren't just guessing blindly. And there are times when I do think StuRat just gives a blind, wrong guess [3] that really is way off the mark. Now that said, I don't think that guesses should be banned; they just need to be labelled. This is the Refdesk, after all, and questions are welcome, and so follow-on questions should also be welcome. If someone asks "why does this happen?" and you follow up "is it because...?", that's still on topic and on mission. It's only when you proclaim your guess as the truth when you know, I mean know, you just pulled it out of your butt that things go wrong. So I'd urge StuRat to think about where his 'answers' come from, and phrase/label them accordingly, and hopefully Jayron and others can live with that. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Stories (short and sweet)

I have started Wikipedia:Long stories made short (WP:LSMS) and Wikipedia:Bitter stories made sweet (WP:BSMS).
—Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting idea, thanks! Obviously shorteners/sweeteners can introduce bias, but that shouldn't be a big problem as the shortening is signed, and a person can always offer a different shortening if they don't like the way one has been written. This is essentially a way of formalizing things like "What I think user X is trying to say is that Y..." - and that form of discussing can often facilitate civil conversation. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, keeping our answers short and pleasant is a worthy goal. Unfortunately, many seem to have the exact opposite goals. StuRat (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I still wouldn't mind a little wordy exposition on this mysterious sweaty, possibly Turkish culture. There's such a thing as too short. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On topic, though, I don't like this idea at all, if you're serious. I'll delete all my posts before letting someone "fix" them. The words that go before our signatures (even when we use fake names) are meant to be ours. It's different in articles, where everything's in one voice. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The revised version is a supplement (not a replacement) for the unrevised version. The presence of "WP:LSMS" or "WP:BSMS" or both indicates that what follows is a revision. The presence of "shortened by" or "sweetened by" and two signatures and two timestamps indicates that the preceding post is a revision. A revised post allows editors to respond either to the unrevised post or to the revised version. Please note the times of day.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah.—User:Wordy (talk) 01:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)

This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readmuch (talk) 01:30, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)

This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readalot (talk) 03:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)

WP:LSMS: Blah blah blah.—User:Wordy (talk) 01:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC), shortened by User:Terse (talk) 02:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)

This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readlittle (talk) 02:30, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)

This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readabit (talk) 03:30, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That looks like it would inherently make the whole thread longer, for the sake of shorter posts. Seems counterproductive. But I like the idea of new ideas. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Or wait, I misunderstood. Probably all the "blah blah blah" instead of actual words. If you just want to write an extra condensed/sweetened version that doesn't get in the way, knock yourself out. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 27 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)

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)

Signature discussion

(Moved here by me, thought it was out of place at an otherwise completely reasonable thread. Original question here [4] 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.[5] 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, 1 July 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.

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 [6]. 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, 29 June 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, 29 June 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, 29 June 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, 1 July 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)

Good open-access academic bird resource

In the process of researching a question today ([7]), I came across the Searchable Ornithological Research Archive here [8], 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)

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[9] 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, 29 June 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, 29 June 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, 30 June 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, 1 July 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)

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)

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 [10]):

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 [11]. 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 [12]. 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)

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 [13]. 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 [14], or pissing in the punch bowl if you prefer an evocative metaphor: [15]. 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)

Regarding don't throw the baby out with the bath water, I've started a discussion about possibly changing the article's title. -Modocc (talk) 16:47, 10 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)

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)

Steering an OP toward a specific diagnosis or treatment is not "educating" them, it's possibly putting their life in peril. Only a doctor can diagnose or treat them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 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, 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)

Look what I found for you, the word integrity -- Space Ghost (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

:

Why are you guys not fighting?

I drank a 2L Coca Cola, I'm awake and booooooooooored!

My popcorn taste salty because you guys are owning up to your mistakes and being on your best behaviours...even others too who've not been...

Boooooooooriiiiiiiing!!!!! Boring boring boooooooooriiiiiiiing!!!!!

You guys can argue you know, just don't get into a 'catfight'!

However try to come up with a solution quick enough instead of leaving it as an argument... And others, try to provide a solution when you see two sides are arguing, if it gets lengthy/if found disruptive... Remember, good people use WP, whoever, however, we just have to represent goodness.

I'll throw this popcorn for now

Love you all!

Anyway, awaiting for actions and reactions (the daily e-dramas/WikiDramas)

Space Ghost (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of non-medical advice question on the rational of it being "medical diagnosis"

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.

---

My question was removed for being a "medical diagnosis". I don't believe questions about simple biological facts are "medical questions". There was no request for a diagnosis and I presented no symptoms to diagnose. Please can the removal be undone. Thank you. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is re: this.

The "medical diagnosis" diagnosis was incorrect, sorry for removing your question, the second time, with the wrong reason stated. The "trolling" diagnosis was the correct one.

Ejaculation is not the secretion of a fluid, not remotely similar or equivalent to salivation. Any reasonably intelligent adult would know that instinctively. Since you used and spelled the words "profusely salivate" correctly, one can conclude that you are a reasonably intelligent adult (despite spelling "woman" incorrectly, an error made by many intelligent adults). This, combined with no other contributions to Wikipedia from your IP address, combined with explicit sexual references, points strongly to trolling. As with all trolls, we ask you to go get your trolling jollies elsewhere, or just get a life.

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You make a lot of baseless assumptions and outright wrong statements. Firstly, semen IS a fluid. Secondly, I never said semen was similar to or equivalent to saliva, I am talking about the mental process that produces a physical reaction in the absence of physical stimulus (imagining salt/sex and the reaction that imagination has on the body). This is often called "pavlovian conditioning". Thirdly, I don't see what my intelligence level has to do with any of this. I don't claim to be an particularly intelligent person, and I admit to having very poor spelling abilities. This may not come across over a computer due to spell checker, but that doesn't pick up on grammatical mistakes. Lastly, in the year of 2015 there are very few people who have not heard of Wikipedia. It is nonsense to act like you expect a dynamic ip user to be a new person who has never seen Wikipedia before in their life, and then act like there is some grand ruse going on when the person shows knowledge of Wikipedia. It is disingenuous and nonsensical. I have never claimed to be a new user. I am not required to make X number of contributions to other pages on this dynamic ip before being allowed to ask a question on the reference desk. Your entire response seems biased and pre-judgemental. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true that there is no way that one can determine from the number of edits made from an IP address how much experience the human behind the IP address has. Other than that, you are not likely to get answers to silly questions by being confrontational and aggressive. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry if I have come across as "confrontational and aggressive", that was not my intention. I feel that I have been very civil and polite and explained myself in a calm way. I have only pointed out issues with the removal and subsequent comment, not the person who made it. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reported the IP at AIV. There is simply no ethical obligation to answer any question here, and the insistence that we do so simply affirms the trolling diagnosis. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not "insisted" that anyone answer the question. If you do not want to answer it, then don't. I only put it back after it was removed on false grounds, I have made no demands for it to be answered. If simply posting a question is an "insistence" then surely everyone here is guilty of that crime. I am allowed to post a civil comment to the talk page. Doing so is not an "insistence" that you personally answer the question, it is a discussion about the removal of the question which I feel is unjustified. If there is consensus that my question is not allowed, then I accept that. But one person (you) is not a consensus and there is no justification for removing the talk page comments.117.164.15.69 (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I assess the probability of this question being genuine to be quite low. There are quite a few places you can ask this question, other than on Wikipedia, to which you might find a more willing audience to engage with you on this question. Since the purpose of you asking the question seems to be purely for personal interest, then it may just remain an unanswered question you have for right now. A number of editors have preferred you not ask it, so it seems like something you can easily give up asking -- or simply ask somewhere else. Do you agree or intend to persist to ask your question, now and here? Mkdw^talk 00:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The editor sounds a little trollish. But the answer to the question is quite simple: the analogy is flawed. Thinking of sex can stimulate an increase in the production of semen, just as thinking of food may stimulate the production of saliva, but neither automatically triggers release of the produced substance from the body.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I asked it on Wikidpedia, on the science desk no less, because I was interested in a scientific answer and not an uninformed random guess from a 12 year old yahoo answers contributor. I also asked it on Wikipedia because I did not need to sign up with an account to ask it here. I do not have a regular internet connection and consequently do not have an email address, so making accounts on other websites is difficult. Indeed, the question is just for personal interest, as I imagine all questions on the reference desk are. I am not sure if I am misunderstanding something, but I only added it back once, I am not "persisting" to ask it. I am not sure what you mean by this. Discussing the removal is acceptable and allowed. I would like it added back, but I am not forcing the issue, I am simply discussing it. There appears to be consensus forming that it should not be added back, so I respect and accept that. However, without the discussion that wasn't clear. The removing editors judgment is not iron-cast, indeed his report of me to the admins has been rejected which demonstrates that. Overall I feel that I have been misrepresented as a trickster when I just asked a simple and in my opinion acceptable and interesting question. I was not rude and I have not insisted or forced anything at all. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77 has seemingly provided you with an answer. I came here because of an AIV report. Myself and one other sysop reviewed your contributions and found no grounds to block or warn you. Understand that Wikipedia receives not only blatant vandalism but often disingenuous ways to disrupt the project within the strict confines of the rules and policies in place. It can be an exhaustive process and when it does get through, causes a great amount of damage and consumes countless hours of volunteers. Your question has many of the characteristics of that type of disruption so you perhaps may not have deserved to included in that category, but were flagged nonetheless. Sometimes we flag genuine interest but it is a cost of protecting the encyclopedia. Not perfect but what we have at the moment. I suggest we put this to bed, end this conversation, and if you're interested in pursuing it further, you can do so on Jeffro77's talk page. Mkdw^talk 01:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'm sorry that this question caused a problem, that was not my intent. I thought there would be an obvious and uncontentious answer to it, I did try to search with google before asking but couldn't find anything. I didn't like that it was unilaterally removed and then the discussion about the removal also removed. I accept the removal of the question now, I'm not adding it back. I do still feel that the removal of this thread was entirely unjustified though. Anyway, thank you. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already provided the only response to the question that I'm going to. I am not interested in continuing the discussion on my Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is fine. The tongue does not store produced saliva for later release so your answer is not accurate anyway, thus I have no desire to talk further with you about it. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Saliva is also not mandatory expelled from the body when produced. If you still claim to not understand why the analogy is flawed, you're simply a troll.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. The question was based on my personal experience of imagining a table spoon of salt. When I do this, my mouth automatically releases lots of saliva, even though there is no actual salt present anywhere near me. I assumed this was a normal reaction that most people experienced. If it is not, then I apologize. It is unfair to label me a "troll" on a simple misunderstanding. Regardless, the tongue does not store saliva, the salivary glands produce it on demand. 117.164.15.69 (talk) 01:38, 11 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.

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, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I mean I don't like it for my username. It's some fine wordplay. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, 8 July 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, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Idea/Solution 1: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)

Idea/Solution 2: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, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your example. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 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)

Idea/Solution 3: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)

Thank you for being honest! Appreciated. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 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)

I'm not aware of StuRat's behaviour completely. I believe you guys have used your past experiences or memory. This post needs 'referencing' in order for analysis peeps.

Also, what I done above and below, I've done to the best of my English reading knowledge (I only found 3 ideas), if I'm wrong, please make it right - Myself and Guy should've started it the way I designed it, I believe; however, I could be wrong... -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Please Vote:

Idea/Solution 1:

Idea/Solution 2:

Idea/Solution 2:

Note for a new voter: Please use "|" after the previous voter. If you wish to make a comment, you'll receive a chance next time (under the Idea/Solution: section, and or, you'll also have the 'Please Vote:' section to vote/display the majority). I won't be here (like Stu) all the time to help out, to help you have an idea, to help you understand somehow or someway, to say something anonymous which will make you think or might give you an idea, or say something i.e. relative, so, follow this design if you wish or make a new one; whatever suits you guys. This design is just a thought. Thanks in advance. -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

In case you are wondering why the above has received zero responses, everyone has given up on straw polls and RfCs. The last 300 polls didn't change anything, so why would anyone believe that the result will be different this time? The weird format didn't help, either. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment for a better format. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Blanking

There has recently been an attack on the Reference Desks by throw-away accounts who blank each of the entire Reference Desks. The users include User:Enochwasright666, User:TheLPStick, User:Perchingpros, and User:Haydiddlediddle44. I would like to thank the users who have reverted the vandalism and the admins who have blocked the sockpuppet accounts. (That is, all but one of them are sockpuppet accounts, since the duck test implies that there is only one human behind the accounts.) User:Gogo Dodo has semi-protected the Reference Desks for 31 hours, which will prevent new throw-away accounts from editing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've asked him to do this one too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need to protect this talk page. It hasn't been subject to blanking. One troll doesn't warrant protecting a talk page. In general, semi-protecting a talk page is a last resort. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You missed this one:[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

However, is anyone at this talk page an administrator? Can someone block trolling IP addresses? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that the vandal did blank this talk page once. It appears that this talk page was semi-protected by User:Gogo Dodo, but only for a few hours, and that the semi-protection had expired when the troll got in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Obituary question

Now that we've figured out who the OP was asking about on the Humanities desk, should the entire thing be rev-del'd as protection for the ordinary citizen whom it's about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I am the OP (original poster) of the "obituary question". I don't understand this thread, here at this page. The comment above was time-stamped at 16:27. In effect, the editor asserts: "now that we have figured out who the person is". However, on my Talk Page, time-stamped at 16:38, the same editor specifically asks me, in effect, "have we figured out who this person is?". I don't understand the sequence. The first post (16:27) was eleven minutes before the second post (16:38). The first post claims that "we" (not sure who "we" refers to) "figured it out". And the second post, eleven minutes later, contradicts that by asking if "we" have figured it out. What's going on here? This is the link to my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Obit question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I should have said "think we have" figured it out. And I'm not saying it should be rev-del'd - I'm asking others whether they think it should be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Asking in a public forum, and this is a public forum, whether something should be redacted draws attention to it, known as the Streisand effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right in general. But the info in question is already on the internet in various places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The great thing about dead people is they don't need protection. Don't need anything. Won't actually "roll over in their graves", and if they did, who'd notice? If this obituary is about a living person, disregard this opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Funny. The dilemma is obituaries which contain the names of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I had to hazard a guess, that looked too long to read. From what I saw, though, nothing harmful, in a slander way. Naming alone isn't so bad. Might have missed something (because I definitely did). Some of that discussion is a bit shameful, but we're (mostly) pseudonymous here.

Still half-disregard this as an uneducated opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, your comments are good. And in a circuitous way, the OP's question was answered - and hopefully he's got a better idea now, of how to do "detective work" in Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. (I am the OP.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like beating my laptop with a phonebook when Google "corrects" me. But then I can't find a physical phonebook, thanks to Google. Probably for the best. Going around in circles isn't exactly quick, but widens the scope of knowledge. All's well that ends well. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Joke of the Day

Has anybody noticed this. Mars had a face, this one looks like it has God's left foot stamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pluto_by_LORRI_and_Ralph,_13_July_2015.jpg -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha, most people were calling it a heart, but these images do make it look more like a left foot print [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Take it to a forum, folks. This isn't such a place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

On the National Geographic TV series "Brain Games", they often talk about how our brains are wired to try to make sense out of random phenomena, such as seeing the face of Jesus or Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich. Or the "Louis, Louis" situation. A recent example would be the "Minions" character toys being given away at McDonald's. The toys can utter a few phrases of gibberish, but some customers insist they are hearing profanity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The term you're searching for is Apophenia. --Jayron32 04:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And also Pareidolia, which has a nice gallery of examples. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

: You guys mean perihelion and aphelion - http://www.slideshare.net/ricdagdagan/dwarf-planet-pluto-2015?related=1 -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Did you know..." style content on this talk page

Hi, I'm wondering what people would think about users occasionally sharing interesting references on this page. I've done this a few times in the past, along the lines of "Here's a resource you might find useful in responding to questions". But we have so many varied and interesting responders here, I think we'd could have more interesting DYK-style posts here than on the main page (plus those are limited to new WP content). I believe this would help improve the ref desks, albeit in a roundabout way. Often we have very little content here for weeks, then an argument or dispute flares up. I think sharing fun facts (with references!) would help morale and civility in our community. The only downside I can see is if too many people want to post that kind of thing, then it could distract from more important issues. But I don't think that's too likely, and we can curtail the behavior if it becomes disruptive.

An example:

• Did you know, males of some Sapphirina copepod species can use circular polarization and the crystalline structure of their shells to flash patterns of iridescence? It is thought to be used to attract mates, similar to the display of lightning beetles. See some nice video here [18].

So, what do you think? SemanticMantis (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have done this in the past as a follow up to a previous question that has aged off the board, and I provide a link. I don't just do it out of the blue, though. In any case, I don't object to anything that's not trolling or disruptive. One could always smuggle in a new thread saying, "I have found this interesting source, The Xyz of the Abcde, does anyone know of any similar works?

μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I like fun facts. Did you know they're not always fun? Still informative, though. Did you know "One to Grow On" became "The More You Know", or that your body belongs to you and you know that? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that when your body doesn't belong to you, "The only thing about sex is deciding who's going to be the agent of motion"? Thanks again, E! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. Tevildo (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting NBC (or its generally creepy electric uncle) would intentionally lie to screw innocent people? If not, I sure am. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, no, I will not abuse this proposed feature in confusing ways. Not everything is so iridescent, circular and polarizing as the Family Ties era. I support using it Mantis-style. Straightforward, with our eyes directly on the prize. If Chicago's Humanities Division can win, can't we? Probably! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Blobs and editing

Question moved here as being off topic on the Project page.

• Some editors, not all by a long way, seem to tend to begin some of their contributions with a blob. I wonder why they do this? Is it to draw particular attention to their own thoughts at the expense of others', or is there some other reason?

I'm not counting lists here, it tends to happen at indent level 1, or maybe when there wouldn't normally be an indent - in this case, it produces a sort of indent. Also, sometimes a contribution that you might expect at level 2 or lower becomes a level 1 by putting the blob. Perhaps all entries at level 1 should begin with a blob - but I don't understand why.

I use no indent when I think I am starting another thought that follows directly from the question - as opposed to any intermediate contribution. Should this be a blob?

On the current page, the first two questions seem quite happy without blobs. The third has a couple of them, and the fourth and fifth have none. Then for some other questions they are present in more profusion. Is this because there are more contributions by certified blob-users?

• As a fairly new contributor to this page, I'd like to know the unwritten rules, or the written ones if there are any. Myrvin (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullets (what you call "blobs") seem to be a personal preference thing. One advantage is that it can make it easier to tell one person's contributions from another's (unless each person uses multiple bullets for each point). One disadvantage is how multiple bullets on one line display seems to depend on if there is a blank before that line:

• • Line 1, with a blank line before and no blank after.
  • Line 2, with no blank before, and one after.

• • Line 3, with a blank line before and after.

Personally I think it doesn't matter, as long as you indent from the person who you are responding to. So, no indents when asking a Q, one indent when responding to it, 2 indents when responding to that responder, etc. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

By a blob, do you mean a bullet at the beginning of the post, created by starting the post with an asterisk? I never heard a bullet referred to as a blob until now. A blob is a binary large object, an unstructured mass of data (or a mass of data whose structure is only known outside the DBMS). I certainly don't want to see a post starting with a massive piece of data whose structure is defined outside the schema. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• You have a dictionary I do not possess. Chambers says "1.A drop or globule; 2.Anything soft and round; 3.A round spot; 4.A score of zero, a duck (cricket sl)" Myrvin (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I do know people call them bullet points. Chambers says of these: "4.(also bullet point) a solid dot used to highlight items in a list (printing)". I spent an awful long time producing lectures using PowerPoint. I've used a considerable number of them. However, I excluded lists from my question. This seems to be an odd use of the little beggar. Myrvin (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this question unique to the Reference Desk, or does it concern talk pages in general? If it concerns talk pages in general, should it be at the Village pump (policy) or the Help Desk? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've not noticed it so much elsewhere. Myrvin (talk)

Per WP:INDENT, you should never use zero-level indentation when replying to a question on the ref desks. I personally find that very rude - it makes it so everything else posted below looks like it is a reply to that comment, and there's no way to resume proper indent style. (As I type, I realize Robert did just this! See how it is confusing? I'm not replying to him, I'm replying to the OP. So I have to either add an indent to Robert's post, or post above his, or suffer the broken threading. Sorry Robert, nothing personal, just a timely example :)

Bullets are mostly used by personal preference and when someone feels it is needed for clarity. Sometimes it is a call for attention; sometimes I'll use a bullet if I'm providing actual references after a long thread of guesses, jokes, etc. Sometimes it's useful for list-like things that aren't lists, such as the examples here [19]. Also, often once one responder uses a bullet, others will follow suit, that's why they pile up in some threads but not others. I essentially agree with Stu - it doesn't matter much one way or the other. Use them if you like, don't if you don't. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was wrong to say I use no indent when answering a question, I always (try to) use one indent. The blob user seems not to use an indent, allowing the point to do it it for him/her. Myrvin (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of the asterisk form, when others haven't used it, looks like the contributor is saying, "Never mind what all those other people said - look at this!". Myrvin (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand that can seem frustrating at times. However, in other situations, that is precisely what is called for, in my opinion. See e.g. the example I link below where I just used one for that purpose, because I was the only person usefully addressing the question with a reference. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(The layout is confusing, so I need to state explicitly that I am replying to the original post by the original poster.) The present layout makes it difficult to identify the original poster, and it makes it appear that the original post ends with the words "but I don't understand why" and a full stop. I checked the history and found that the original poster is Myrvin and the original post was made at 18:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC). Instructions on using indentation on talk pages can be found at WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD. However, I have noticed that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost has different instructions for its talk pages. For example, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/WikiProject report says, in part, "Please start your comment with a star sign (*), ...". I propose that the latter be revised to be in harmony with WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC) and 20:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC) (only adding full stop)

Why doesn't an indent of one do that? Several questions, with lots of contributions, seem to be clear enough without blobs. I think I am agreeing with you. Myrvin (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It is because the text ending with "but I don't understand why" and a full stop can be mistaken for the first post by the first poster—sometimes posts are unsigned—and the subsequent text ending with "if there are any" and a full stop can be mistaken for one or more replies to it. (Also, my first post might appear to be a reply to an unindented post by Robert McClenon.)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the confused layout. I was crudely trying to make a point about points and indents. My original post ends with "if there are any." Myrvin (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It can be a little annoying when it switches from one style to another. But when you said "blob", I was trying to recall any editor who ever started a sentence with a binary large object. Bullet-point or just bullet would be the more usual term. That's the term MS Word uses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See above on my definitions of blob and bullet point. Does your annoyance extend to the change in style on the project page, by the use of blobs? I did use Word for years and years too, and I think MS Word also suggests using it for lists, not for what it is used for here. The use here is not for a list. I did use a Binary Large Object once, but it disappeared into an adjacent black hole. It's odd that a very new acronym is what first comes to peoples' minds when the word blob is used. Why not the film The Blob? Myrvin (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned blobs being binary large objects because that is a throw-back to my career as a database designer. In Word, one can attach an arbitrary file, which is treated as a binary large object. I know that no one would really post a binary large object in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Coo! That's a relief. Myrvin (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

People might also read Bullet (typography). Myrvin (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• But let us not get sidetracked on the word blob. I think we all know the object that appears when an asterisk is used during editing. Why are these used on the project page? Myrvin (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

They are used when a poster feels that it will be helpful for organization, clarity, or emphasis. Or maybe just because they like them. I don't understand what's so hard to understand. There is no official guideline that I know of that discusses their usage on the ref desks. Some people use them, some don't. I thought they were very helpful on the thread I linked above. Just now [20] I used one because the rest of the thread was not helpful (not answers, no refs, challenging the question, etc), and I wanted to draw OP's eyes to my referenced answer. I do agree that it can be slightly confusing when they look like indents. That's platform-dependent though. For example the bullet points don't take up an indent level on my phone's browser. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that a question about the Reference Desk, or about talk pages in general? If it is about talk pages in general, try the Village pump (policy) or the Help Desk. Bullets are common in responses to RFCs and in some other vehicles. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that was asked above. I said I hadn't seen it so much on Talk pages. Myrvin (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick check on the current other ref desks. The asterisk form is very rare. Some desks get by without using it at all. And strangely, when it is used, it's usually by the same people using it here. Myrvin (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless they are in lists, I don't see them much on the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All page, except on ALLOW / DISALLOW comments - this could be a special use. Myrvin (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• My practice is to indent without a bullet under the response immediately above mine (1) if I am directly responding to it, or (2) if I am responding to the "staircase" above, even if not only to the last step in the staircase. If I make a comment which pretty much stands on its own, I use a bullet which both serves to indent myself under the OP's question, and to make it clear that "a new post starts here".

I find a lot of posts in a row with no bullets and no difference in the level of indenting very had to follow, since what looks like a 20 line response may be something written by four different editors. I don't normally use a bullet if indenting, except in the not very common circumstance that we get a bulleted staircase. Overall my desire is ease of reading. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Consecutive posts of equal indentation can be distinguished from each other more easily (1) if they are separated from each other by blank lines, and (2) if signature-timestamps are adjusted to the left margin of the indented posts.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do sometimes put my signature on the left margin, often moving it there after someone has posted after me without enough space or an indent. The problem is that you can't control those who post after you or who, worse, blithely interpose their edit conflict before your earlier edit but without double indentation or "(ec)" so that it looks like your comment is a sloppy afterthought unless the reader checks the timestamps. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I think I understand what is going on here. Here is a list of my conclusions:

• The blob is not part of some secret code. E.g. It's not for the use of more important editors, or people who think they are.
• There are, in WP as a whole, very few users of the blob.
• For some reason, there are several users on this ref desk, and it seems that those users use it elsewhere as well.
• The blob is not really necessary. Editors get by quite well without it.
• I don't like it. But then I'm not an important editor.
• It looks to me like a version of WP:SHOUT, and should be discouraged. Again, why would anyone listen to me? However, looking at WP:SHOUT, it says, for Talk pages, that bulleted points are the sort of "format errors" that could/should be removed: "Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC)". It also says, "Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)."
• Myrvin (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the use of bullet points on the RD either. If I'm replying to an earlier post that starts with one, I will usually delete it. --Viennese Waltz 08:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that might be the way forward. If blob-users don't like that, they can try to get WP:SHOUT changed. Myrvin (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sometimes I like to make my points separate
• Sometimes I want to visually distinguish my post from a sea of text at the same indent level
• Sometimes I like to use typographic emphasis
• Sometimes I like to use even more emphasis
• Bullet points can be used as a form of emphasis
• Emphasis is not WP:SHOUT
• Telling others what not to do doesn't historically work out well here
• Editing other users' posts is strongly discouraged on the ref desks
• Users editing the bullet points out of others' posts may be taken as a sign of unwarranted aggression ;)

Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is causing much to much bad feeling. I didn't mean to do that. I hereby withdraw and surrender. Myrvin (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, no hard feelings here, I just didn't like it when you implied people should remove others' bullet points. Maybe I misread and you didn't mean that. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments (WP:TPOC) (version of 05:10, 22 July 2015) includes the following example of "appropriately editing others' comments" (underscore mine).

• Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation. Another helpful template is the Talk page Reflist, {{reflist-talk}}. The template should be placed after the discussion that includes the references, as it will include all references before the template.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Mysterious Balls of Goo. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected talk page?

Guidelines indicate that when a user talk page is semi-protected, the user should provide a separate, unprotected "talk page". Would it make sense to do something like that here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that a BLP attack is a BLP attack whether it's on a protected or unprotected page, it makes no sense at all to consider adding an unprotected talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)