Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Changing the headers at RD

Hi, I have a few questions about headers. I vaguely understand that it is no good to edit other people's posts, and in particular changing headers, because it is not very polite, and it could break a link. Is it so? But in some case it seems convenient to do it, maybe with the permission of the questioner, e.g. in case of too generic, not meaningful headers. Another thing: a header should not be a math string, right? But can a header contain a math string? Thanks, --pma (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk guidelines state:

If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title (such as "question"), but it is best to keep the original title as a portion of the new one, as it may be used by the questioner to find the question.

This is consistent with Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, which state:

Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.

Good practice (if a heading is linked from elsewhere) is to include an {{anchor|old heading name}} template to prevent breaking old links. Also, modifying the question title should not change the context of the question, nor should links be added to question titles (doing so might imply that the questioner referenced the article/link). In general, headings should be changed when they are substantially unclear. – 74  17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, GREAT answer. Regarding the last bit of the OP about math strings, I don't know what the guidelines say (sorry!) but I would suggest limiting characters in headers to those that are found on a common keyboard (numbers, + - / * = etc). --Scray (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another occasionally problem is having two identical headers. This "confuses" the software, and all links to that section title then go to the first of the two. If the OP posts two questions on the same subject, and gives each the same title, it's quite reasonable to tack on a "(Part 2)" on the 2nd question, to make it unique. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to use common-sense though. Changing the header completely will make it hard for a person to find their question - but in some cases it's absolutely necessary to do something. Just the other day an OP asked two completely different questions on wildly different subjects - with one heading...that's a recipe for confusion - so I snipped the post in two and split the header - and left a note explaining why. SteveBaker (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted question - German/Jew

I have just restored a question that was deleted here. The deletion was done with the edit summary "rm antisemitic question". I can't see anything remotely antisemitic about the question or the one answer that had been provided. The same editor also posted a comment here accusing another editor of antisemitism for asking questions about Bernie Madoff in a topic where Madoff's religion was not even mentioned. (I'd like to remove that comment as well, but another editor has since responded to it.) Not quite sure what to make of that. - Eron^Talk 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse restoration; valid question with no comprehensible reason given for removal. Algebraist 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is one of those people who cannot see the difference between -- for example -- making a racial slur and discussing racial slurs. Good job, Eron -- but for future reference, you shouldn't remove the other comment, even if no one had responded to it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also support the restore, for the reasons mentioned above. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were an antisemitic question - that's not really a reason to remove it. It MIGHT, however, be a pretty strong reason not to answer it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible medical advice question: "Painful_bumps_in_Inner_Lip"

Actually, I have no doubt that this is a medical advice Q, since it listed a symptom and then asked for a diagnosis. I can see no way to answer any part of this Q without offering medical advice. Therefore, I would like to add the template, including links to any relevant articles. Any objections ? Does anyone know of any relevant articles ? StuRat (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is relevant is based on a diagnosis. If you link to one or two possible causes of painful bumps, you are diagnosing the condition. Also notice the vagueness. Does "inner lip" refer to the inside of the mouth or the inside of the vagina? "Inner" really makes it an issue because it could mean "inside" as in mouth or "inner" in relation to an inner and outer "lip". Which one do you want to diagnose? -- kainaw™ 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "lip", without qualification or context, means the lips on the mouth. If our lip article was a disambiguation page pointing to both, you might have a point, but it's not. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim "lip" was ambiguous. I claimed "inner lip" was ambiguous. "inner" does give it qualification/context, but does not ambiguously. -- kainaw™ 13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that providing links to likely diagnoses is identical to giving diagnoses...so no. The rule is that the OP isn't allowed to ask this kind of question - and we don't answer this kind of question. So let's not. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd want to try and game the system here really. It's not like we're playing with anything trivial, it could potentially be a serious health problem. If the OP wants information on this, he/she should go see a medical practitioner, end of story. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Any objections ?" - Yes, not surprisingly, I also object. The OP seems satisfied with the two responders' assessment and the comments here seem to support those decisions. There seems a burning desire to challenge the apparent consensus that I don't understand. Comments? -hydnjo (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I agree with the consensus that this is a medical advice Q; I'm not challenging it in any way. It just seemed odd that nobody included the template, so I asked about it. I wonder if I could even wish people a happy St Patrick's Day without being attacked here. StuRat (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are some cases where providing links to topics the OP has raised might be appropriate, however, unless we happen to have an article Bumps on inner lip or similar, linking to presumed causes strays dangerously close to diagnosis. The template itself, minus the links, provides pretty much the exact same content as the current responses. Add the template if you like, but leave off any links to relevant articles that might be misconstrued as a diagnosis.

I also note that under "current guidelines" this question should have been removed entirely. I think this question and the current responses serve as a fine example that immediate and unconditional removal is *not* necessary, since the responses made RD policy clear and the OP clearly accepted the result. No medical advice was given, no harm was done, etc., despite the fact that a question even StuRat labeled a "medical advice Q" was not removed. (That said, noting a clear example of the system *not* failing will probably just spur someone to remove it "per guidelines".) – 74  00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for an article just like bumps on inner lip, only under a more scientific name for the condition. If we don't have such an article, then there's no point in the template, I agree. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But for this tread this entire matter would have ended unceremoniously. The template devoid of any relevant links seems redundant at best and WP:POINT at least. The question had appropriate responses and if the OP were to return he would be further enlightened how exactly? -hydnjo (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for unceremonious endings. The template would indeed be redundant, but I know of no guideline that prohibits redundant responses. While I would generally consider a redundant response a waste of time, the ceremony of discussing if and how wasteful it is is at least an order of magnitude worse than the response itself. In short, I see little reason to add the template, less reason to oppose the addition (sans links), and no reason whatsoever to discuss the potential addition of the template. (Which I suppose I've now done; drat.) – 74  03:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the reason for the change to remove questions entirely (instead of just answer them with "we cannot answer") was because users would invariably start offering medical advice. It is clear to anyone who has read the reference desk for a while that if a question has one response that states "We cannot answer this. Nobody should answer this. Please do not answer this. Go on to the next question. Stop thinking about an answer. Just stay away from that edit link and move on..." Someone will give another answer - and another and another and another. I've had my own comments, telling others not to answer, deleted and replaced with answers. The only solution found that kept people from offering medical advice was to remove the question and remove the temptation. Now, the pendulum is swinging back in the hope that leaving a question with a note that it shouldn't be answered will be enough to stop medical advice. Until we have the ability to lock a single thread, I seriously doubt that it will work. No matter how clear we make a warning that no user should offer any further answers, someone will feel a life-threatening need to offer some anecdote, link to a page, or complete diagnosis and treatment. Once one person does that, another will follow. When two or three start, others will feel that it is the consensus that everyone should offer whatever anecdote comes to mind. Then, we will return to the "delete the thread" mentality. -- kainaw™ 03:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that the reason some users continue to give answers is because they disagree with the first responder's claim of "request for medical advice". [A few links would be helpful.] I am unconvinced that using a template would persuade those later users that this is indeed medical advice and therefore should not be answered. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is one case. Another case is the people who provide answers because they feel that being told not to give medical advice is a challenge and they must provide medical advice to prove that they don't have to follow the rules. Then, there are those who provide answers just because they can't help but click the edit link. -- kainaw™ 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple occasions where removing the question has *not* prevented respondents from answering, as are there good examples of unremoved questions *not* being improperly answered. I have assembled a list of "medical" questions on the Science desk so far this year; I welcome the community's analysis and comments. – 74  17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A proper removal would also remove answers. Any subsequent answers should be removed too. A note could be added to the answerer's talk page for good measure. The occasions where a removal didn't prevent answers are no doubt due to stubborn editors refusing to follow the guidelines. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. Do you want to change the guideline? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If I say "yes" then I'll be avalanched by people who believe the medical advice guidelines are sacrosanct. I'm merely pointing out that A) removing the question doesn't prevent answers, and can apparently inspire more controversy than leaving it with a clear "medical advice" response; and B) the community already does this in a number of cases and the results are far from catastrophic. Does that mean we, as a community, are failing to perform "proper" removals? Or does it mean we, as a community, do not necessarily agree that question removal is required? Or does it mean I, as an individual, have horribly misinterpreted the cases I referenced? At least one inquiring mind wants to know. – 74  20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding A and B: I agree, but the reason for removing medical questions is to prevent harm from coming to the questioner due to faulty or incomplete advice. Remember, the template doesn't guarantee that there won't be any subsequent answers nor do any of the other ideas that have been put forward (even one by me). So we err on the side of caution and remove the questions. It's not a perfect system but it seems to be the safest. Of course, there will be some questions that seem like they should be removed but actually pass the test (like this, imo). These we can discuss. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

a note on backfilling "empty" days

When the RD bot archives a desk, it does not pay any attention to the date headers (because it does not trust them). Rather, it looks at the dates as signed on the entries themselves, since those usually accurately reflect the date a question was actually asked.

This means, however, that when a day goes by empty, and someone laments this fact by composing some humorous little epitaph within the empty day after the fact, their entry will typically not be archived along with the empty day, but rather, on the next day (assuming that's when the entry was actually added).

For example, at 00:20 on March 15, hydnjo added this entry to the Mathematics desk, under the March 14 header. But by the time the bot was done archiving the 14th and 15th, the entry had been moved into the 15th, and the 14th was again empty (actually, nonexistent).

Normally I don't worry about this. In this case, since the content was so closely tied to the 3/14 date, I manually cleaned things up, but it was a bit of a nuisance, and as I say, it's not something that's usually worth fussing over.

Just something to be aware of before you spend too much time belatedly adding content to an otherwise empty day... —Steve Summit (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying we need to forge the date/time stamp of the original post the next time this happens?   ;-)   – 74  15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't explicitly say that, but I meant to. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:34:56, 02 October 1961 (PT)

Oops, sorry about that. I will not start a new thread after 23:59 under any date's header. I will not start a new thread after 23:59 under any date's header. I will not start a new thread after 23:59 under any date's header. I will not start a new thread after 23:59 under any date's header..... :-( hydnjo (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't know you could stack </small> tags like that. Matt Deres (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You can, but please don't! You can get away with 2, but after that I can't read it... --Tango (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When used that way it's not intended to be read but rather to indicate a very long continuation as in hydnjo (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well put! (But you forgot the link to 0.9999999999 :-) .) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. Our article clearly states that 0.999... "does not equal 1 " an so I left out the misleading link ;-) -hydnjo (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is first aid medical?

Medical advice discussion moved from this question – 74  15:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't give medical advice. I suggest you speak to a doctor. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but this is not medical advice, it's first aid, which does not require medical training. The OP hasn't mentioned what manner of injury they're talking about, but moderate amounts of cold are the usual course for many acute injuries (i.e. bumps, bruises, burns, scrapes) because the cold restricts blood flow and reduces swelling. It may also provide some pain relief. Warmth may be used in some longer term therapies, but that is medical advice, or at least the kind of thing that would need to be decided based on the nature of the injury. Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First aid is a form of medical treatment. --Tango (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IcyHot? I'm not trying to give advice, though. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. First aid is treatment provided by lay persons who serve to stabilize casualties until they can receive actual medical attention. In the presence of medical personnel, first aiders immediately surrender control of the situation (though they may provide assistance if requested). Telling someone to ice an acute injury is not medical advice, it is standard first aid treatment. See RICE. Matt Deres (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First aid doesn't require training? What the heck did I go to Red Cross classes for? It's not that great a pick-up scene, believe me! Seriously, though, administering first aid without at least some kind of formal training can be very dangerous in certain circumstances. --Ericdn (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'd been paying closer attention in class, you'd have heard them mention something along the lines of, "This is not medical training. By attending these classes, you have NOT become a medical practitioner, etc. etc." You've been given a form of safety training, not medical training; you treat symptoms, you do not diagnose problems or prescribe medications. When you do stuff like that, you are practising medicine without a license and/or impersonating a doctor. Matt Deres (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No-one on any first aid course I have been on ever thought it necessary to tell us that there was a difference between a one-day first aid course and six years of medical school. Are you claiming that only doctors have medical training? What about paramedics? Nurses? Physiotherapists? Medical technicians? Field medics? Midwives? etc. etc. etc. There may be some overlap between those groups, depending on how the terms are defined where you are and the legal requirements. --Tango (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I never once claimed that I have any medical training. I have first aid training, which is certainly better than no training at all if there's an emergency, and one must wait for actual medical practitioners to arrive. I know how to administer CPR, for example, and how to properly make a tourniquet. People without first aid training trying to do these things could easily make the situation much worse. --Ericdn (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never claimed that only doctors had medial training. I assume you're aware that paramedics and nurses aren't just folks off the street with an eye for white fashion, right? The first line of our article states "A paramedic is a medical professional" and goes on to mention that "the use of the word paramedic is restricted by law, and the person claiming the title must have passed a specific set of examinations and clinical placements, and hold a valid registration, certification, or license with a governing body." During the course of their day, they have to perform the same functions as a first-aider, but their job goes much further than that (they can give medication, for example), which is why they have to pass the rigorous instruction period to qualify as medical personnel. Seriously, what are you arguing? That two weeks of First Aid instruction really is the same as holding a paramedic cert or a nurse license? If not, then we're in agreement that first aid doesn't have to be performed by medical personnel. Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CPR is a treatment for cardiac arrest, which is a medical condition. Therefore it is medical treatment. Training in how to perform CPR is, thus, medical training. (I'm surprised you mentioned tourniquets as your second example of first aid - first aid courses I've been on have said you should almost never use them. I wasn't aware they were still taught beyond a brief mention.) --Tango (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

CPR is a better-than-nothing treatment of the symptom of a stopped heart; the first aider does not diagnose the problem or provide medication, they treat the symptom. At that, CPR only serves to maintain a trickle of bloodflow to the brain; according to the nurse who did the training the last time I got refreshed, it is exceedingly rare for someone to recover from CPR alone. They need to be defibbed. The situation with CPR is also somewhat different than standard first-aid (which is why it's often a separate course); the person you're working on is essentially dead already (no heartbeat). Agree with you on the tourniquet; it almost guarantees an amputation and should only be a last resort when someone is going to bleed out. Matt Deres (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the article we have on first aid, please find a reference and fix it. It clearly states that "Certain self-limiting illnesses or minor injuries may not require further medical care past the first aid intervention." Notice it says "further medical care". It does not say anything like "the beginning of initial medical care since nothing preceding was considered medical in any way." It is obvious to anyone who isn't purposely being hard-headed out of a juvenile fear of admitting a mistake that treatment for a medical condition is medical treatment. -- kainaw™ 05:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't stoop to name-calling. I'm most familiar with the OSHA guidelines, which are here. The relevant bit is in 1904.7(b)(5)(i), which is some ways down the page. "medical treatment does not include... "First aid" as defined in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section." (text elided due to intervening subsections, etc.). You may also be interested in the bit of our first aid article, where it mentions that "First aid is the provision of initial care for an illness or injury. It is usually performed by a lay person to a sick or injured casualty until definitive medical treatment can be accessed." When you have a reference to use you can change that to "First aid is the provision on medical care...", but frankly I don't think it's worth continuing the discussion until you've had a time-out. Matt Deres (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could I get some opinions on the discussion in this thread? Is advice on first aid medical advice? --Tango (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is asking if there are rules for when to use hot treatment and when to use cold treatment for injuries. Yes, there are rules. As for the comments, there is just one editor who hard-headedly refuses to admit that treatment for a medical condition is medical treatment. I responded and I'll have to wait a week or so for the backlash since I'll be away from my computer until next Sunday. -- kainaw™ 06:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, it's not medical advice. That is, you wouldn't expect someone to go to a doctor to ask if he should put a hot pack or cold pack on a bruise, any more than you would expect to consult with a doctor to find out the best way to remove a Band-Aid painlessly. Using the lawsuit standard, could we be sued successfully by answering such Q's ? No. Could we kill someone if we get the answers wrong ? No. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When StuRat mentions a 'lawsuit standard', it should be made clear that that is a personal yardstick that you might be applying and not anything related to Wikipedia policy. While "Nobody will get sued and nobody will get killed" is certainly a bare minimum standard that all our actions anywhere on this project ought to meet, we've long held that those tests aren't sufficient.

The aim of the medical advice guidelines is to limit harm – physical and emotional – to our readers, and to limit harm to the project's reputation. While inappropriately advising warm or cold compresses isn't very likely to cause the deaths of our readers, it certainly has the potential to prolong their suffering, to aggravate their injury, to hinder their recovery, or even to permanently affect their quality of life (through reduction in dexterity or flexibility and range of motion).

The comment above illustrates one of the pitfalls of attempting to offer guidance in this area — StuRat talks about treatment for "a bruise", while the OP's comment simply says "When I injure myself". What if we're not dealing with a bruise? Suppose it's a muscle strain or sprain, a hairline fracture of the finger, a scrape, a minor cut, a bump on the head, or frostbitten toes? Appropriate first aid advice is very challenging to offer in these circumstances, and even otherwise-flawless instructions may be subject to errors of omission. Even where a treatment recommendation makes clear that it applies to a narrow circumstance, an OP may not read carefully or follow up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That thread is an excellent (and rather embarrassing) demonstration of why we bring discussions of that type on to this talk page rather than slug things out on the Desk itself. What a mess.

The question itself is an interesting one to which to apply our guidelines. As Kainaw notes above, the answer to the explicitly asked question – "Is there a general rule as to which I should do?" – is certainly "Yes", period. Anything else would be straying beyond the question asked into speculation about the poster's intent.

Practically speaking, however, it is quite apparent that the poster is asking us what he should do to treat himself the next time that he suffers an injury. While he is at present uninjured, he almost certainly would want to apply the advice he receives the next time he bangs himself up. Our rules are quite clear on what we would do if faced with the question "I have such-and-such an injury, how do I treat it?", but I don't think we've come across "I expect to be injured at some point in the future, what do I do then?"

The way I see it, the risk of harm is still present. If we give advice that would be harmful today, it's still likely to be harmful next week. Further, the OP is just as likely to take the first answer and run with it; as for all questions on the Desk we don't know if he's going to keep coming back for followup responses. On the other hand, since the OP isn't likely to immediately jump up and use the advice that we offer, there may be a qualitative difference — one that could open the door for a less restrictive approach than we would otherwise apply.

We still shouldn't be offering treatment suggestions. However, it may be appropriate under some conditions to offer links to reliable external sources. For a question about first aid, links to reliable first aid providers or medical organizations may be justifiable. (Our article on first aid points to several such.) The OP should be encouraged to direct follow up questions to appropriately-trained individuals. Since he's not injured right now, he can be directed to ask his doctor on his next visit. He may speak to a first-aid-trained individual in his workplace (in most jurisdictions, any employer over a certain size must have qualified first aiders on staff). He can be directed to a bookstore or library, which will almost certainly carry first aid manuals.

Extreme care should be taken not to implicitly diagnose the OP, as well as to avoid offering overly narrow advice. (See above, where one poster has assumed that we're looking at a bruise.) Links to external sites should be to top-level pages, rather than to very specific injuries or treatments. I'm still rolling this one around in my head; does anyone have any input? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't assume it was a bruise, that was merely an example, just like the pulling a Band-Aid example. We should direct them to the general first-aid recommendations for all minor injuries. (For example, if minor burns get a cold pack and minor bruises get a hot pack, that's what we pass along to the OP.) StuRat (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you to green backwards 4 guy for moving this here. I should have done the same thing when it became clear the actual question had become a side issue. My apologies for crapping myself on the RD. My point, which I've apparently not made well, is simply that whether you want to lump first aid into medicine or not, the knowledge and use thereof is not regulated; St. John Ambulance can "certify" a person as a first-responder. So can the Red Cross. So can any number of other companies; there's no governing or regulatory body. Those certifications are qualitatively different than an actual medical license or formal training program. First responders are laypersons; anyone can do it and you don't need to attend classes or take a test, those are just there as aids. —This is part of a comment by Matt Deres , which was interrupted by the following:

Note to unfamiliar or future readers and archivists: The "green backwards 4 guy" being referred to above is User talk:74.137.108.115 who uses the signature 74 which resembles a green backwards numeral 4. hydnjo (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a green subscript 7 followed by a regular green 4, to me, neither one of which is backwards. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How about now? – l74  01:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stu, what you see as 7 4 seems to others as (the actual) 74
Subtle, I know but a source of confusion by those less astute than yourself  ;-) hydnjo (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but how does cramming them together make the 4 look backwards ? StuRat (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The correct response for acute injuries is to use the RICE protocol (Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation). That's not hidden away in a surgical text and it doesn't require years of study; that information comes free with almost any first aid kit sold these days. Longer-term therapies may sometimes include warmth as part of their treatment, but that is medical advice because it requires some kind of physiotherapist or other medical practitioner to make the call and getting it wrong could have negative repercussions, which is why I specified in my first answer that all I could comment on was the first aid scenario. Matt Deres (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy

While I've been involved in the advoacy discussions, I've never really frequented the RD/C. So it wasn't until I saw this [1] it began to make me wonder if the problem is more serious then I've imagined and it's no wonder there are so many complaints. Despite the claim "to answer the OP", the reply seems a case of needless advocacy unrelated to the question, which had nothing to do with which one was better or which one to choose but a simple question about whether a feature was present. If some discussion about which one was better had arise, I could understand but there was none really and the response was claimed to be in reply to the OP rather then to any other discussion. Is this sort of thing common in RD/C or is it just an outlier? Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is no different than any other RD. Some people simply don't read the question. I've given an answer that was completely off topic before because I misread the question. The problem that brings about the most complaints (from mainly just one person that I've notices) on RD/C is any mention or hint of Linux. There is an anon user that freaks out if you dare mention Linux in any answer and claims that every editor on RD/C is in a secret Linux society that is trying to force him to convert against his will. -- kainaw™ 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is it really a case of not reading the question or a case of 'I've read the question and my comment is OT but want to say it anyway because perhaps I'll convince you to follow me'. As I've stated I don't follow the comp desk much and have no desire to but given how common this sort of thing is in forums et al, I can't help wondering if it's spilled over in to here. As I've mentioned before, this sort of advocacy tends to annoy more then help and if it is going on it IMHO should stop. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That example didn't seem so bad, to me. The OP asked for a comparison of IE and Chrome regarding how tabs that crash are handled, and most answers were indeed about that (and how it should be handled). The last response did extend it to a comparison of add-ons available in IE and Chrome, but that might actually be helpful to the OP if they are trying to decide which browser to use. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There could be a billion possible responses that could potentially be helpful the any OP. However it is still inapproprite to give these responses when they were not what was asked and are basically, intentionally or not, needless advocacy of something that OP may have no interest in and may have no wish to know about. Just as question answeres should be given due respect, so should question askers (i.e. OPs), and this means we should treat them as intelligent human beings and not presume they are stupid who need to be told stuff they didn't ask because they're too stupid to find out for themselves or ask if they need to know. This doesn't mean we have to treat all questions with kid's gloves where each answer is strictly analysed for OTness but we do have to give some consideration as to whether our responses are likely to be any help and if they aren't, whether they are really appropriate or related to any of the ongoing discussion and in particular, whether they are likely to annoy or not. I mean, if you want to spout off your random personal feelings about matters of life there are plenty of places to do it. E.g. blogs. Wikipedia isn't one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that we must only answer the direct Q. A very common situation is when an OP bases their Q on an incorrect assumption, and setting them straight on their faulty assumption is a valuable contribution. For example: "I heard that magnets will give me energy, so where can I buy some wearable magnets ?". We could just point them to places that sell wearable magnets, but pointing out that they won't do anything seems far more valuable, to me. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you really seem to be missing the point. When the OP is mistaken or confused sure you are welcome to point that out, I do it all the time. (In other words there's a difference between giving the OP respect, and ignoring obvious wrongs, indeed it's not giving the OP respect when you don't right a wrong since you are presuming they would be unable to accept that they are wrong or would be offended. This is quite different from presuming the OP is wrong or stupid when you have no reason to believe so.) As I've stated before, there's nothing wrong with providing an answer which is likely to be useful to the OP when it is clear from what has been stated. This is quite different from randomly providing answers that presumes the OP is stupid or wrong when they have given no indication to indicate they are and their question is in itself a perfectly resonable simple question. To use a simple example, if the OP said "I don't use browser A because I've heard it crashes all the time" then sure it's perfectly fine to say that from you experience and the experience of many other users this is not the case. On the other hand when the users asks, is feature X present in browser Y, it's not resonable to bring up browser Z which you say is better then browser Y for a whole load of reasons but it doesn't have (and you don't even mention) feature X. Or to use another example, if someone says "I'm currently choosing between browser 1 and browser 2, I like them both, I've already tried browser 3 and decided I don't like it, which one would you recommend" it's not resonable to give all the reasons why browser 3 is better then browser 1 or 2 or try to discuss browser 3 at all (except perhaps mention you prefer it if you are also saying why one of browser 1 or 2 is better) when the user has already said they don't want browser 3. A similar example with a subtle different, if the user says "I'm currently choosing between browser 1 and browser 2, I like them both, I've read about browser 3 and decided it's crap, which one would you recommend" it's resonable to ask why they feel/what they read that suggest browser 3 is crap and if they answer and you feel they are mistaken, to explain why. It's not so resonable to however given uninvited all the reasons why browser 3 is better then browser 1 or 2. A final example, if the user asks I'm currently choosing between "browser 1 and browser 2, which one would you recommend?" it's okay to ask them if they have consider browser 3. While I would discourage it here, I'm wouldn't challenged anyone who even went as far as to explain why browser 3 is the best uninvited, often OPs take a while or never seem to respond and you may forget about the question by the time they do after all. As I've said before, it seems to me anyway often rather simple and a little common sense goes a long way. There's a difference between providing an answer which either indirectly answers the question or which helps correct a misunderstanding or provides answers that were not referred to but could potentially be of interest and in providing answers that are more or less completely off of a tanget of the question and come across as simply trying to advocate for your favourite product. Yes of course there are some times when it's not clear whether you answer is potentially helpful, in that case I'm fine with people answering. But it seems to me this wasn't one since it's is a clear cut case when the answer was very likely not at all helpful to the OP. Yes, there's a small chance the answer would be helpful, but the OP gave no indication they were currently choosing a browser or if they were wanted any general help with it, or had any interest in other browsers but instead were quite specific as to what they wanted to know. It seems likely that if the OP had wanted more general help, they would have asked for it. Or if they had wanted to know about some other browser they would have asked (I find it hard to believe there are many people aware of IE8 and Chrome but not Firefox). Perhaps the reason the OP didn't bring up Firefox is because they know it doesn't currently have process seperation which may have been all they were interested in, perhaps for an assignment and they actually use Opera all the time and believe every other browser is a utter POS. Or maybe they think the internet is a POS so don't have any browser preference but as part of some course they have to find this out. Who knows? I mean it's nearly as likely that the OP will be interested in hearing about Windows 7, or FreeBSD or whatever provides a much more stable browser environment or whatever as to the Firefox answer that was provided. Should we provide such answers? No obviously not. As I've said before, I'm not saying people should be super defensive, and analyse their reply for several hours, simply think a little before posting. And I would also encourage people to think about whether they do perhaps try to advocate uncalled for some times and if they realise they are, then try to address that. And just to be clear, I'm not singling anyone out, the reason why I took this particular response was because it surprise me so and with the discussions about advocacy that I'd participated in, I wanted to see if what I had seen was common so I could better understand the scope of the problem and also hopefully to get people to think about what they are writing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's one menacing block of text there. You might want to stop for a breath (that is, make a new paragraph), every once in a while. I was also planning on including a massive essay on the advantages of brevity, but, instead, I'll just say: "Keep it short !". :-) StuRat (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And Nil, your follow-up post where you berated the poster for his response belongs either here or on the poster's talk page, not on the Ref Desk itself. Please consider moving it. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If a user chooses to post OT comments in response to a question, comments which may annoy the OP, it is entirely appropriate to challenge the user in response in the same place so that the OP is aware that others agree the comment was OT and potentially unhelpful. If there was any further discussion, I would have willingly moved it somewhere else but there was none. Obviously as well if the poster decided to remove their OT response, I would have no problem with my response similarly being removed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your goal is to avoid non-answers, right ? Well, your complaint is also a non-answer, and will tend to attract more non-answers, such as a defense by the person you attacked, and people will then chime in on both sides, with even more non-answers. After all this, the original Q may very well get lost in the mess. That's why we have this page, so meta-discussions can happen here, where they don't annoy the OP. StuRat (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have already stated, if the discussion continued, I would have moved it somewhere else (and I have done so before in some cases either on the RD or elsewhere). As this didn't happened the point is moot. As I have also explained, my goal is to avoid non answers but when non answers have happened, it is useful to the OP if we explain that this sort of thing is unacceptable to other contributors as well, to hopefully defuse any anger they may feel and so that they themselves don't have to waste their time pointing out the non-answer was useless to them and in the process potentially get in to a battle they don't want which will detract from the question even more. The simple fact is, that was not a meta discussion. It could have become one, but none arose. The question must always be what's the best for the OP? If you genuinely feel there's a fair chance what you're saying will help the OP then sure keep it on the desk. I maintain that for my response. Two wrongs don't make a right, but that doesn't mean there's no way to try and help right a wrong Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflammatory speculation

I've seen a lot of questioning along Holocaust lines on the Humanities RD, but is this speculative query permitted? At least one of the responses (by pma) appears to be soapboxing. It's difficult for me to be objective in the face of this (which strikes me as inflammatory). I don't know the protocols of removing; is that called for, or am I just to chime in with numerous other editors with my response based on IDF policies, citation of the original article, explanation of how the OP misread it, etc.? Please advise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have a definitive policy on that (beyond the soapboxing thing), though I will say that I've also noticed an uncomfortable increase it what appear to be antisemitic topics. I also have a hard time assuming good faith with that particular thread simply because it's such a non-question when looked at innocently. The OP's further comments seem on the up-and-up, though I haven't really examined the entire thing closely. Matt Deres (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the question under discussion, we do say "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere... the reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead."

With all the good faith in the world I can't see how a question like this can lead to anything productive for Wikipedia. I think we should be a little more bold in saying that from the outset. - Eron^Talk 00:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend a 'Don't feed the trolls' approach to this. If you don't like the "question" - simply don't answer it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I recommend that approach as well, there are question that are designed to inflame readers and volunteers, and, invariably, some respondents will take the bait and produce a mess, while the sound of laughter can be heard from under the bridge. Right now, we're experiencing someone with a dynamic IP address asking a series (ok, sofar it's a mini-series) of such questions at the humanities desk. If they keep it up, I will support nipping further questions of this type in the bud. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's tempting to try to intervene without directly responding. One approach that I have not seen, but might have some deterrent effect, might be to leave comments in the markup, perhaps even a standard templated comment, for anyone tempted to respond (and which they'll see when they start to edit). I am surprised that I've never seen such comments even in heated exchanges, and this could be abused so I feel as though I may be peeking into Pandora's box, but I would guess that it's been opened before (in fact, I'm a pretty inexperienced wikipedian and anticipate that others may have ample experience with this). --Scray (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, a lot of people ignore those comments. You have to format them so that they stand out when someone is trying to respond. I haven't seen them in article space for a while, but I seem to recall seeing some a few years ago. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

MOVED: personal attacks from genocide curves question

Personal attacks were cluttering my question on genocide curves, so I moved these to below. Please don't make any more inappropriate personal attacks.

Inappropriate Thread 1

We have an article on mass extinction. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would that really be relevant when the question is mass deaths of humans? Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UqTC)

I apologize if I am misinterpreting, but based on his comments to my similar question above (which prompted me to ask this one) Cookatoo may be referring specifically to Palestinians (by analogy with other extinct or soon-to-be-extinct _____)

I was not specifically referring to some arbitrarily selected group of humans, I was referring to humans (ie homo (genus)) in general. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

then I apologize (and have striken the text). In this case however your statement is doubly odd odd because genocide never refers to homo sapiens. That would be human extinction... 79.122.57.251 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Thread 2 -- personal attack highlighted (small parts just reproduced for context)

Where can I find genocide curves (graphs)? I mean by number of deaths (ie time would be x, deaths y), starting with the first deaths on the way to snowballing to the larger genocide? Thank you.

The page here on genocide defines it, per the original coinage by Raphael Lemkin who introduced the term in 1943, by its intention: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It is not merely a mass-murder body count that "snowballs" (i.e. increasing in size and weight as it gathers momentum by sheer force of gravity?); your metaphor is inappropriate as it disregards the definitive element of intent. Rather, seek and read the documents and reportage stating such intent. Then if you still found the task relevant, you yourself might construct such a chart based on dates and figures you can find through study of the genocide(s) that concern you, should such a ready-made chart not be found easily or at all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen war casualty curves (and modelling work around it). There is (was) a website detailing the statistics of the conflict in Iraq. Have you tried searching for "statistics of genocides"? Perhaps in a social science/statistical journal? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Deborahjay - I've found stellar references for clear dehumanizing and ethnic intent against ethnic Palestinians at the highest levels of Israeli leadership, ie the way Nazi germany talked and thought of Jews there, as it started to kill them off (see my question toward the top of the page). I would like to compare the Palestinian death count over time with other historical genocides. PalaceGuard has good suggestions, but unfortunately it's somewhat outside my reach. This seems like a really simple question, I mean genocide is a problem that has seen a lot of documentation and research, anyone able to think of an appropriate reference for me?? Thank you! 79.122.57.251 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Making such a statement with providing the actual "stellar references" is at best hatemongering and at worst racist and/or antisemitic. Please provide the exact references which you claim prove such a genocidal intent, or your posts are likely to be removed. Making unsupported negative claims against individuals or groups of individuals is not an acceptable way to format questions or to qualify them, IMO // BL \\ (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate thread 3 -- personal attack highlighted

BL, I think we would do well to simply ignore trolling like the above by the anon. At the same time, the statistical distribution of deaths over time in calamities, of which I would say certain genocidal episodes are examples, is a topic that has been much investigated and published. Hence I recommended the OP to search some professional journals.

justification of move

Firstly they are personal attacks, and Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Secondly they do not address the question, so even if they are withdrawn they are just cluttering the question, which I have not received any answers for.

the personal attack in question: calling it "hatemongering" or "racist and/or antisemitic" when I (a jew) say that I am talking about the clear dehumanizing intent at the highest levels of Israeli leadership.

First of all, Israeli leadership is not a race or ethnicity, whereas Palestinians are. So it is impossible to be racist when talking about what Israeli leadership thinks or does, and using this term about me is a personal attack and should be removed. If you call someone a racist for objecting to the actions or attitudes of the LEADERSHIP of any country in the world, you are making a personal attack. Cut it out. Israeli leadership means just that: the leadership of a country. There is no inkling of racism in any of my statements.

Secondly people accused me of being a troll for "qualifying" my question with allusions that I didn't actually soapbox on about.

The reference desk is NOT a place to try to convince people of anything, it is not a soapbox. It is not the appropriate place for me to start listing references I'm not here to start a debate. If you are interested in the stellar references showing that the highest levels of Israeli leadership have clear dehumanizing ethnic intent of the Palestinians, simply Google it, using the very terms I used. Calling me a troll for NOT soapboxing or starting a debate is an unwarranted personal attack.

if you think I'm being disengenuous

First of all I am speaking in good faith. I am Jewish and love my people. However, please be careful NEVER, ever, ever, to identify ANY people with ANY country's leadership.

When you identify a country's people with its leadership, you put the people in an impossible position: even if the leadership acts in pure, bad-faith evil (NAZI Germany), the people -- e.g. the nazi-era Germans -- could NOT speak out against e.g. Hitler, because that would be anti-German. Never identify real people with a political office that cannot by definition have a race.

Whether it's America, France, China, or whoever, no people are their political leadership.

And when you criticize political leadership you are doing so in their official capacity, not on a personal, and never on an ethnic basis!

In light of the above please realize that when I say something you disagree with about a different country's leadership, it is an unwarranted personal attack to call me racist or whatever for it. I am not saying something about people, but about political offices. (Hence the term "leadership").

As for calling me a troll for not providing inappropriate references. The reference desk is NOT a soapbox, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. If you want my stellar references you can search Google yourself using the terms I used to allude to the references, you will find them very easily. The only reason I mentioned it is to give you an idea of what I am interested in knowing about, genocide curves. However, my question has not been answered; I've only just been directed to "search journals" which is outside my capacity. Thank you..79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are, in fact, being disingenuous. You complain that other people are using the RefDesk to soapbox, but in the same post you say "If you are interested in the stellar references showing that the highest levels of Israeli leadership have clear dehumanizing ethnic intent of the Palestinians, simply Google it." That is in itself soapboxing. - Eron^Talk 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted text to the question. I am not persuaded there were any personal attacks made, and the deleted text went far beyond what was necessary even if there were. To the OP, no one called you "racist." What was said was that your statement, unsupported by the references you claim exist, could be considered hatemongering or even racist. There is a subtle but important difference there. As to the accusations of trolling, well we do get trolls here and I feel it is appropriate to point out when something could be trolling. People are free to disagree with that assessment. In this particular case, I don't. - Eron^Talk 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You added the "subtle but important difference" with the words "could be considered hatemongering or even racist", which is not how the original read. Here is a side-by-side comparison to the actual quote and your misquote:

Making such a statement with[out] providing the actual "stellar references" is at best hatemongering and at worst racist and/or antisemitic.
your statement, unsupported by the references you claim exist, could be considered hatemongering or even racist.

What a world of difference. Too bad the former is what was actually said as a personal attack against me.

No, you may not. I wasn't the person who wrote the original statement - which I also don't consider to be a personal attack.

As to your other comments on the Ref Desk, I've copied them here (not moved them, not deleted them) to respond more fully:

Nothing was deleted but only moved and you know it. The word "wanton" in "wanton deletion" (which did not happen, but only a move of inappropriate material) is another personal attack. What can be better-faith than moving things that belong on the talk page, TO the talk page, with a note? This is the reference desk, not a soapbox for you and others, and I am looking for a simple answer to my question. The more spurious discussion you cover my question up with, the less likely I am to get a question. What is your beef with me? 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are playing with words. The content was deleted from the Ref Desk page. As to "wanton", I'll stand by that word. You removed a lot of content, not all of it was even arguably a personal attack, and your actions disrupted the flow of that discussion thread. As to my beef with you, I am concerned that you are using the Ref Desk as a soap box to promote your personal opinions regarding the situation in the Middle East (at best) or that you are trolling (at worst). Your conduct on other discussion topics - such as this - doesn't reassure me that you are acting in complete good faith. I think you have done this before from another IP address here. I think that as a minimum you need to spend some time reviewing various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including those on the Reference desk, what Wikipedia is not, and personal attacks. - Eron^Talk 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Enron here. Removing or moving content from the reference desk with a consensus is generally highly frowned upon. The only exceptions that would be normal are for questions that may be medical or legal advice requests and for questions that are clear cut trolling or soapboxing. In particular, removing answers no matter how much you disagree with them or feel they are inappropriate should not be done. This applies even if you are the OP. You don't own the question and can't dictate what goes under it. If you feel OT answers or questions are detracting from your question, ask the users if they would be willing to remove them, or seek consensus on the talk page to either remove them or perhaps put them under a seperate subheading. Also the comments you claim are personal attacks are not. The user has stated your comments/actions are at worst racist but this is not in itself calling you a racist person and does not violate our NPA policy which does allow people to give an honest assessement of behaviour/comments as they see it (i.e. commenting on contributions). Finally I would have to agree with others that you appear to be engaging in rather bigoted soapboxing. And this is from someone who is generally sympathetic to the Palestinian POV. If you have a genuine query, I suggest you phrase your questions more carefully and avoid saying things which are likely to cause offence. Because if you do say things which cause offence, don't blame others for challenging your comments. Oh and if you feel that what people are saying is detracting from your query then it's probably a bad idea to challenge them on it there, instead take it somewhere else. P.S. If you are the same person as 94.27 as Matt Deres suggests is possible below, I strongly you make this clear now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Both 94.27.132.205 and 79.122.75.197 resolve to the same ISP: T-Mobile Hungary Telecommunications in Budapest. Matt Deres (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

can I remove personal attacks?

on Wikipedia am I allowed to remove personal attacks against my character and conduct? 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You can, however, report them at WP:ANI --132.206.22.11 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are on your user talk page, it is generally accepted that you can remove them. Otherwise it is probably best to let someone uninvolved deal with it. If they are obvious vandalism (just random name calling, for example), then go ahead and remove it. --Tango (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible medical advice question: ecg explanation

This question is not a blatant request for medical advice, but it comes very close and I don't see how it can be answered without giving a specific diagnosis and judgment regarding severity. The way it is worded, it almost certainly affects the OP or someone they know. Because I know this is often contentious, I've opted to collapse the question and point here rather than simple removal. I have not notified the OP on their talk page because they just posted (thus likely to check for an answer) and it might be a shared IP so the notification might be confusing. --Scray (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If we assume the OP didn't just make up the statement "accelerated AV conduction with pre-excitation" then the odds are good that they (or someone they know) has already visited a doctor and been diagnosed. While we should not rank severity (prognosis), providing definitions/explanations of the mentioned medical terms along with a recommendation to discuss the matter with a doctor seems reasonable. Also, I think you handled this question quite well; my only complaint would be that, when collapsing things, you should use class="NavFrame collapsed" instead of style="display:none" (The former is a usability improvement for users who prefer no javascript). – 74  16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - did not know that about the collapsing code. --Scray (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, see no need for a diagnosis, prognosis, or suggestion for treatment. Therefore, based on this, I would not consider it a request for medical advice. I could joke that you need to diagnose possible mental retardation based on the "I can understand" disclaimer in the question - but I'm sure that would just confuse other editors here. What I see is a request for the definition of a medical term. Therefore, answers should be limited to the definition and should not in any way include suggestions for treatment of the condition. -- kainaw™ 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you brought that up, because application of that (very unofficial) criterion would seem to establish that this is a request for medical advice. A direct quote from that source: "Can the question be answered completely without providing a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice?" Since the OP ended with "is this condition serious", a complete answer would include prognosis. Of course, this is just my humble opinion. --Scray (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I misread the end of the post as "and this condition is serious", not "and is this condition serious". That changes the question entirely. It is a prognosis to identify a condition as serious. Therefore, I believe that it is a request for medical advice and should not be answered at all. I know that some will claim that you can answer one part without advice and another with advice, but my opinion is that we omit requests for medical advice all together. -- kainaw™ 03:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides trolls...

...it occurred to me that we might consider the range of OPs, as they appear by their queries and subsequent interaction (if any), as similar to The Four Sons of the traditional Haggadah read yearly in Passover observance. Just as "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's", you—dear Ref Desk stalwarts, my comrades in attempting to provide information to those with an expressed need—might find this a virtual form of comfort-food-for-thought.-- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel as though I just walked into a movie halfway through, it's in a language that I don't understand, and it has no subtitles. Oh, and I'm blind. --Scray (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it has no subtitles? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidedog hasn't said anything yet. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Screen is smooth - I checked. --Scray (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wicked son? // BL \\ (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Deborahjay, I think the point is that we can't follow what you're talking about. Is this the continuation of a discussion started elsewhere ? If so, those of us unfamiliar with the first part are now hopelessly lost. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think DJ is just making the lighthearted point that other then trolls most of the OPs losely fall in to the categories given in the four sons story and we should see if the story offers any insight in to how to deal with them Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

12 pointes for reading comprehension and insightful thinking, Nil Einne! Thank you for making accessible what I hadn't anticipated would be difficult for RD regulars to understand, especially since as usual I provide internal links for background. Though perhaps not enough of the latter, so to be specific for those who did't get it: this follows on recent difficulties here discussed above, and was offered not so much lightheartedly but wholeheartedly and heartfelt. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! Bottom of the class again. :-) // BL \\ (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be removed?

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Is_this_supposed_to_be_a_15-year-old.3F links to what is purported to be nude pictures of a 15 year old. Even if they are not actually accurate it seems like a very very very bad idea for a number of reasons. I am not sure the question being asked with them (basically, "aren't these knockers a bit big for a 15 year old?") is really worth, say, ref deskers ending up with illegal photos on their computers (illegal in practically every English-speaking jurisdiction, no?) much less Wikipedia being used as a conduit to them? Seems worse than linking to, say, illegal software, something I doubt we'd tolerate on here either... Just... putting that out there. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed, any problems? -hydnjo (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot - if you don't recognize this troller then contact me privately - I don't want to give him anymore publicity. hydnjo (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Strike text by hydnjo (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Having received a couple of private (email) communications criticizing my request for private email communications (!) I've striken the request, it was unwise. I've also been criticized for not providing the diff. -hydnjo (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm less concerned that the question was posted than I am that people actually answered it. If someone presents you with a link to something which they are saying is supposed to be child pornography, the last thing you do is click on it! A general answer about different people maturing at different ages would have been fine, but you don't admit on a major website that you've viewed nude pictures of someone you believe to be 15... I'm shocked... --Tango (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth remembering definitions of child pornography vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In many cases though simple nudity which isn't considered unduly provocative or explicit is not consider child pornography. However erotic posing usually is and if you read the question properly it does imply the images are in this case. Of course in any case just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea to view them let alone go around telling people you viewed them. Edit: Besides while I'd like to believe no one would be (IMHO) silly enough to charge someone for just being stupid enough to look at some photos which are probably child pornography but linked to on wikipedia as part of a supposed question (even if a dumb one), pictures which have supposedly been published by a Finnish tabloid (so are potentially not illegal there) and therefore with likely no malicious or sinister intent, things like this [2] make me think may be not so there could be a very real legal risk too Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about auto-defibrillation

I gave a limited answer to this question. It was not a request for medical advice per se, and I did not delete it, but I gave a limited answer, link to a relevant WP article, and explicitly said that discussion of the safety of auto-defibrillation would cross the line in my opinion. I am certain that (at least) some will disagree with me, but nothing that I did requires consensus. --Scray (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the firm opinion this is not a question requesting medical advice and that "precautions" or "limited answers" are entirely unnecessary. Questions involving medical topics are entirely fine to answer on the reference desk. The medical advice problem occurs when the questioner is clearly seeking to substitute the responses given by the volunteers on the reference desk for the independent judgment of a qualified physician for any given personal health issue. (The following preceding paraphased from here) It is not a request for medical advice to ask for general information regarding a specific medical topic. The issue is personal vs. general.

The following questions are not requests for medical advice:

• "Are fatigue and weight gain symptoms of hypothyroidism?"
• "What are the side effects of a Caesarian section?"
• "How do you perform a horizontal mattress stitch?"

The following questions are requests for medical advice:

• "If I have fatigue and weight gain, is it possible I have hypothyroidism?"
• "Should I get a Caesarean section?"
• "What sort of suturing stitch should I use on my gashed leg?"

Wikipedia is full of medical information such as dosages, side effects, symptom lists, and medical procedures and techniques. This material is informative only and general in scope; it does not take into account the specifics of a patient's medical history. There should not be a problem if replies are similarly kept informative only and general in scope. IANAL but it seems likely that Wikipedia and the plethora of other websites, medical journals, informative pamplets, etc., that contain detailed medical information are protected from people who sue because they saw fit to apply this general information to a specific case without the consultation of a professional. Sifaka ^talk 22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, read our articles and feel free to link to them or to any specific sections within those article(s). The articles have been through our own imperfect peer review and have either referenced sources or warnings of their being missing at times. So I guess that it's just fine to respond to questions having a medical connotation under those restrictions but what this entire Brouhaha is about is going beyond the contents of our articles for anything approaching medical conjecture by adding personal opinion, experience or any other anecdotal (which I'm sure is accurate) response. This community has decided not to do that, ever.

Regarding this particular question I have no concern about KSB's misuse of any information provided but I'm not convinced that KSB would be the only reader of our responses. That's why. -hydnjo (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, hydnjo, for articulating this so clearly - exactly my concern. --Scray (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And I thank you, Scray, for your boldness in this controvesial part of our wiki. -hydnjo (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the OP obviously has no intention of performing this procedure, it's not a request for medical advice. As for other readers deciding to do this on their own, that standard would lead us not to answer many questions, like "what are the range of surgical options used in the treatment of coronary occlusions ?", which we might fear could result in readers deciding to perform open-heart surgery on themselves. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A ludicrous analogy. Cutting open one's chest, compared with toying with a readily-available device that might be perceived as "safe". I stand by my original response. --Scray (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth would anyone think of using a defibrillator on themselves as "safe" ? StuRat (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, one of the answers (paraphrased): "The defibrillators available in public places ...probably wouldn't do anything at all." This is the sort of response I was trying to prevent. --Scray (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

They aren't toys, and I don't think any of the respondents treated them as if they were. Just because there is an automatic safety system built in, which several respondents noted, doesn't mean that anyone is encouraging people to ignore common sense and rely upon it. Besides, the operation (or lack thereof) of a device is not medical advice (diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, etc.). If those responses bother you, you can reply to them reminding people that defibrillators aren't toys, or you can start a discussion here to remove them (or the original question) under appropriate guidelines. The medical advice guideline isn't a catch-all category for "you could die". – 74  11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about Behcet's_disease removed

I removed this question (here's the diff), which is clearly a request for medical advice. A tragic situation, and I hope they find some help, but to make recommendations/referrals would represent endorsement of practitioners and treatments. Any dissent? --Scray (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am on the side of erring in favour of the removal of medical-advice questions. If the answer the OP wants is where to find information on hyperbaric-oxygen treatments of this condition, how would this be different from asking where to find information on radiation treatment of cancer or homeopathic treatment of ulcers? I can't see that we would have a problem in two latter cases, nor would I see providing links as being supportive of any particular treatment. (That we as individuals, or even as a group, might distrust the treatment or even believe it to be harmful in any of the examples I have given is not our personal call, though linking to criticisms of them might be appropriate.) I am not dissenting at the moment so much as asking for clarification. // BL \\ (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the way I read it, the OP isn't asking for professional advice but how to go about finding someone who knows about hyperbaric chamber therapy. I think this is okay. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the question, pending consensus. I did not think this one was going to be contentious, because of how the OP began with doubts about the diagnosis and closed with a request for "help/advice", but the guidelines do allow provision of referrals to relevant sites and resources as long as no diagnostic or prognostic advice is offered. --Scray (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that she is asking for a reference. There is no need to diagnose anyone, give a prognosis, or suggest treatment. It may be argued that suggesting a reference for a treatment expert is suggesting treatment. I feel that supplying a few links to hospitals that specialize in the field would not be suggesting treatment. -- kainaw™ 00:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not a request for medical advice. In particular, the last line "Any help/advice appreciated as to where to look/who to ask greatly appreciated" makes it clear that they aren't asking for medical advice from us, but rather want to know who the proper medical personnel are, whom they will then contact. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant, yes. And for the record, I"m a he, not a she (see my portrait on my userpage).Skookum1 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this?

Why is there a burning desire to address any questions that borders on medical advice. It's not like we have a deficit of questions or that we'd appear dumb if we just ignored those questions. There is something else going on and it is confusing. We, to be sure are all volunteers and have free will. But I don't understand the contention around this particular area, if it's so damn controversial, then just leave it or it will invite more of the same. I sense an an agenda here - is someone trying to start a medical desk? I'd prefer a "homework" desk - more helpful and less dangerous. -hydnjo (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a basic juvenile response to have a driving desire to do anything that you are told not to do. We do not have a maturity check at the door to the reference desk, so we should not expect everyone to respond in a mature manner. This is nothing new. Thousands of years ago, I'm sure that teenagers (who were probably from 8-12 years old at the time) were telling each other "Oh come on! Your parents told you to stay out of the lion's den just to control you. Be a man and go in!" -- kainaw™ 02:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we mature enough to disagree on what constitutes medical advice, without resorting to insults ? StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Everyone who volunteers here wants to help out as much as they can, but nobody wants to give life-threatening advice. The problem comes in where we're a bunch of know-it-alls and figure we each individually know exactly where the line between medical advice and harmless health related question lies. There's a spectrum of opinions on where the line should be drawn, with clusters on each end (inclusionists and deletionists, I suppose, or at least versions of same) and we butt heads and argue rather than admit our own opinion is just that - an opinion. See also WP:TINC. Matt Deres (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

hydnjo, that was a rather loaded question. You might as well have asked why there is a burning desire to answer questions on the refdesks at all. We answer questions because we believe we have knowledge that might be useful to the questioner, and medical questions are no exception. The problem is that a trivial change of wording may change a a medical advice-question into a factual medical question, and vice versa, and that we receive many borderline questions, such as this recent one, which no-one so far has attempted answering. When you sense an agenda - someone trying to start a medical desk - are you referring to the questioners or to those who reply? I agree with Matt Deres, that when a bunch of people each make up their minds about whether an answer might be harmful, there's bound to be disagreement about where to draw the line. And I don't think it's very constructive to label those who are liberal about sharing their knowledge as juvenile, kainaw. I sense no hidden medical-desk agenda here, we'll just have to continue dealing with such questions on a case-by case basis. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well stated, NorwegianBlue. The only thing I would add is that the "policy" of attempting to discern whether a question requests medical advice adds even more ambiguity to the mix. Even if we manage to agree on "what medical advice is", asking if a question is intended to request medical advice requires us to speculate on the motives of the OP, which derails the discussion to a topic that is unknowable and demonstrably disagreeable. – 74  16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, "medical advice" is already reasonably well defined (by diagnosis, treatment or prognosis) and we've already had this debate. The consensus seems to be that we shouldn't tolerate questions that can't be answered without providing advice. Such questions request advice, giving us a direct link to the motives of the OP. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right… It's so well defined that we never have disagreements over what is and is not medical advice, "questions that can't be answered without providing [medical] advice" is also never a point of contention, and whether or not a question requests medical advice is always abundantly clear. I would also add a sarcastic response to "direct link to the motives of the OP" but I have no idea exactly what you mean. – 74  01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of "advice": "Reasonably". I said "reasonably well defined". Why are you being so argumentative on this definition? Explain to me how anyone is harmed from using this as a benchmark. Sure, there will be cases where the definition doesn't apply but having a definition gives us something to work with. I think it works reasonably well most of the time. In this entire medical advice debate over the last two years, there haven't been many instances where I can say that we've actually moved forward. And by "move forward", I mean "achieve some form of consensus that would make future consensuses easier to achieve". And by "easy" I mean "quickly and without too much bickering". Having a workable definition allows us to move forward. Of course, if you don't like the benchmark, you're welcome to recommend changes to it. I haven't looked at your first aid example so I'm not sure if the issue resulted from a failure of the definition or not. —This is part of a comment by Zain Ebrahim111 , which was interrupted by the following:

I agree we are quite mired. One of the techniques to escape an intractable situation is to reduce it to something simpler most people can agree on. My point is that answering the question "is this response medical advice" is significantly simpler than answering the question "is this a request that can only be answered completely by medical advice". The former doesn't preclude argument over whether or not a response is medical advice, but it does eliminate two or three points of contention which might allow us to move forward. I think there are a few other benefits as well: we can more reasonably expect respondents to be aware of the medical advice guidelines, and I suspect fewer people would blindly defend medical advice responses than questions that may request medical advice. – 74  16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "Kainaw's criterion" is just that -- it is my personal criterion for determining if a question is or is not a request for medical advice. There are others who agree and use the criterion as well, but that is purely up to them. It is not a Reference Desk policy. I feel that stating my criterion plainly in one place makes it easy for me to say "Because of this, I feel that XXXXX is a request for medical advice." It also keeps me from being wishy-washy with my consideration medical advice questions (and I'm sure I was very wishy-washy when I first took notice of this whole argument many years ago). -- kainaw™ 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but there have been no objections from anyone else - and even 74's issues are related more to the paradigm of deleting questions rather than answers. And it does make life easier so, based on everything so far, it's not that unofficial. But it could become so if it starts to fail. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kainaw's criterion: Clearly, having a formulaic approach to dealing with medremovals is an ultimate that we'll never achieve. But again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get close. Also note that this approach doesn't eliminate the debates - it just structures the debates around whether a question can be fully dealt with without "advice". I've been using this for my vote in the last few cases and you're the only one (I think) who opposed the method. You outlined your objection three posts up. You have a problem with speculating on the motives of the OP because it is unknowable and disagreeable. Now, since we shouldn't answer questions that cannot be answered without providing "advice" (do you agree with this?), I think it woud be reasonable to define a "request for advice" as a "question that cannot be answered without providing advice" where "advice" is as defined above. You are right that the OP's motivation for making a "request for advice" is unknowable but we don't need to care about that. If the OP "requests advice", it should go. The criterion doesn't require speculation on the OP's motives. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing "If I believe that the OP is requesting [medical] advice" with "If the OP "requests [medical] advice" since, short of saying "Please provide me with medical advice", the desires of the OP are non-obvious. In most cases it's a judgment call that adds additional complexity to an already contentious issue. I doubt anything will change (as you said, we are unable to move "forward" for any particular definition of "forward") but I'm not yet so disillusioned that I don't make the attempt. – 74  16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's only a problem because you refuse to accept the definition of advice (i.e. treatment, diagnosis, prognosis) without offering an alternative. Personal opinions shouldn't be required to determine if an OP wants a diagnosis - it's mostly a matter of reading the question properly. If the question is ambiguous, we can discuss. Regarding your first point, it is easy to determine if a response provides advice. And we do enforce the removal of advice-giving responses when the question doesn't ask for it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw, a "juvenile response"? Perhaps you would like to point out some of these immature responses. Mom and Dad should ground them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent that my point was missed by a few thousand miles. For those who have never been teenagers, known teenagers, or raised teenagers (or even seen a movie or television show about teenagers)... there is a basic juvenile response stereotype that spans all cultures of humans. It has also been noted in many animal species. The authority figure makes a rule. The juvenile response is to break that rule. It isn't necessarily to gain any benefit. It is just an action driven by a juvenile desire. It is the basis of the concept of "reverse psychology". Knowing that a juvenile is driven to break rules, make a rule that you want to be broken and the juvenile is very likely to break it.

So, if you are capable of understanding the concept of the juvenile response, I hope you are capable of understanding why this is a valid response to "why do people here break the rules?" It is no more an insult than stating that a person is a male or Chinese or myopic. If you are taking it as an insult, then it is very likely the result of another very basic element of human psychology. When something reminds us of a personal trait that we do not like, we assume that it is an insult and respond in anger. Then again, it could simply be a misreading of my comment above, assuming that I'm intending to insult someone, and then rationalizing that mention of the common juvenile response is an insult. Regardless, I was not insulting anyone. If you like, you can go back through the years of comments I have made and see that I argue more for reinstatement of removed questions than I do for removal of them. So, was I insulting myself? -- kainaw™ 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am more amused by your comment (naive in my opinion) rather than insulted. Nobody is deliberately trying to break or bend the rules. We are volunteers genuinely trying to help people who have questions. I do not recall seeing any "juvenile responses" to questions on the RefDesk. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Resistance to authoritarianism is hardly juvenile, see civil disobedience. However, none of this applies here as there is no authoritarian figure "making the rules". The disagreement is over the interpretation of the rules, and it's not helpful to refer to those who interpret them differently than you as "juvenile". StuRat (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I claim a "juvenile response" is "resistance to authority" and you claim it is not because "civil disobedience" is "resistance to authority". Is that correct? I suppose that if I were to claim "Wikipedia" is a "website", you would tell me that I am wrong because "facebook" is a "website". I guess it is impossible to use "juvenile response" (which was a term used repeatedly when I studied psychology to mean "a desire to act against perceived authority") without everyone assuming that I mean either that everyone is a juvenile or that the responses are juvenile. I'll just keep responses to simple psychology questions (ie: why does a person want to...) as incorrect as possible to keep everyone happy. -- kainaw™ 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic was that people who answer those Q's are exhibiting "resistance to authority" and that this therefore must be a "juvenile response". Neither step in that logic chain is correct. The first is wrong because people interpreting Q's differently from you is not "resistance to authority", as you are not "an authority" here. The next step would only be correct if all "resistance to authority" was a "juvenile response", and I've clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. StuRat (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your confusion. My logic was that this question is a branch from a previous topic "why do we remove medical questions?" The common answer was "to keep people from responding to them." So, I read this as "why do people respond to questions that the consensus agrees are medical questions and should not be answered?" It is obvious that you read this question from a completely different slant as "why do people disagree with (insert user here) about what constitutes a medical question?" If you are unable to read my answer to the question I read as being an answer to the question that I read, then you are the one at fault. I was not answering the question that you read.

Now, understanding the question I read as "why do people have a desire to resist the consensus?", I gave one reason: standard juvenile response. I did not state that every single person who responds to a question marked by consensus as a request for medical advice as being a juvenile. I did not state that every response to a medical question is juvenile. I gave one (and only one) reason that a person may have a desire to answer a question against the consensus. Claiming that there are other reasons does not mean that I am wrong. This is simple logic. If I say I saw a black car, you can't say I'm wrong because you've seen a red car before. If I were to say every car is black, you can say I'm wrong because you've seen a red car.

Your argument appears to be three-faced. First, you are claiming that I was answering the question as you read it (which is not as I read it). Second, you are claiming "juvenile response" means the responder is a juvenile and the response is juvenile (which is not the case at all). Third, you are claiming that if you can find just one answer not based on juvenile response, then no answers may be based on juvenile response (which is completely illogical). I hope you can see why I disagree with your argument. -- kainaw™ 17:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual Q was about "questions that border on medical advice", not where "the consensus agrees". You simply misread the Q; it says nothing whatsoever about consensus, and the "borders" part means it may or may not be a medical request Q.

As for your claim that a "juvenile response" doesn't mean "the response is juvenile", I don't know what else it could possibly mean.

Finally, you said "It is a basic juvenile response...", not "It sometimes is..." or "It may be...". Stating it that way, with no other possibility listed, sure makes it sound like you mean it's always a "juvenile response". StuRat (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit that my question was posed as more rhetorical than fact-finding. My inspiration for starting the section was influenced by some of the all perfectly legitimate goings on lately - sometimes frustrating to me but (again) legitimate. The question as I posed it was inarticulate and ill defined. I know what I wanted to say but it didn't come across with the nuance intended and for that I apologize. I'm still troubled by some of the responses to these borderline questions and will continue to be and so and I'll continue to be in awe of our diversity instead of just shaking my head! -hydnjo (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had asked "why do people disagree with me about these medical questions", I would have given an answer similar to what others gave: No matter what your opinion is on any matter or how strongly you feel about it, at least half the work disagrees with you. (That is a quote my grandfather said to me repeatedly when I was a child, but I didn't "get it" until I was an adult.) What you appear to have asked is "Why do people feel a desire to answer questions that the consensus has agreed should not be answered?" That is the question I answered. -- kainaw™ 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any cases of people answering a Q after a consensus has developed here that that Q is a request for medical advice, and where such a notice has been posted at the Q. If it happens at all, I believe it to be quite rare. What does often happen is that a person answers after another single person has stated their opinion (usually as if it were a fact), that the Q is requesting medical advice. One person stating their opinion does not constitute a "consensus". StuRat (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much every question deemed by consensus to be a request for medical advice was answered in the past with plenty of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment advice. That is why the consensus shifted to question removal. It got to the point that users were removing the "This has been identified as a request for medical advice. Do not answer this question." notice and continuing to answer the question. I assume that since there was just a discussion about why we remove questions, this question is asking why those people answered the questions after a "Do not answer this question" notice was added. -- kainaw™ 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples, please ? StuRat (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw, I disagree that the answering of "medical advice requests" is due to "juvenile response". As I stated before, I do not recall seeing any such juvenile responses. Please back up your claim with diffs. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The responses to the actual questions are not juvenile. But IF the responders respond because they're told not to then that "response" (i.e. the act of responding) is quite juvenile. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Zain, in principle you are correct. However that is a big "IF". There is no evidence that this is the case. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See [3]. I don't have time to search through years of RD. This is just one example where people had a driving need to answer a question that others deemed a request for medical advice. This is just one example I found in a quick Google. Now, it appears that the argument I'm hearing is: "I don't want to believe that we started removing medical questions for a reason, so I refuse to believe that the reason could possibly be that people answered the questions if they weren't deleted." That sounds like nonsense to me. -- kainaw™ 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That certainly is not a a case where a consensus was reached that this was a request for medical advice. On the contrary, it was about a side-effect of exercise, and many would not consider this medical advice in that coaches and many others lacking medical degrees routinely give such advice legally. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm… no. First, you're no longer using the (dubious) phrase "juvenile response" and now just calling the response "juvenile" so we're back to a potential insult. Second, there are valid reasons to reject authority that have nothing to do with being "juvenile" (as StuRat has already explained). Third, you could easily use "resistance to authority", "reverse psychology", "boundary testing", etc. as clear alternatives to "juvenile response"., yet you persist in arguing for a usage that Google hasn't heard of. Not that it's likely to change your mind, but I too think your use of "juvenile" reads as an insult, intended or otherwise. – 74  19:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's "you"? In the second part of your first sentence it seems like it might be me. If someone resists authority for the sake of resisting authority, that person is a moron - that's all I'm saying. Like Axl said, we can't show this to be the case (we also can't show that it isn't the case). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's funny; in my country we call that person "free". Anyway, you are correct that I confused your statement with kainaw's above, and for that I apologize. I still don't think there is any benefit to throwing insults around, and I'd object to "moron" the same as "juvenile" the same as "idiot". Insults do not forward your position, and likely violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BITE. Please refrain from insulting anyone. – 74  22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd call that person a "free moron". I'm not insulting anyone because I can't possibly prove that anyone responded to medical questions only because they were told not to. And it works both ways - if I resist something for no reason (or for a silly reason) then I'm (by my definition) a moron too. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? – 74  15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How did I resist the intention those policies? Who did I attack? Who did I disrespect? Excluding, of course, people who have responded to medical questions on the reference desk after consensus deemed those questions to be requests for advice only because they were told not to. Again, I didn't insult anyone. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me an exchange in a movie I rather liked:

COP: "Do you mind if I search your house ?"

CITIZEN: "I do unless you have a warrant."

COP: "Why would you mind if we search your house, if you have nothing to hide ?"

CITIZEN: "I mind because of your assumption that anyone who insists on having their rights respected must have something to hide."

I believe that the basic Libertarian idea here is that authority must be resisted at every opportunity, or it will slowly take over. Consider how rights to privacy in communications have decreased with each new technology (from mail, to telephone, to text messaging and the Internet) simply because people failed to insist that their privacy rights be maintained under the new technology. I don't completely agree with the Libertarian philosophy, but I certainly understand where such people are coming from, and would never call them idiots, morons, or juvenile for their beliefs. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but no one made any assumptions about you. In your example, there was a good reason to resist (i.e. to maintain a right to privacy) but in my example, the only reason to resist was to resist. If your reason to resist was to help the OP or to improve the refdesk then I have no objections. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this Q was about "questions that border on medical advice", so it's quite possible that someone else answers both because they don't believe it is a medical advice Q and they are resisting the idea of someone declaring themself an authority, unilaterally deciding that a Q is a request for medical advice Q, and expecting everyone else to fall in line based on that one opinion. So, just as in my example above, they are, at least in part, resisting the tendency of "an authority" to take control. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about someone resisting only to resist. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But why are you and Kainaw talking about that (since it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the original post) ? StuRat (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw, are you really adducing that thread as evidence of a "juvenile response"? It seems to me to be quite the opposite. Initially, Mrdeath5493 did not believe that the question was actually a request for medical advice. He debated the matter. However he did not attempt to answer the original question. After explanation from Steve, Mrdeath5493 accepted the point. In my opinion, this is a "mature response". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No - not really. In case anyone here hasn't taken the time to read this thread, this is basically what has happened:

• I used a generic psychology term from stimulus-response that has many labels, such as infant-response, adult-response, fear-response, and (as I used) juvenile-response.
• Others misread the term "juvenile response" as "a bunch of dumb juveniles".
• I explained that I was referring to the action of responding, not the people making the response or the text of the response.
• Others claimed that nobody in the history of the Reference Desk has ever responded to a question after there was a notice that nobody should respond any further, demanding that I show proof that it has happened.
• I really don't care enough to dig through the RD pages from 3 or 4 years ago, especially when StuRat was active at the time also and was involved in the discussions about changing the policy to question removal instead of just adding a "do not answer" notice.
• Now, because I have no interest in digging through old RD pages, I be wrong about the fact that we have a policy to remove medical questions, I must be wrong that the policy was enacted at some point in the past for a valid reason, and I must be wrong about the fact that there are general classes of human responses labelled by psychologists, one of which includes a juvenile response.

Hopefully, you can see why I consider this argument rather absurd now. -- kainaw™ 15:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim that "nobody in the history of the Reference Desk has ever responded to a question after there was a notice that nobody should respond any further". What I said is that it's rare that people respond after a consensus has been reached that a Q is a medical advice Q, and this info has been posted at the original Q. Of course, if no consensus has been reached, or if it has but they don't know about it because nobody bothered to post a link to where the consensus was gathered, then you can't blame someone for ignoring what appears to be the opinion of a single poster. And it shouldn't be necessary to go back 3 or 4 years to find support for your statement if it's as common as you claim. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the phrase "juvenile response" dubious at best. You claim it is a generic psychology term meaning "resistance to authority", but Google hasn't heard of it. Not that it's likely to change your mind, but I too think your use of "juvenile" reads as an insult, intended or otherwise. You could easily use "resistance to authority", "reverse psychology", "boundary testing", etc. as clear alternatives to "juvenile response" and spare us all the drama. – 74  15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really mean "resistance to authority". StuRat made the correlation between "juvenile response" and "resistance to authority". A "juvenile response" is a stimulus-response category. The stimulus is a "do not" rule, such as "do not stay out past midnight". Without the stimulus, the response is meaningless. You can resist authority without rules. For example, you can see a tank rolling down the street and decide to stand in front of it. There is no sign on the street saying "Do not stand in front of tanks". The big difference is that resistance to authority often is performed for a concious reason. Stimulus-response is studying subconcious responses. So, you don't term something as "juvenile response" if there is a concious reasoning. That gets to my point... If you tell someone "do not answer that question", one reason for the person to feel the need to answer the question would be a "juvenile response". Another could be disagreement about the policy of not answering questions - but nobody said we have to give every single possible reason that a person may answer the question. Offering one reason should be enough. -- kainaw™ 15:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also... according to Google, nobody has ever wore a white shirt while standing in front of a WZ120 tank before. Does that make Google an authority? -- kainaw™ 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather silly example. Try using some term that actually does mean the same thing as "resistance to authority", like "civil disobedience", and you will get close to 2000 matches (with Wikipedia right at the top, as it should be): [4]. And, if you don't like using G-hits as evidence, provide your own evidence that "juvenile reponse" means what you claim it means. Incidentally, while I first used the term "resistance to authority", you agreed that this is what you meant when you said 'I claim a "juvenile response" is "resistance to authority"...'. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Others misread the term "juvenile response" as "a bunch of dumb juveniles"."

— Kainaw

Well, I didn't misread your comment in that way. In any case, I disagree with your comments about the "juvenile response" and I haven't seen a convincing argument. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I have no intention of making everyone agree with me. I simply wanted to ensure that I made it clear that I wasn't calling the users or the words in the responses "juvenile". I was only referring to the action of responding when told not to. -- kainaw™ 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Link tool-tips

I've noticed that the tool tips provided when you mouse over a link no longer includes the section. Am I correct in thinking that they once did ? This makes this feature rather useless here, as the tool tip now only shows the desk, not the actual question, making it necessary to pick on the link to find out where it points. Is there any way to change this back ? StuRat (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some examples:

• Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Comparative_statistics_subset_of_Inferential_statistics

• 2nd example

• [5]

• 4th example

The first two lack full tool-tips (but the first one doesn't need it, of course). The last two do have a full tool-tip, although it gets truncated, at least for me. The case I'm really asking about is the 2nd example, where my tool tip says "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics", with no mention of the question/section. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

All of those give me the same tooltip - one post beginning with, "Would I be wrong...", and ending with the sig and timestamp. Am using FF 3.0.8 under WinXP here. --Scray (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I get only "Wikipedia:Reference_Desk/Mathematics" for the first and second links, and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Comparative_statistics_subset_of_Inferential_statistics" (not truncated, but with a line break in the tool tip) for the third and fourth links. Firefox 3.0.8, Windows XP here too. I don't remember what the tool tips were like previously. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a Preferences difference? There's one gadget under "Browsing gadgets", and I've enabled it. --Scray (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I enabled it, and restarted Firefox. Now I get the same six-line preview for all four links. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is this "Browsing gadgets" setting and what 6-line preview do you get ? I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.20 (I'm guessing that's the highest version for Windows 98). StuRat (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll have to upgrade to Windows Me. Then enable (Gadgets tab) Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and maybe the JavaScript Standard Library (last button on the page).—eric 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't seriously be telling people to "upgrade" to Windows Me, can you? :) Livewireo (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think that's a bit much, too. But I swear my tool tips used to include the section names before (but not the 6-line preview), even under Windows 98. So, what changed ? StuRat (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just changing the setting under the gadgets tab of my prefs to provide the 6-line preview seems to have solved this problem, even with Windows 98 and my old version of Firefox. Thanks, all. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award

After a looong interlude, the Science desk has won the 13th DRDTOTWA. Congratulations. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the award back to stay, then? If so, how long will the 'week's be in the future? Algebraist 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I make no promises! But the IP's edit to the award page is exactly the kind of thing to encourage me. A week can be a very long time. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on refdesk sections

I think we should have a reference desk section devoted to economics, who would I make the suggestion to in order to get the ball rolling on something like this? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct way to make the suggestion is by posting here, as you have done. Why should we have such a desk? Algebraist 19:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question, there are a large amount of questions on economic topics such as currency speculation, inflation, national bankruptcy and the like. Personally, I do not think it is very intuitive whether these would be classified as humanities or as misc. A separate economic section would more easily classify such questions, and perhaps encourage a larger number of questions from which people can learn. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I count something like 6-12 such topics on the desks at present. That would make the newly created desk the smallest by far. I don't think it's enough to justify a new desk. As for whether it's intuitive where these questions should go at present, WP:RD lists 'finance' and 'economics' under the Humanities heading, which seems clear enough to me. Algebraist 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this would work in the future if more economics questions appear.

PS, there are a lot of questions that would be under humanities that are currently in misc, so I do think there is some validity to my statement about what is classified as a humanity question, as the list you mention is only seen on the main ref desk page, not when moving from the science or computer ref desk section to the humanities section, or in the humanities section itself.65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much that we can do about people posting things on the wrong desk however much we tell them not to. I'd love to hear a sensible suggestion in this line, though. Algebraist 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the "Humanities Desk" to the "Humanities and Economics Desk" would certainly help, in that regard. There are also reasons not to do this, of course, like it taking longer to type the name whenever you refer to the desk. As for the number of economics Q's; the current number is probably higher than the historic average, due to the current economic turmoil. However, if we slip into a worldwide depression, then the economics Q's may increase even further. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RD/HW? -hydnjo (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If we create [[WP:RD/Medical advice]] then we can get a bot to auto-clear the page and save ourselves a lot of trouble.   ;-)   – 74  02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question move procedure

When moving a question, I think it is appropriate to provide links to/from the old section and sign the modification. This makes it significantly easier to follow the move and identify who moved it. I had assumed these would be in the Reference Desk guidelines, but that page apparently does not even mention moving questions. Would anyone be opposed to the addition of a subsection on moving questions, as outlined above? – 74  22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this. Algebraist 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to support it, as well, although I'd like to see the final text before giving my official approval. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support it would be great to have well-defined best practices. --Scray (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a formal statement as harmful, but I suspect its probably just an elaboration on the extant WP:UCS. It follows from the general real-life principle If you move something that belongs to someone else, let them know where you put it. I would hope that anyone who is inclined to move a question (and who is sufficiently skilled to do so) would already have been sufficiently inculcated with Wikipedia culture to leave a link behind.

Practically speaking, I would strongly suspect any editor who is going to move questions around without leaving explanatory links behind a) isn't going to read through the minutiae in the guideline anyway, and b) can probably be straightened out with a polite request not to do it again. Incidentally, has anyone confirmed that this isn't already part of a broader Wikipedia guideline somewhere? You might save yourself a reinvention of the wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably half of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are elaborations on WP:UCS. I have noticed a few recent question moves that didn't include links/signatures; I was originally just going to post a "polite reminder" here, but in the process of researching the appropriate guidelines I discovered "question moves" weren't covered. I'd prefer to have an established guideline to refer to when making a "polite request", though it isn't strictly necessary. I would, of course, be interested in any other relevant policies or guidelines, but, to be honest, the ad-hoc nature of Wikipedia's rules tends to make finding anything beyond the most common policies a challenge. Even if such a guideline already exists somewhere I think it'd still be beneficial to provide a summary and link in the Reference Desk guidelines. – 74  01:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First-pass move procedure added; comments and revisions welcome. – 74  02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about "All users are encouraged to help by moving this content to the appropriate page." I support encouraging movers to include links and to sign, but should we also encourage the actual move? I don't think we've reached a consensus regarding questions that are intentionally misplaced. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that in your example the name of the Q was also changed between "Computer" and "IP address". It might be a bad idea to change the name at the same time as we change the Desk, as those who navigate to the new Desk manually may be unable to find it under a new title. If the title is vague, we could add more detail in parens to clarify. For example, "Computer (IP address)" might be a good new title, and still allow people searching under the old name to find it. Also, I think we should list the section names on both notices, rather than provide a link to the section but merely list the name of the Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "encouragement" and replaced it with a mild warning to add a little "discouragement", changed the title as specified, and added in the section titles; see When moving a posting. Any further comments? – 74  20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikia answers

I was reading an article about the cancellation of wikia search and saw it mention wikia answers (actually it was a rather bad article since it suggested wikia answers belonged to the WMF). I don't know if others have seen it Wikia:Answers but boy am I glad were not them. "Will Barack Obama be impeached?" "Is Zac Efron dating Vanssa?" "Who is martin keamy?" Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You think that is bad, try Yahoo Answers. That link is specifically to the Wikipedia question section. -- kainaw™ 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

question removed as medical advice request (weight_gain)

I have removed a request (along with a few responses that had accumulated) for medical advice. Diff of removal: [6]

Body of question:

I am looking for some advise to gain some weight as I am underweight and that makes me look too thin.

Everywhere i just find the informations to loose weight but not to gain it, no matter what i eat or how much i eat i remain the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vprinka (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

...

Thanx for both the suggestions but yes i do eat a lot of bread n butter an a Pizza too, and i know i hav a good apetite but still its the same thing, i need to gain atleast 5kgs. I have tried eating bananas regularly as suggested by Mom and some frens but still no use, i drink milk daily and that too full cream milk. I used to do lot of exercice earlier but now i have stopped doing it from past 6-7 months, still noting works, although i know i m a healthy person from inside. Somehow m scared of using any kind of medicines for this.

Plz if u can provide any other advice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vprinka (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If a person is chronically underweight to the point that they are concerned about it, they need to be referred to an expert. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that fully answering this request would require diagnostic and possibly therapeutic decisions. Not only is the OP concerned about it, but a parent and friends have made suggestions. Not a problem the RefDesk should be handling. --Scray (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that attempting to provide a complete answer would require diagnosing any possible medical problems the questioner has and then giving a treatment plan to help with the problem. -- kainaw™ 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

While I would say the simple request for methods of gaining weight is a dietary information request, not medical advice, when the OP added that nothing they try works to help them gain weight that does sound like it could possibly be a medical problem, so I'll agree to the removal. Some comments, though:

1) Ten failed to provide a link from the Q back to here, I've now added it.

2) Ten also failed to provide a link to the Q in it's current form, so here it is: [7].

3) Ten also stated that this is medical advice request as a fact in the header, in violation of Wikipedia talk page guidelines, so I've fixed it. (It so happens that I share his opinion that this is a request for medical advice, but it's still an opinion, not a fact.) StuRat (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, stop playing games with talk page section headers. You've been told many, many time by many editors not to change them, and your stubborn insistence on changing other editors' commments is needlessly abrasive. It breaks links to the section anchor from page histories and user contribution pages. (For that matter, it even broke the link that you provided in your point #1.) I've fixed your error, and I've added an appropriate anchor so that my fix doesn't break any links to your preferred anchor. Feel free to use a similar fix if you would like to use your own anchors in the future, but avoid replacing section headers that aren't doing any harm.

The 'failures' that you list are not required by policy, and your presentation of them in that light is decidedly unpleasant. Further, a link back to the Desk section is superfluous — there's nothing there except the {rd-deleted} template, and I've provided both a diff and a copy of the question right here on this page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And you've been pointed to the talk page guidelines that say not to post your personal opinions in talk page headers, many times, yet continue to do so. Why ? Just to be an annoyance ? You just went and did it again, right now, when you could have put your opinionated header in the anchor. I've now done so. And you must know it's a good idea to have links between the original Q and the talk page discussion, as that's totally obvious. So why would you hide behind the line that "there's no official policy which requires this" ? You said there's nothing there but the template, but people wouldn't know that without the link. Furthermore, just because there was nothing else there at the time doesn't mean it will remain that way (there's now the link back to here, for example). StuRat (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to WP:POINTily edit war over the section head like you're doing; I only put it back to fix the broken links your edit created. I even did you the courtesy of leaving an anchor so you could use your preferred form in your links.

You were told before (just a month ago, in fact) to go to a higher level of dispute resolution if you don't like other people's section headers. The insulting lectures and condescension aren't an effective strategy. If you genuinely believe that this is important enough to bang on about – I certainly don't – then take it to the next level — where lots of neutral observers will be glad to tell you to stop making a petty nuisance of yourself. If you don't want a final decision and you don't actually believe that this issue is important – in other words, if you're just in it for the opportunity to engage in petty bickering with me – then by all means carry on as you are. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You did engage in an edit war, by putting your title back for the section instead of in the anchor. And, if you just want to continue to stir up trouble by intentionally putting your opinions in section titles instead of making the titles factual, then I guess I can't stop you. And I doubt if my section title change caused any broken links at all, but, even if it did, they would still point to this page, just not this section, which is a rather minor difference. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with StuRat (and it's not often I can say that). Ten's original section header was unacceptable, and Stu was right to change it, regardless of whatever links the change may have broken. If you don't like people "playing games with talk page section headers", you shouldn't make them contentious in the first place. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. The talk page guidelines clearly state: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Willfully ignoring that guideline without good cause is both pointless and pointy. – 74  23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

TOAT (or rather his refusal to accept that he doesn't own the desks) is the main reason I hardly bother with the desks anymore. DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's cool off a bit and review what has happened so far:

1. section created by Ten of all Trades The header is "medical advice request (weight gain)".
2. Sturat weighs in on whether or not the question is medical in nature, changes the header, and post comments on the header the header is "question removed as medical advice request (weight gain)"
3. Ten reverts to the first header
4. Sturat reverts the header to later version
5. Ten of all trades replies to Sturat
6. Sturat replies to Ten of all trades

This whole affair has been silly; a little diplomatic language and preemptive politeness could have gone a very long way. Here is my opinion of what both sides could have done to improve the dialogue. Ten of all trades could have wrote the header so that it wasn't "definitive it tone," however it wasn't all that bad to begin with. The problem with the header was minor and certainly not worth an edit war. Since I am not Sturat, I am not sure of the intended tone of his first reply, but Ten took it as abrasive. This is likely a product of the fact that the internet doesn't transmit tone well. Sturat could have worded his reply more carefully. Regardless of tone, I think it was a very bad idea for Sturat to change the header without asking first. If it were me, I would have used a "do you mind if", or something along those lines. Simply changing someone's posts, even if one has a good reason, can rub of as a declaration of "my opinions are more important than yours". It puts one's pride as an editor on the lines and automatically creates a me vs. you situation. Once this happens, it becomes difficult to seek a resolution because any backing down to defuse tensions or compromising feels like losing. It is definitely best whenever one posts, especially during an argument, to avoid putting either party's pride on the line for the express purpose of avoiding these sorts of situations.
The following reversions to their respective header versions by both parties was unnecessary and frankly a little immature. The best option at this point was for one of editors to attempt a compromise. Ten should have just left it as it was and replied to Sturat. Failing that, Sturat should have done the same to Ten. I'm glad that Ten chose not to revert the header for a second time. The grumpiness in the following replies is not unexpected considering what has happened. Again, it would be preferable if both of the parties attempted to pacify the conflict by using diplomatic language.
Arguing about this issue further or attempting to ascertain who is right and who is wrong is only likely to create more tension. Since everyone so far agrees it's a medical question, I think dropping further discussion about the header is the best solution. It would be a shame if someone chose not to answer on the reference desk anymore because of arguments like this one. Sifaka ^talk 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sifaka, I have to disagree with you on one point. If I had changed the section header from Ten's opinion to my opinion (if they were different, of course), then this would indeed be saying "my opinions are more important than yours". I didn't do that, however. I changed the title from Ten's opinion to a neutral title, as is required by talk page policy. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It needed to be said, and you made it clear. --Scray (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true — I let StuRat get under my skin this time around, and I vented. It doesn't take a genius to note that there is a history of personal animosity between us. Over the last two or three years, he has regularly attacked my integrity and competence and misrepresented my views, and it wears thin. He has consistently attempted to make it more difficult for other editors to enforce the provisions on the Ref Desk against medical advice — provisions which were established through lengthy discussion and consultation, and which have been upheld by long consensus. I try to be polite – or, failing that, simply to ignore StuRat's goading – but I slipped on this occasion. As a matter of limiting friction and heat, I try to avoid responding to his remarks except where a) they are directly addressed to me, or b) he is misstating or misrepresenting a policy or consensus to someone who isn't likely to realize he is doing so. This was not an isolated incident; this was simply one of the few cases where I've engaged in less self-censorship than usual. StuRat's conduct towards me has been deliberately hostile for a very long time, but Wikipedia policy addresses superficially-polite campaigns of harrassment very poorly.

I will note that there was a technical reason for me to restore the section header to its original version – StuRat's change had broken the links to it from a number of places, including from his own message on the Desk. Where Sifaka's summary indicates that I 'revert[ed] to the first header', it should be noted that I also added an anchor containing StuRat's preferred header version so as to allow him to create functionally identical links using his preferred text.

I apologize to the other readers here on the page for being dragged so far off topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the facts when claiming you needed to revert the title to restore broken links. If there were any broken links, which I doubt, you could simply have added the anchor containing your title, there was absolutely no need to revert my title. I've mentioned this above, yet you continue to misrepresent the facts. I also believe that you knew full well that you were adding your opinion in the title, and that this violation of talk page guidelines was designed to elicit an angry response from me. Under the circumstances, I believe my initial reply and actions were measured and reasonable. Sifaca may not be aware of the previous discussions we've had about this recently and how the specific policy pages have been listed here, more than once. As for me, I don't want to cause any anger, I simply want people to follow the talk page guideline which requires neutrality in section titles. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all (especially Sifaka & Scray) who have weighed in to reduce the heat and to provide the third side. Ten, thanks for your clarifying and calming remarks. Anyone else? -hydnjo (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Calming remarks" ? Do you call accusing me of harassment and goading to be calming ? What part of "he has regularly attacked my integrity and competence and misrepresented my views" is calming ? StuRat (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

StuRat, it's sometimes difficult to know what was said when if you continue to insert your posts out of temporal order. That aside, I was hoping that a final statement of Ten's and your positions would end this one (and erupt again in the future perhaps) as this one is dead - exhausted - done. I suspect that all will allow you the last word (please). -hydnjo (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's my last word then: If nothing else, both Ten and I have managed to keep any nastiness off the Ref Desk proper, which is what's most important, after all. StuRat (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all :-) -hydnjo (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)