Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75

"Fake Patient" diagnosis

We've got a request on the science desk (here) to diagnose a fake patient. Someone threw a "Do Your Own Homework" template up. I'm not so concerned about asking for help on homework (the OP has attempted to answer the question himself, but failed), but I do worry about giving medical advice, even for a "fake patient". It's pretty clear in this case that it really is a homework question in this case, but such a scenario could be used by someone trying to covertly solicit medical advice for themselves. So what do we do? Refuse to give any diagnosis, even for a fake patient? Give a possible diagnosis with a strict warning to see a doctor if these symptoms apply to a real person? Just refuse to answer it because it's homework? Input would be appreciated. Buddy432 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask, Were thy on any medication prior to admittance? I'm thinking along the lines of discounting any adverse drug reaction, especially the rarer ones caused by to or more drugs. --Aspro (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly a homework question. The "fake patient" thing is common. Doctors are trained by having fake patients come in with symptoms and the doctor tries to test and treat properly. What I find strange is that the question made it here. Normally, they are not allowed to jump on a computer to ask for help. -- kainaw™ 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a written homework question for someone not far enough along to deal with "real" fake patients? APL (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say to treat it like a medical request...because that's what it is. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Either that or give them "fake answers", such as "You say he has terminal cancer? Give him some Tylenol. Couldn't hurt." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Or to really start an interesting discussion, say "Pray for him." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Giving fake answers is basically trolling. Don't do that. Did the #so are hypothetical questions okay, or not section further up the page reach a decision on dealing with hypothetical questions? 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I should have pointed out that such a fake answer would be preceeded by a disclaimer, something like this: "In regard to your fake patient, here is a fake answer..." Or, you could just say, "Sorry, we are not doctors and cannot give medical advice, even for a fake patient." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose a new rule. Only fake doctors can give diagnoses for fake patients. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a request for homework advice, not a request for medical advice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So either way, it's to be disregarded, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of a "no medical advice" disclaimer if we have a sub-cluase "unless it's not for a real person"? Vimescarrot (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) What causes me to shudder is the thought that a presumed med-student is asking for advice on the Internet. That said, my (very experienced MD) sister has questioned me closely on the reliability of English Wikipedia, since she uses it as part of her research toolkit for obscure conditions. A better answer IMO would have been to further elucidate the chain of reasoning, specifically why other diagnoses could be excluded in favour of the leap to staph or strep. Taking the OP at face value, what they need help with is reasoning, not answers. Interesting intersection of homework and medadvice though. Franamax (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No kidding. I would hate to be going under anesthetic and the last words I hear the doctor say are, "Bring up that Wikipedia ref desk question about this type of surgery." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the stories you hear about incompetent surgeons, I wouldn't object too strongly to having some of the Ref Desk regulars giving instructions on how to cut me open. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as some wise guy doesn't make some subtle changes - for example, replacing all occurrences of "scalpel" with "can opener". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"Some guy named "Bugs" told me how to perform this surgery. I just wish he hadn't used such small print, my eyes aren't what they used to be." APL (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Small-print instructions should only be given for pediatric surgery. Franamax (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it really so shocking to realize that a med student might not know everything there is to know about medicine? Isn't that why they're in med school? Ref desk answers can often be helpful, whether you're doing a physics problem set or a fake diagnosis, even with the implicit understanding in mind that answers from the internet should receive some scrutiny. I don't think there's anything to pooh-pooh here. Rckrone (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Or better, social science desk

I have read the guidance essay. Now, I strongly support for social science desk. Please make a case on the this and carry on the discussion. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You missed the most important part:
in any suggestion of a new lineup the burden of proof is on the suggester -- and not on those who support the consensus-based status quo -- that the current lineup is broken and needs to be corrected
So start provin'. --Sean 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
For starters, Social Sciences and Humanities are not the same thing so a split would be appropriate. But I haven't checked whether many Social Science questions end up on Misc or whether they get answered on Humanities currently. It would be nice if, in the process, Ents gets killed... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Does it really matter? It seems to be working just fine. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct, they get up mixed. This subject has a variety of common infields - history, geography, economics, arts, civics ..... In the humanities section, I don't understand why do we mix up like Misc. And Misc is probably not a good place to ask questions about such a common variety. All the above subjects are common and do not fit in any good category. That's why. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The question remains where do the questions currently go and why isn't it working? I believe humanities is currently the second most active desk after science so there may be merit to split if many of the questions currently end up on humanities and some of them may end up on science too like some geography and anthropology questions. However you're still going to have to demonstrate there are enough of them to warrant making a new desk. I would note that both humanities and social sciences list history as a subject, so it probably isn't a good example Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Extra999, this is the second third (oops, I missed #Geography desk) new Reference Desk section that you've proposed this week. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to do some of your own research and data collection before you present another such proposal to the community? When you proposed a #Music desk a few days ago, I went through the Entertainment, Misc, and Humanities desks to see just how much traffic a music desk would draw; it turned out to be 'not much'. This time around, you're telling the other volunteers who help out at the Ref Desks to again do your work for you — to "make a case" for your suggestion. That isn't how we work here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (amended 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC))
What exactly is the problem you are trying to fix? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious to know the opposite question, and maybe the veterans here will know: The ref desk started as a single page. Why were multiple pages created? Was it getting too big, too unwieldy? Fairly often I'll see a comment about "you've posted on the wrong page". If you had just one page, obviously that kind of comment would not be needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a 2005 discussion here. Going through the archives should pick up more information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Some interesting discussion. Part of it has to do with trying to keep the pages small, due to issues with dialup, which is probably much less of a concern now than it was in 2005. There was also the prophetic caution about users having to figure out which page to go to - the main problem with that being when someone goes to the wrong page and gets lectured about it - blaming the user for misunderstanding wikipedia's own artificial construct. Funny how nobody here gets lectured about doing that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This question (or variations on it) has come up repeatedly in the time I've been contributing to the reference desks. The frequency alone suggests that there may well be a problem. A year ago, I conducted a quick analysis of numbers of edits to the reference desks and found that (on average) a user would have to check his watchlist something like 20 times a day to have a reasonable chance of seeing each new question added to a desk. My point was that, because the number of desks is small, each page attracts so many questions that those who answer questions are likely to miss many postings. Wikiant (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Another argument in 2005 in favor of multiple pages was the "division of labor" theory. It seems that many editors are watching all or most of the pages, so that argument is not especially relevant. It's fair to say there are also probably a lot more editors now than there were 5 years ago. (That's a fact with attendance problems of its own, but that's another story.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
What bothers me most is the reluctance to try more desks. It's not like there is a huge fixed cost in creating more desks. Why not try more desks for a month or two and then take a survey on whether or not people believe that more is better. It makes no sense to me that we keep arm-chair theorizing when the cost of the experiment is so low. Wikiant (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly. There's no harm in creating another desk, and there might be some benefit. I'd like to go even further, and make it a regular thing: we'd have like a "reference desk of the month" where we would encourage people to ask questions on a specific topic on a temporary desk. Most would be sort of novelty things ("seagull desk, etc.), but if we had one that did especially well, we could then discuss making a permanent addition. Buddy431 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is partially a side-effect of the consensus system that Wikipedia uses to make decisions. Doing things on a "trial basis" is pretty much the same as doing them outright because once it's in place a consensus (which is harder to achieve than a majority) is needed to remove it. So if an experiment is tried and the majority of people feel it is a failure, it still might stay in place for a long time if a vocal minority supports it.
Therefore there is little advantage, and a significant disadvantage, to supporting a "trial" of any change in policy that you don't fully agree with. The result is that "Let's try it and see" feels like a trap. APL (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The logic cuts the other way also -- If the majority of people feel that the status quo is a failure, it still might stay in place for a long time if a vocal minority supports it. That the question of more desks keeps recurring suggests exactly that. Wikiant (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The logic certainly does cut both ways just as you say. Though I'm uncertain about your second point. APL (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempmusic

Tempmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP is not supposed to be used as forum. Tempmusic (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And all the questions are solvable with the use of any search engine, so anyone posting questions should just use their fingers to type in the necessary URL. Tempmusic (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
So let's just shut it all down then. 24.83.112.118 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Riiight. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Starting an office pool now, to see how prophetic the OP's first syllable proves to be. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries, User:Tempmusic is just one edit away from being blocked indefinitely. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact, after further review, he gawn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


He does have a good point though. Why do we have this reference desk. I'm not saying we shouldn't: I think it's very useful, and is related to Wikipedia's goals. But what's the history behind it: who proposed it, and how old is it? Buddy431 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You mean, Why does the ref desk exist at all? You'd have to ask its founders that question, from when it started 5 years ago or so. It may be that they were getting too many factual questions at the help desk (they still do get some) and thought it would be a good idea to separate out factual questions from "How do I do [whatever] in wikipedia?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. And I was hoping to get a response from one of the founders who was here when it started and actually knew why it was started, rather than someone who feels the need to respond to everything even when all he has is a guess off the top of his head. Do you know who any of the founders are that I could ask? Buddy431 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, you could start with User:Larry Sanger, a wikipedia co-founder who still occasionally edits. Go to the Misc. ref desk history and you can see its genesis in the fall of 2001. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a 2005 discussion here. Going through the archives should pick up more information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean this for BB's comment to the previous discussion? It seems more related to that then this Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll copy it there. I thought it was a more helpful response here than referring it to Larry Sanger, but, whatever... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you took offense, I wasn't trying to criticise you instead simply trying to be helpful as people do sometimes clearly make their comments to the wrong discussion, I've seen it myself in the RD proper and even moved some comments myself when they were clearly in the wrong place. As to why I felt that comment may have been intended for the earlier thread, that specific discussion concerns splitting up the RD, about 4 years after it was formed (where people may have some idea about why it was formed, but more likely if at all will just be commenting on why they feel it's useful at the time, which is of course no more nor any less meaningful then people commenting now why they feel the RD is useful) if I understood/understand this thread correctly, so you can hopefully understand why I thought that it may have been intended for the discussion about why the RD was split, rather then the discussion about why the RD was formed when we had two ongoing discussions on these related issues one just below the other. If you feel that it is helpful for this discussion, again let me repeat, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's entirely resonable for someone to think it may have been intended for the other discussion Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The history of the reference desk is under Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous as that is the name the original desk was moved to when Wikipedia:Reference_desk became a general front page. You can see here it seems to have been created in October 2001 by User:129.128.164.xxx with noted philosopher Larry Sanger 3 months and 11 edits later asking the important age old question "why do dogs eat other dogs' poop". Some random text for the benefit of quiet reflection, and meditation upon that question and in order to distance my sig from it. meltBanana 14:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I'm quite surprised that it was started so early (October 2001), considering that Wikipedia itself was only started in January 2001. I also find it interesting that it wasn't until 2005 that multiple desks were created. Do you know, is there any sort of discussion (probably archived elsewhere) about creating the first desk in 2001? Buddy431 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
And in fact, looking at that October 25 reference desk, it's obvious that it's been around longer than that. Some of the questions are from as early as June 26. Buddy431 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it started as a spinoff from the help desk. I'll take a look at that unless you beat me to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Uh, no, apparently not. It seems that the help desk was a spinoff of the village pump, and from there I've lost the trail. Maybe a long-termer will know. It occurs to me that maybe wikipedia needs kind of a "history of itself" somewhere that would answer these questions - if there isn't one already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggested a Wikipedia self-history project a few years ago but it was met with only lukewarm reception. Maybe people will be more up for it now that Wikipedia is older and has more history to it. Also I think there might have been a project like this somewhere, but it either got deleted along with the old wp:bjaodn pages or is inactive. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not enough of an old-timer to comment on why the desks were created in the first place, but here's a justification I wrote for them a few years ago. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Good summary. And in reference to what 82.43 said just above, maybe there could be a sub-page to the Wikipedia article that's called History of Wikipedia or something. If we the editors are interested in the evolution of this website in some depth, it's possible casual readers are also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe Chronology of Wikipedia or Timeline of Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This would be one thing that should be easy to research, as all's we have to do is find the diff's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Look back up to the "poop" question: they were asking silly questions for no reason back then, too. Even if it was a luminary asking it... Aaronite (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We've had rather sillier questions than that one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Humanities desk question

Why do we put up with this crap? Instead of a music desk or a geography desk, what's needed is a desk where BB can post all the useless drivel he's medically unable to stop himself from spewing all over people's questions. The dandelion thread gets off-track? It's no biggie; at least there's some kind of information being relayed. It happens and it's kind of cool, actually. But what the hell was the gain from this bullshit? And I'm the bad guy for wiping up the orthographic diarrhea? 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, we have to put up with no end of nonsense from anonymous busybodies like yourself. The question had to do with raising a pheasant as a pet, so it's already obviously a joke, but he got a straight answer, which is to call his city government, as wikipedia is in no position to answer such a question. You want to mark it "done" or "resolved", fine. But it's not your place to be deleting other users' comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, check out this equally "useful" "contribution" by the above IP when last heard from a month ago:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Within the last hour, I've had at least one "thank you" and at least one "agree with", which is a total of at least two more compliments than the IP has had. So the IP should focus on trying to answer questions, instead of playing the nanny, or more bluntly, the troll, which are his only accomplishments so far today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how someone asking if they are allowed to raise a pheasant as a pet is "obviously a joke". People have all sorts of animals as pets; snakes, horses, stick-insects, sheep etc. A pheasant isn't any stranger than those. Anyway, Baseball Bugs's first response was the correct one, the thread should have ended there. But I can understand the OPs frustration at seeing lots of people apparently cracking jokes at the expense of him. The abundance of small-tagged joke posts in that thread should be avoided.
Side note after edit conflict; Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest, the number of people who may or may not have complimented you within the last hour is completely irrelevant. And users are not required to answer questions before asking them. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP has only two entries in the last month, both of them negative and not geared toward answering a question in any way, shape or form, but rather geared toward attacking an editor. That's trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How is a question about an exotic pet "obviously a joke"? People have interests in all sorts of animals as unusual pets. APL (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And I gave him a straight answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As I've suggested before, Bugs has a sufficiently slanted POV when it comes to IP editors that he really ought to disengage from this sort of behavior. — Lomn 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If the IP had actually contributed something positive, I would have taken a different stance. The IP is purely trolling, serving no useful purpose here. And if you can't see that, then maybe you should disengage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I really wish you would stop making stupid jokes that add precisely nothing to these pages. If it was possible to ignore another user's posts, I'd have done it with you years ago, and I wouldn't have missed a thing. --Richardrj talk email 22:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And I wish you would stop kissing up to trolling IP's. If I had ignored the one that started this section, I'd have also been better off. But I took the bait again. Silly me. But at least I am actually trying to contribute something to the ref desks, as are you. The IP who posted this has contributed nothing. Nada. Zilch. Except for aggravation, if that counts as a "contribution". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The reference desk is for Wikipedia's readers. They are absolutely not required or even encouraged to "contribute anything positive" before asking a question.
People don't have to join our club just to ask a question. That's the whole point.
Imagine if the local library's reference desk wouldn't treat your questions seriously until you volunteered and reshelved books for a few hours! APL (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP in this case is not a "reader", he's a bloody troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The better analogy would be if I were behind the help desk at a library, and someone asked something, and I answered it, and then made a joke of some kind, and then some character came from out of nowhere and said, "I don't like the way you answered that person." That's being a busybody. A troll. Whatever. If the actual questioner has a problem with anything in any of the responses, he's free to speak up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a pet Bic pen. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I used to have a Pet Roc. My pet wolverine ate it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Who says he's a troll? Why do you insist on repeatedly calling him a troll? He's posting from an IP that had never before edited Wikipedia (just like the vast majority of Wikipedia readers.) and he asked on the reference desk a completely valid, legitimate question!
Not only are you completely failing to Assume Good Faith, I can't even tell what caused you to jump to this conclusion! APL (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You're getting your IP's mixed up. I'm not talking about the OP that asked about the pheasant. I'm talking about the one who posted at the top of this section, whose first two edits in the last month were today, first to delete stuff, and then to complain about it here, after he was called out for being a busybody. That one is the troll. His only activity to that point demonstrates only bad faith - all negative, no useful contribution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I assumed (Because you said that the question was "obviously a joke".) that all along you were talking about the question-asker. I assumed that you meant you would have "responded differently" by not joking about the question so much.
Sorry to misinterpret you. APL (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
'S all right. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see how someone trying to remove joke posts which shouldn't be there anyway is trolling. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain, then. On a talk page like the Ref Desk, you can't just go and remove anything you don't like, even if you feel it isn't helpful to the OP. At the very least, it needs to be a violation of some policy for it to be removed, and there's no blanket policy against jokes. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to take a moment to pedantically speak out against the use of the word "Troll" as a generic catch-all for anyone who does anything inappropriate on the Internet. It has a much more more specific meaning, which doesn't seem, to me, to apply here. That is all. APL (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, you're labouring under a double misconception. First, you thought that the OP was making a joke post. A Google search nets more than 400,000 hits for "pet pheasant" including quite a number of hits for people who already engage in the activity. IOW, you were wrong, period. Second, you thought that this "joke post" thereby gave you permission to post several, increasingly ridiculous replies. How is that helpful to anyone? Park your ego back in the hangar and look at the diff I provided. Did your reversion improve the desk in even a minute way? Abso-fucking-lutely not. Your posts mocked the OP's question - and for what? Man up and do the right thing - remove or redact your joke posts and let the OP get an answer to his question that doesn't involve having to read between your posts. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

... for your positive, uplifting, civil comments, which I will be storing in an appropriate file. The guy asked about a pet pheasant, and I advised him to consult his local government to find out what the rules are. I also pointed out an advantage of a pheasant over, say, a dog or cat, in that if the critter proves to be ornery, the OP could have it for supper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we just rename these pages "The Wikipedia Reference Desk and Improv Comedy Troupe"? APL (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday after Bugs posted another incorrect, unreferenced answer off the top of his head, without bothering to look at the references previously provided in the thread, I realized that since he treats this as a forum and not a Reference Desk, it would be a much better fit for him to hang out at the Straight Dope message boards, where it is looser, and he can give witty, unreferenced answers without continuously violating their policies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's one option. Another is that you could keep your snippy trap shut except for trying to find sources to questions. For example, is there a source affirming all this licensing stuff that you claim WB goes through all the time, beyond "probably"? If you're getting bored, maybe you could pick on someone else for awhile, like this guy [2] who's lecturing the questioner about his apparent failure to google first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ooo! Is this another Bugs Bashing thread? I particularly like his answers to the time travel question on the humanities desk. How could a modern time traveler arrange to inconspicuously have spending money when he arrived in 1896? According to Bugs, he could join a circus and recite the digits of pi. Or he could claim to have invented the telephone a mere twenty years after Bell receives his patent on the device. APL (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It was someone else [Bus stop] who talked about a circus and pi. And I missed that he was hung up on 1896, as opposed to 1876. In any case, the OP was overlooking the obvious, namely that language alone would make you stand out like a sore thumb. The first time you said, "Cool, dude!" they'd probably lock you up as some sort of lunatic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yea, you're right. Still, it was a name that started with a B.
Anyway, the question-asker wasn't "overlooking" that, or at least you have no evidence that he overlooked it. For all you know whatever work of fiction he's creating could have four chapters that cover that in excruciating detail!
The idea that when you travel someplace, or somewhen, being inconspicuous means you need to blend in with the locals is blindingly obvious and understood even by small children. The question-asker was asking for help on a more factually difficult part of his story. It's not your duty to assume that the questioner is incompetent as a storyteller and to make sure he's got every part of his story "right", just answer the question asked! APL (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me try to explain why this bothers me with a hypothetical. Imagine I asked "I'm writing a story about a baseball player. I've got a question about the locker room .... " would you jump in and assume that I'd "overlooked" the fact that the most important part of being a baseball player is playing baseball? No. It's safe to assume that I've got a handle on that part of the story. In fact, I'd be rather insulted if you started lecturing me on the basic rules of the game. APL (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I got a year wrong and you got a user ID wrong. It appears that neither of us is/are perfect. :'( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
If he's writing fiction, what does he need our advice for? And how is this kind of question appropriate for the ref desk anyway? Maybe we need a "help with creative writing" desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, presumably he needs help because he wants his historical sci-fi to be as accurate and believable as possible. Just moments ago you were complaining about historical sci-fi not being accurate and believable, so you can see that it's a noble goal.
I won't speak to whether it's an appropriate question for a reference desk, but I'll observe that no one else seems to mind, and he got a bunch of good answers. APL (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, then you've basically said that unsourced personal opinions are just fine, and that folks who gripe about that kind of thing are free to stick their gripes where the moon don't shine. Thanks for clarifying. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You'll notice that in this particular instance the question is a request for suggestions. Again, I don't care to debate if that's appropriate, but it's clear that is very different than a request for facts and references. APL (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"Once you open a can of worms, the only way to re-can them is with a bigger can." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Bugs, I will agree to keep my trap shut except for trying to find sources to questions, if you will agree to the same thing. (This act of yours would increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the Reference Desk by at least 10%, so I am hoping you will agree.) As for the source for my claim that you're flatly wrong, I'll post in the thread. I do have to correct my "WB regularly threatens to sue" claim; ASCAP and the Harry Fox Agency are the entities that make the royalty demands and collect payments, on behalf of WB. But they do demand and get payments, in the amount of about US$2 million per year. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can find any evidence that the copyright owners have ever sued a kids' birthday party, only then can you call me "flatly wrong". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find that if you re-read your original post on the subject you claimed that WB wouldn't try to sue anyone for fear of a publicity backlash. (You did add an "especially an ordinary family", but that's just emphasis, it doesn't change the underlying meaning of your claim.) Your unreferenced claim that WB's claim to the song is entirely toothless is far from self-evident because studios pay the royalty. The fact that no one can prove that they've done it so far, does not somehow validate your unreferenced claim that they won't do it in the future. APL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The original question, as I recall, was about singing the song at family gatherings. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop overusing <small>small print</small> on Wikipedia Ref.desks!

This is a spinn-off from, and subsection under, the #Zoning question.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC) ← The subheading was added by/on.

Actually, the question originated on a different desk:[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! all you <small>print</small> users! Please stop using small print! As it is very hard to read for some people with poor eyesight! (Everything is Zoomed in already,and the screen does not have room for any more zooming even if it is on the bigest screen available. ;-(
If your comment is not worthy of ordinary size letters, then maybe it is better left unsaid?
Remember the “How to answer a question” on the top of each ref.desk page:

  • Be concise, but not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated.

(I guess I should mention that I am not the OP).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You can do CNTR++ in most browsers to size it up. I should know the answer to this, but is there a template for "CAN'T ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS" or perhaps for "NOT FOR OPINIONS" or something similar? Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If you thought, Shadowjams, that someone with poor eyesight would not know, allready, that CTRL++ does zoom in, then you had better think again!
The problem is that even a big screen is too small a screen for the already gigantic size letters. Therefore even just a tiny little extra zooming tends to result in problematicly tiresome horizontal scrollbars. Therefore PLEASE do not use small text! 89.8.200.106 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The small text items are typically side discussions, and if they are too small to read, you can feel safe ignoring them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
One thing is ignoring that which you are able to see, if you had wanted to. Another thing is to be forced to, because of fellow ref.deskers' sloppy use of small font! (See my next entry, below).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous suggestion. The reason for SMALL is to allow people to follow the main discussion. As many of us know, if it weren't small, the main discussion would DISAPPEAR, it would not be continued, as you can see from discussions where text that SHOULD be small is full sized. The discussion just trails off in these cases. What you, with poor eye sight, need to do, is just copy and paste the text you can't read, or the whole thread, into notepad, then yhou can read it fine. Or you can just click "edit" in the section and read the original text as entered, without font adjustment. --Unsigned entry, which appeared some time before 18:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I disagree! It is not a ridiculous suggestion!

All is well, as long as the small print is used for:

  • typhography edit notes
  • grammar correction notes
  • ref.desk policy enforcement notifications
  • added: «--Unsigned entry» notes
    (As the one that I just added to the entry right above this one).

It might sometimes even be fine with small print in the extremely rare occasional use:

  • when that which is said in small print, is somehow appropriate and relevant to the question at hand, but still is kept "aside" to avoid disrupting the flow of the "core" answer replies!
    Although this latter use of small print would, in many cases, be better achieved by putting that information (the “side discussions”) into a separate paragraph with a blank line above and below it, because in that way you keep in line with the esteemed principle of Universal design (i.e. making and building and keeping everything accessible to everyone, including handicapped people).

    The principle of Universal design is steadily gaining recognition, and is being implemented by law, by more and more of the governmental administrations around Europe and presumably the world.

    Well, Of course even :-) disabeled people will sometimes want to follow the side discussion!
    But apart from that, then:

The bothering use of <small>small print</small> starts when it is employed to almost legitimize "forgetting" that the Wikipedia Reference desks are not chatroomsGuideline. Or to almost legitimize "forgetting" the guidelines from the top of each ref.desk page:
“How to answer a question”:

Accessibility features of Firefox: Setting a minimum font size -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can't see the small text on the screen, you need to:
A) Get a bigger screen.
B) Use a screen magnifier, like ZoomText, which allows you to extend the window beyond the screen size, and pan across the window, using the mouse, once enlarged. In this way, you can look at even just one word at a time on the screen, yet still have the whole thing (virtually) displayed. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, small tags should be treated in a similar way that the over-use of bink and big tags are frowned upon because it reduces readability. I also want to echo what OP said; "If your comment is not worthy of ordinary size letters, then maybe it is better left unsaid?" 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The side discussions are often more interesting than the original. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
But entirely unhelpful to the original posters and not the point of the reference desk 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you know it's not helpful to the OP's? How many of them have said so? Very few. Just ref desk regulars, thinking they speak for the OP's. Meanwhile, sometimes the most sincere efforts are met by chippiness and attitude by the OP. Every one is different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
How do I know? Because unless the OP came here to laugh at bad jokes, joke posts in small tags aren't helpful to anyone. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
On what basis do you presume to speak for everyone else, especially the OP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
By definition, the small print text is not an answer to the original Q. However, that doesn't mean it's contrary to the purpose(s) of the Ref Desk. For example, we might make comments about not being able to find a somewhat related Wikipedia article, and someone else may then find it and add a redirect, accordingly. In the long term, this helps Wikipedia more than answering a given Q. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
lol come on, be serious. No one is using the small tags for discussing the improvement of Wikipedia articles related to the OPs question. The small tags are currently being used solely for jokes and other nonsense. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not solely used for that: [4]. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Very little of the ref desk questions or answers has anything to do with improving articles. Sometimes it leads to improvements or even creation of new articles (which I myself have done occasionally) but that's not particularly the purpose of the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Small? Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The small print isn't that small. If you can't read it even with maximum zoom, then you need to find another solution. There are various ways of getting greater zoom (try a different browser or a screen magnifier) or you can get a bigger monitor or you can use a screen reader. Ref deskers are all volunteers, so it is nice to make answering questions as enjoyable as possible. A few entertaining asides is part of that and using small tags is the best way to have those asides. I agree that we should try and make pages accessible to the disabled, but it is all a matter of balance. The harm to you of having to use a screen magnifier, or similar, is not sufficient to warrant the harm to everyone else of not being able to have side discussions. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Tangential comments can be enclosed in square brackets [like this]. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you on your iphone or something? Googlemeister (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Googlemeister, are you asking me about being on an iPhone? By the way, I do not understand the relevance of your question.
-- Wavelength (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking that if the OP is on an iphone, the suggestions to get a larger screen are probably not that useful. Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. When you posted your question below my comment, and indented it by one more increment, you made it appear that your question was directed toward me. Please see Help:Talk page#Indentation. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty easy for people to configure their SMALL tags to act however they want on their own browsers; I should think that people with eye disabilities severe enough that it is a problem will have to figure out how to make text bigger in a browser, or to force SMALL tags to be ignored altogether. I also question the logic of saying that if the text is irrelevant and thus must be small, it should be removed, thus we should get rid of small tags... if the text is irrelevant, why strain to read it when it is small? The whole point of it being small is that it is potentially less relevant, and can be skipped. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Solution  : Add the following line to your monospace.css and/or your vector.css. (Found in your preference window.)
small { color:green;  font-size: 100%; font-style:italic; }
There. That will render "Small" text at normal size, but draw it as a green italic, so you know it's "supposed" to be small. APL (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
We literally cannot please everyone. Between people with varying grades of vision, different device resolutions and screen sizes - different viewing distances - interlaced displays, PAL, NTSC - hard-copy printout - there are portrait, landscape and wide-screen display - you might have anywhere between one and six screens making up your desktop...you name it. My niece has a peculiar vision problem - she needs green-colored backdrops and wears lavender tinted glasses - my son has color blindness issues that would make reading against a green backdrop almost impossible. You need larger text sizes - but when my wife uses her Android phone, she needs smaller text sizes. Some people might benefit from more color use for emphasis - but on my Amazon Kindle - I can't see any colors.
That's why the mantra for web design is "Trust The Browser". We say we want smaller text - and your browser is responsible for making it look how you, personally, want it to look. There are a bunch of different browsers out there - each with a bunch of plugins - and a bunch of configurable options. There are screen magnifiers of several kinds on each of the three major operating systems - there are 60"+ monitors out there and your graphics card can be run at lower resolutions. There are a wide range of ways for you to cope with reading the reference desk - even with <small> tags.
It is simply unreasonable to expect your vision limitations to inconvenience everyone else. That's not how the HTML system is intended to work. You can figure out a way around this - and you should - rather than selfishly demanding that the world adapt to your personal needs.
SteveBaker (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The important thing to keep in mind about small text is that it's not important. Either the small text is a joke or an off-topic discussion. The reason why it's in small text is so as not to detract from the main discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. Often, the most important thing you get from a meeting is learned while chatting over coffee in the break, or networking before or after the meeting. Or the most important thing you learn about a colleague is not the work-related stuff he talks about, but the joke or personal aside he tells. It's not safe to ignore all small print around here simply on the basis of its size. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the small tags are useful, but if you need to read what's written, you can always hit edit to see it in normal size. And the collapse tags are good too. Vranak (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

New convention

I cant see anything in the guidelines, so Im assuming that the placing of asides, jokes etc in small print is a new (but voluntary) convention adopted by some editors but that no consensus on the matter has been reached.. Am I correct?--79.76.130.158 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Some editors absolutely refuse to stop posting jokes. They have decided that if the jokes are in small print, it is acceptable to make as many jokes as you want. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I read that whole business above, and I see this now. For me, the question is, what's wrong with levity? So long as it isn't inssulting. Aaronite (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The small text for side comments was suggested here, weeks ago, and now that it's become kind of an unofficial standard, some are objecting. Which is par for the course here. They can never agree. That's why there are constant arguments about how to handle questionable questions, for example. There will be "apparent" agreement that, yes, we should clobber a questionable question, then someone will do just that, and someone else will say, "No-no-no!" and then the argument resumes again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The reasoning was that there would be small text for mankind but a giant leap for the Reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
At issue is the slippery-slope between a reference desk and a discussion forum. If the reference desk became a discussion forum, it would lose any value it had and just be another place with a few geeks who chat about things they like and chastise anyone new who tries to join in. Everyone has a different opinion about where the line should be drawn between the reference desk and a discussion forum because it isn't a clear line. It is a big gray area. So, wherever you draw your line, some will say you are too paranoid and others will say you are too strict. -- kainaw™ 16:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, you have one editor farther up the page saying that the OP asking for opinions and conjectures is just fine. Maybe you and he could come to some agreement on that point? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I actually oppose the use of small text on aesthetic grounds. I think judicious use of indenting can enhance appearance. But I find no way to integrate varying text sizes. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Which editor said that? APL (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be YOU, at 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"You'll notice that in this particular instance the question is a request for suggestions. Again, I don't care to debate if that's appropriate, but it's clear that is very different than a request for facts and references." So no references are needed? That flies in the face of the continual complaints here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I spoke sloppily. While not asking for a specific reference, The question in question (heh) asked a pretty specific question. (What items from now will be more valuable in 1896 and can be sold inconspicuously?) That question does require a certain amount of creative thought, speculation, or "suggestions", if you like, but it's ultimately a request for facts.
Since you've brought it up, In that same thread you made three posts. The first included a factually incorrect answer to the question that should have been spotted as obviously wrong had you done the most basic of WP research and included a jab at people here. The second and third are an unrelated rant about how time travel is portrayed in mainstream fiction! APL (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not unrelated at all. He asked about being inconspicuous. The most obvious thing to take back to 1896, then, would be knowledge of everyday language from 1896. For some reason, some of you saw fit to ridicule that idea, but I stand by it. Someone from 2010 would stand out like a sore thumb even in 1996, never mind 1896, and for two reasons: (1) Knowing too much about the future; and (2) Likelihood of falling back on modern idioms which would make no sense to someone from that era and would paint you as a weirdo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
He or she asked specifically about bringing back items to sell for profit. You (and a couple of others, to be fair) went on to try to educate the question-asker about other, much more fundamental, aspects of his or her story. If someone asks for specific information, to lecture them on the basics of their craft feels rather insulting to me, which is why I keep harping on it. APL (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
If he doesn't consider the other aspects, and if we don't tell him about it, someone else might - like whoever he approaches for publishing it. The most persistent core clash on the ref desk seems to be inside-the-box thinking vs. outside-the-box thinking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That's silly, You could use that same logic to justify giving him a lecture on basic grammar, character development, or just about anything covered under the umbrella of writing fiction. APL (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be pointed out the good reference often requires answers that go beyond the scope of the original question. FOr example, someone asks for a car repair manual. They tell you, my car won't start, I need to check the engine for problems. It is totally reasonable to ask if there is gas in the tank. In my experience, people don't usually ask the actual question they want answered, or don't even actually know what they want. Aaronite (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not "Thinking outside the box" to Offer an obviously factually incorrect answer, then, when called on it, go off on a rant about an unrelated (but much easier) tangent.
I know it's a lot more fun to just re-define the question to something that's so easy you can answer it off the top of your head, but it's really irritating, not very useful, and occasionally rather insulting to the question-asker. (In this case, the implication is that Bugs assumes the question-asker is ignorant of the most basic aspects of story-telling.)
Sure, if someone describes an automotive problem and you can diagnose the underlying problem that's great, but that's not an open forum to talk about any car-related rant you happen to think of. APL (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You have likewise gone well beyond whatever the original complaint was. If you griped about the behavior of trolling IP's even 1/10th as much as you do about my sincere if sometimes misguided efforts to provide information, things would be calmer. And I'm still waiting to see evidence that WB has ever sued a kids' birthday party. Or this:[5] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I never claimed WB ever sued a kids' birthday party or Marilyn Monroe, so, nice straw man. In my view, this kind of garbage you post is much more disruptive than any trolls have ever been. Please stop treating the Reference Desk like a forum. You do not need to chime in on every question. Just leave it alone and wait for a knowledgeable editor to answer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Just on the last point, I'd have to agree. In the question on the immaculate conception of Elizabeth, your first contribution, Bugs, was this. I couldn’t agree with your last sentence more: But it would be better for a biblical expert to step in here. How much better it would have been if you had simply yielded the floor to others, and kept out of it from then on. But what we had from you, after Nunh-huh’s edit, was this, where you seem to be treating the ref desk as a conversation between you and the rest of the world. You clearly didn’t know the answer, because you kept on asking whether what you **thought** was the case was indeed the case. This is what OPs do – they proffer something they think might be true, and seek confirmation, or otherwise. But it’s not how respondents behave; their job is to provide answers, preferably with references. If they don’t know, that usually means they stay out of that particular thread entirely and let those who know what they're talking about take the running. If you want to ask a question, you're very welcome to put on your OP hat; I do it all the time. This is a reference desk, not your own personal blog or chat forum.
While I'm in gripe mood, can I also report how irritating it is to see you have numerous stabs at answering a question (I counted 13 in one thread recently), but each one is indented from the previous one, as if you're constantly assuming different personas and talking amongst yourselves. Can I ask you nicely to sit back, hands off the keyboard, and have a think about your answers, and not rush in with your first thoughts, only to have them superseded by your second, then third, .... then umpteenth thoughts on the subject? And if you do update your answer before anyone else has come along, please put it at the same indent level as your previous answer, because you're still talking to the OP or the previous respondent, not to yourself. Unless ..... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

I think the solution may be more aggressive deletion of off-topic, unreferenced material. This strategy keeps the detritus in check throughout the rest of the encyclopedia. If comments are unproductive, editors can remove them. The deletionism debate will always raise issues about grey-areas, but it seems silly that the Reference Desk should take a rigid anti-deletionist stance in this case. Editors: Remove unproductive noise. If the deletions are contentious, they will be reverted and discussed (just like everywhere else). If the material is tangential, but at least relevant, use "hidden" template as an intermediate level of action. If the comments are on-topic, just leave them alone, even if you don't like the author. Nimur (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No. The Ref Desk is a talk page, not an article. Talk page guidelines clearly state that you can't just delete someone else's comments because you don't think they are helpful.
As a practical matter, this would lead to tit-for-tat deletions and endless arguments, many of them on the Ref Desk. Nobody needs that. This would be a case of the cure being far worse than the problem. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with StuRat here (about the deleting, not whether the RD is a talk page). Any policy of high level deletions is likely to create more grief then it's worth. Other then clearcut trolling and posts from banned users which is usually uncontentious when deleted, the only posts on the RD we generally delete are requests for medical advise (we don't even try with homework questions, just stick a DYOH template) and look how contentious that often is. I don't know about tit-for-tat deletions, but a big problem is a lot of OT comments come because the earlier reply was also somewhat OT so deciding precisely where to draw the line is not easy and whereever you do it, you will often piss someone or probably multiple people off. And deleting a comment without discussion is usually a good way to annoy the poster, remembering that the big problem we're discussing here is from RD regulars so people who are aware of the rules and also are likely to notice if their reply disappears. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The RD is not a talk page. Staecker (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is. You have signed, separated contributions of individuals, versus an article, which should have a single "collective voice". StuRat (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Staecker. There seems to be a deliberately-cultivated misapprehension that any page on Wikipedia which is not an 'article' must be a 'talk page', and that there are only two types of Wikipedia pages with only two distinct sets of associated rules and conventions. In general, a Wikipedia 'talk page' is one in one of the 'Talk' namespaces, which is used to discuss the structure, content, or function of the associated non-Talk page (or, in the case of User Talk pages, to contact a particular Wikipedia editor).
The error here is trivially demonstrated by the presence of special-purpose non-'article' pages which have evolved a plethora of different page-specific guidelines, traditions, and statutes. Compare the distinct styles and structures of WP:Help desk or WP:Reference desk with those of WP:Requests for adminship, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or WP:Featured article candidates. All of those pages include some allowance for editors to offer signed comments on a range of topics and issues, but all are different in form and function from a genuine Wikipedia 'talk page' like Talk:Automobile or even this page, WT:Reference desk.
All of these special-purpose pages have adopted different standards for whom may comment where and on what topics, and how to handle excessive, inappropriate, or irrelevant commentary. Asserting that all editable pages may be classed as either 'talk' or 'article' (with attendant specific rules) is a tired old trope that StuRat has been trotting out from time to time ever since a number of disruptive editors (mostly now banned, thank goodness) forced us to create the Ref Desk Guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I admire your restraint Ten. hydnjo (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What restraint ? It looked like a rant, to me. Or were you kidding ? StuRat (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Ten, many here seem to forever try to apply rules designed for articles, and the Ref Desk is a lot farther from being an article than it is from a talk page. And just how many of those non-article pages have a standard that allows anyone to delete anything they think "isn't helpful", without first discussing it ? StuRat (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
StuRat seems to have missed my point. He said that "The Ref Desk is a talk page, not an article", and went on to assert that Wikipedia's rules for talk pages therefore governed its operation. I corrected that false statement, for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen him make this argument before. Suggesting that all non-article pages on Wikipedia are 'talk pages' is fallacious. I note that the Ref Desk itself has already developed standards for removing "unhelpful" material without prior discussion. In addition to the usual and customary pan-Wikipedia permission to remove vandalism, obvious trolling, and posts from blocked/banned editors (one of whom, incidentally, started this thread — but regrettably wasn't noticed soon enough), we specifically permit the removal of requests for (and responses offering) medical advice.
Similar processes exist on other pages, including the ones I mentioned above. Deeply-nested discussions in WP:RfA voting sections are regularly moved to the 'Comments' section; while off-topic and tangential discussion gets snipped to the associated RfA talk page. (Something similar happens from time to time when there is particularly egregious hijacking of discussions in other places as well, particularly on WP:AFD.) WP:AN/I has experimented recently with moving over-long threads to subpages and off the main noticeboard. AN/I, among others, endorses the 'boxing' or 'rolling up' of unhelpful and offtopic remarks and discussions. Significantly, none requires a prior discussion to remove these sorts of 'unhelpful' material. While I'm not familiar with the featured articles process or its in-process deletion rules, I will note that WP:FAC does do a number of non-standard things not part of usual 'talk' page process, including permitting multiple interleaved comments with a single signature ([6]), and encouraging editors to use strikethrough to indicate resolved issues ([7]).
Relying on the presence of signed comments to indicate that a page is a 'talk page' is apt to mislead. What is the purpose of a Wikipedia article? To present free, accurate, well-referenced, accessible, detailed, neutrally-described, reliable information to anyone who needs it. Now, what is our goal at the Reference Desk? Hm.... It is not anyone's intent to suggest that the Reference Desk ought to follow the format, structure, and editing rules of a Wikipedia article (that's absurd, despite StuRat's repetition). While our goals are very similar (albeit offering more personalized service) our style will always be different. However, it is worthwhile to consider the Desk's policies and practices in the light of its ultimate purpose and aims, and not just in terms of trying to fit it into a particular 'it's a talk page, so talk page rules apply' pigeonhole. That isn't to say that broadening the scope for deletion of comments is necessarily the best solution (or even a worthwhile solution) — but it shouldn't be discarded out of hand solely because it isn't in the 'talk page rules'. Solutions which have been applied on some other high-traffic pages have included user paroles and even editing bans for specific editors identified as offering a particularly low signal-to-noise ratio.
I've stated before that I find (re-)arguing the same points ad nauseam with StuRat tiresome, so if anyone requires any clarification of the points I've made, feel free to drop a line. As usual, I will only respond to StuRat's posts to correct material misstatements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
More overly long and misleading statements, Ten. I asked about "a standard that allows anyone to delete anything they think 'isn't helpful'" and you instead reply with cases where specific categories of sub-threads may be moved, not deleted. That's entirely different from saying that anyone can delete anything, as you well know. And my point is that talk page guidelines are far more appropo to the Ref Desk, than article guidelines. For one, the statement and response form of the Ref Desk is like other talk pages, and chopping out chunks of such a conversation makes it difficult to follow the rest of the thread. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You have in the past described removal of text from the Ref Desk to this talk page (in toto or by diff or other reference) as 'deletion', including where it follows our established process for handing requests for medical advice. I also note that an "anyone can delete anything" proposal has only been imagined by StuRat. There were some more nuanced, reasoned, and uncaricatured ideas offered by other editors for discussion, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what ancient history you're trying to drag up, but I'm talking about the specific proposal by Nimur at the top of this thread (I just broke it off as a sub-section to make it easier to find): "I think the solution may be more aggressive deletion of off-topic, unreferenced material". This seems to be talking about deletion, plain and simple, not moving text.
As for me characterizing Nimur's proposal as "anyone can delete anything", that's exactly what it is. He certainly didn't limit who should do the deletions, so that means anyone can. He also said that it should be left to each editor to remove anything they find unproductive. As each editor will disagree on which responses are productive and unproductive, there's sure to be an editor out there who will find just about any response unproductive, especially if you include the OP, who often finds any response at odds with his world view to be unproductive. Thus, we have the "anything" part. I didn't think it necessary to explain all this.
As for me saying that some treat the Ref Desk like it should follow article rules, we have Nimur's statement about deletions: "This strategy keeps the detritus in check throughout the rest of the encyclopedia". I don't know of any place other than articles where such a strategy is used, so he's clearly applying article rules to the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the Reference Desk is, I don't think it's a good idea for editors to unilaterally make a judgement call and delete what they deem to be inappropriate answers or responses. I (and some other editors) have started to collapse stuff that gets off topic or is problematic for other reasons (i.e. our probable troll questions from Dandy Fleur the other day), and that seems to work pretty well at killing it, while still keeping it visible. Buddy431 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If you find something irrelevant and bothersome, just put it in collapse tags -- or talk to the author. Vranak (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

All of this while our OP sits back and chuckles - am I right <name withheld>? hydnjo (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we change wording on the Main Page

At the moment it says:
Reference desk – Serving as virtual librarians, Wikipedia volunteers tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.
I suggest something like:

Reference desk – if yo u are unable to find what you are looking for via the left hand-side search box then Wikipedia volunteers serving as virtual librarians, will tackle your questions on a wide range of subjects.

I am going to take the chance, that I don't need to spell out why I think this change will leave time to answer the more challenging, obscure and esoteric questions in greater detail. However, in case I do, I will be watching out for your questions on Reference desk/Miscellaneous.--Aspro (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a needed change. It already says "Search first" in the instructions. Making the instructions longer, by repeating ourselves, just means fewer people will read them. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That's just the point. 1) They have to arrived here before they can see that. 2) The first two instructions are in the wrong order. 3) Trying to search the reference desk archive is enough to make all but the masochistic give up. So people end up asking the most basic of questions --Aspro (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If the instructions are out of order, we should fix that, instead. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. If we are indeed serving as virtual librarians, we need to take the easy ones to get the hard ones. Do you know how many times we have to direct people to the bathroom in the library before someone asks a tough one? We can't refuse to answer or gripe if the questions are too easy. Remember: assume good faith. Maybe they zoned out or lack common sense or any other number of reasons that they just can't find it. Ultimately: don't like the question? Don't waste your time and leave it to someone else. Aaronite (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest, for accuracy:
Reference desk – Post your questions and Wikipedia volunteers will crack jokes and post an array of witticisms at your expense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.142.39.71 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a mix of jokes and factual answers my numeric friend. Googlemeister (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd support something like this, but I don't think people read our overlong text at the top as it is, so I predict the effect of the change will be 0. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Our top-text is too long. We should fix that. Brevity has value. Nimur (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. I appreciate the attempt to make it welcoming, but it's too long to get read by new folks. I've been working on a shorter version here. Not perfect, but if anyone wants to use it as a starting point, please feel free to edit it at will. Matt Deres (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of you misunderstand me. It is not that some questions are too easy – which is a 'memory' dependant judgement. But some are too basic. Just asking the Five Ws (which is something young children can manage to do) can often provide the the search terms which yield the answers sort after. Therefore, there appears to be a user interface cognition awareness problem about how to use a wiki based encyclopaedia.--Aspro (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The current phrasing is simpler, better, and less loaded with passive-aggressiveness. Vranak (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We know that the vast majority of questions are either (a) obviously unanswerable or (b) trivially answerable by typing the keywords of the question into either the Wikipedia search box or Google. I don't think any form of words will ever change that. I agree that we need to keep it short, clear and welcoming - but we shouldn't be under any illusions: No matter what we say up there, the number and type of questions will not change in the slightest. So I wouldn't sweat too much about working up better versions - you are basically wasting your time. It is at best a cosmetic exercise. SteveBaker (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "obviously unanswerable" Qs, we can usually contribute something toward the answer, even if we can't provide a definitive answer. StuRat (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Or make small talk  ;-) hydnjo (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The more you write, the less people read. Not just a smaller proportion of what you wrote: if you make that longer, the average user will read fewer words. It's a basic usability issue on the web. The first two or three words should carry meaningful information, since some people will literally only read those, and others will only finish the sentence if the first couple of words make the relevance of the sentence obvious. Unless you are making the wording shorter and more front-loaded, you are decreasing its usefulness. Or, what StuRat said. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with bots?

During the last hour or so, I added the signatures to numerous unsigned questions and comments on the RDs. What's wrong with the bot(s) that should be responsible for doing that? --Магьосник (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SineBot is not functioning at present. I haven't yet been able to determine why. Algebraist 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Question removed

I have removed this question from the Reference_desk/Science

"If i wanted to explore Uranus, how big a probe would I need?--79.76.253.149 (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)"

Seems a little bit...odd? I have been away from the ref desks for about a month, but I recall that 'trollish' questions were being removed before any one was tempted to answer? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. It's one of our banned jesters. I removed another two on the Misc desk. One by the same IP address. Another one by the same person registered under one of gazillions of sockpuppet accounts. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sluzzelin. Saw your 'clean-up', I was just about to drop you a message! High five! ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good catch. Anything from an IP address that begins with 79.76. can be removed from the Ref Desk, no questions asked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this talk page? hydnjo (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Anything from an IP address that begins with 79.76. and seems like trolling, or is otherwise questionable with respect to the guidelines, can be removed from the Ref Desk, no questions asked. Genuine, good faith questions from 79.76.*.*, if such a rarity is ever encountered, are allowed to stay. However, given the edit history of that IP range, the bar is set pretty low - if you think it might be deletion worth, it probably is. I know that's probably the sense which TOAT meant, but I wanted to be explicit, lest some well-meaning-but-misguided editor gets the mistaken impression that everything from 79.76.*.* must be deleted on sight, without regard to content. -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
For reference, I did actually check a year's worth of contributions for the entire 79.76 range not too long ago. Among hundreds of edits, there were only one or two that I couldn't link to the banned user with a high degree of confidence. (Not that I could rule them out as coming from him; I just couldn't confidently link them.) It should be noted that that analysis is confined to edits made to the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia Talk: namespaces; there is a much broader pool of anonymous editors who use Tiscali as their ISP for editing the mainspace, and many of those edits are both constructive and unrelated to the Ref Desk troll.
I will explicitly state that it is permitted and encouraged to remove any edits made from that range from the Reference Desk, its subpages, its talk pages, and its associated guidelines; admins should block the IP address (including restricting account creation and use of logged-in accounts) for 72 hours. He is banned, not merely banned-unless-he's-making-unsuspicious-edits. After years of abuse, it is reasonable to presume that all edits from that range are suspect. It is not unusual for him to make a few superficially-harmless edits first, escalating to increasingly abusive conduct (trolling, vandalism, personal attacks, threats of violence) if left alone — ignoring him doesn't seem to work; he will continue to be abusive until blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Granted that this IP range is a known troll, and his earlier iteration of the question made his intentions clear ... but I'm a little concerned about 220.101.28.25's implication that we should ignore all questions about 1/8th of our solar system!
Questions about sending probes to Uranus, or the rings around Uranus, or the composition of the gasses of Uranus, or the size of Uranus, or where photographs of Uranus can be found, or the pressure in the deepest, darkest depths of Uranus, Or the color of Uranus, are all valid questions. While this removal may have been justified, we certainly shouldn't make a habit of eliminating these questions just because there is a chance that, somewhere, somehow, possibly, a child might be laughing. APL (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't encourage him. He's not a child — which is unfortunate, because it might make his behaviour a little more understandable. Do be aware that he has shown little reluctance to create throwaway accounts to abuse the Ref Desk and its volunteers, and I think little harm is done to the Desk if we remove obvious Uranus trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I said I agree with this particular instance. But 220.101.28.25 didn't mention the user's history. APL (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Heres a similar 'question' from 9 January 2010, Diff, and related RD/Talk discussion, Link. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording of this question made it fairly obvious it was not a serious search for 'enlightenment'. Plus the fact (I found afterwards) that the OP IPs' other 'questions' had been deleted. Put it here to be certain. Just being a little bold! I have nothing against our current outermost solar planet. ;-) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC).
I like Neptune as well. Googlemeister (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good grief. That joke was already old when it was used in the 1982 film, E.T.. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If every edit from that IP range is from a sock, has anyone considered asking for a permanent range-block? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It was discussed. Another permanently-banned user who uses an IP range to evade block stepped in and argued against it. She won consensus and the IP range was not blocked. -- kainaw™ 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The primary concern is that while virtually all (and possibly just plain 'all') of the edits to the Ref Desk from the 79.76.* IP range are from the same person, there are a large number of other individuals who use the same ISP to edit in the mainspace. While rangeblocks have been applied on a temporary basis to deal with particularly egregious spates of vandalism and trolling from Light current, we (as a project) would prefer to avoid blocking an entire ISP from editing the whole encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't you block that particular IP range and leave the rest of the ISP open? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Tiscali seems to assign IPs from large swathes of the /16 range in question. A given user doesn't appear to be confined to small blocks of IP addresses, and can obtain a fresh IP address quite readily (probably by resetting their modem). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Resoring my comment removed, among others, by TenOfAllTrades
I'd like to point out that I don't understand what the harm would have been in letting my original, perfectly dull answer[8] stand. Everyone seems to be worried that our IP friend would have been giggling to himself or something, but ... so what? No harm in that. Maybe he'd even learn something about Uranus in the process. APL (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding reference desk regulars and their contribution to the encyclopedia at large, our contributions are quite significant. You can check our individual statistics, or you can compile aggregates; but most of the top regulars are also very active elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Nimur (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
And regarding your point about disruptive editors, you do have a valid point: we will never be able to stop you or anybody from disruption. But we will proactively dissuade people from disrupting Wikipedia, by making it more difficult for them. We will use both technical measures (WP:BLOCK) and non-technical measures (removing disruptive posts). In any case, if your point is that you will always find ways to be disruptive, that is fine: but do not prove it by example. Nimur (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protecting the ref desks would fix his wagon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protection is only appropriate in the short term. For example, a few years ago the desks were getting bombed by a spambot for an hour or two a day, and the desks would get protected for a few hours during the spam. Even then, people were unhappy with this, and I remember an AN/I thread being made where many ref deskers asked the admins not to protect the desks in favor of reverting the spam manually, so that people could still post questions. Also remember, vast majority of questions are posted by ips and new users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia and won't have auto-confirmed accounts to post with. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There are ways of semi-protecting without affecting all the IP's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No there isn't. "Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed" (WP:SILVERLOCK). 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is a way, but I don't want to discuss it here. The admins (or some of them) know what to do, if they choose to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've looked and I can't find what you're talking about. Please stop talking in riddles, this isn't a case of wp:beans since if what you're talking about exists it'll have a policy page, so please link to it. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about what I would call targeted filtering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand. As far as I'm aware (and I'll admit I've not been keeping up to date with the latest mediawiki features so maybe I've missed something) there isn't a way to prevent an IP/range from editing an area of wikipedia, without either blocking the IP/range or protecting the page. The closest thing I can think of is a wp:topic ban, but this is not a technical feature of the wiki software. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ask an admin. It can be done. If anyone thinks it's worth the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Wouldn't it just be easier if you told me directly or linked to the policy page, rather than making me ask an admin? 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I posted a question about it here. Hopefully someone there can explain what you're talking about. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit filter ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The guy on the Help Desk beat you to it, but thanks! :) 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It can be done, but it's a little tricky, and should be discussed offline with an admin, so as not to totally give the game away to Elsie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
For those who don't know, "LC" refers to the IP's account Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indef'd over 3 years ago, and then banned, but still pops up occasionally. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:DENY. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite a good result from one post, eh? 8:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.230.67 (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Homework question on WP:RD/H

Someone on the Humanities desk asked an obviously homework question. I was under the impression that the correct way to deal with such questions was to inform the OP that we don't answer homework questions, but not to remove the question or prevent others from answering. I disagree with User:TreasuryTags edit here where he boxed the question in an archive template. I have never seen this done before on the reference desk, and I can see it leading to anyone and everyone locking down discussions they deem to be "stupid" or have some other issue with. I unarchive and collapse the meta discussion, since I thought it was an accepted practice to collapse unrelated discussions that detract from questions. TreasuryTag then undid my edit. Please advise on this situation. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You rather foolishly left off before describing how you then undid my edit [9] – ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone instructed us to write him a sonnet within ten minutes because it was "a life or death situation" – I absolutely did "deem" this to be stupid, and I'm sure that anybody with half a brain would agree with that description, even if it weren't for the fact that the RefDesk clearly states the no-homework policy at the top.
Sealing off such drivel seemed the appropriate thing to do, and I maintain that it was the appropriate thing to do.
Because this IP has taken it upon themselves to edit-war over the closure, I have let them have their way because they don't deserve the indulgence, but I resent the suggestion that the thread's appropriateness is a matter of subjectivity. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood the IP, then said "it was the appropriate thing to do, and I will not be engaging in further discussion about it" as if you had any authority, then mocked the IP for his typo while using sarcasm instead of addressing his argument. It's very ironic that you accuse the IP, and not yourself, of being a troll. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I'd scarcely accuse myself of being a troll... ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 06:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In fairness, TreasuryTag did wait until the ten minutes had expired before he collapsed it. By then the question-asker had probably already been executed by the poetry police (Sonnet Squad). Seriously, there's not really much point answering a question after its 'deadline' has passed, collapsing it seems reasonable, homework-question or no. APL (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The OP was probably taken down by The Guns of Will Sonnet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So anyone can lock down threads they personally think are "stupid" or who's deadlines have passed, and prevent any further replies? 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that's what he clearly said.
Out of interest, do you suggest that, "CAN YOU HELP ME WITH A SONNET?????? by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation," is not stupid? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not remove the thread entirely if it's that "stupid"? 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I held back from doing that because I thought someone might contest it!! Ironic, eh...
Out of interest, do you suggest that, "CAN YOU HELP ME WITH A SONNET?????? by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation," is not stupid? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't consider it a stupid question. I consider it a miss-guided question which could have been handled a LOT better than the way it has been. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"Misguided" – I see. The user was "misguided" enough to ignore the instruction not to post homework questions. And then s/he was "misguided" enough to insist that we actually write them a poem [?!]. And then s/he was "misguided" enough to set a very short time-limit on that. And then s/he was "misguided" enough to suggest that the writing of the poem was a "life or death situation" – is that what you're saying? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. There is a big difference between being naive and being stupid. You could have told them Reference Desk doesn't answer homework questions and directed them to the guidelines, instead of labeling them as stupid, locking the thread, and preventing them from learning what their mistake was. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not "naive" to allege that a sonnet-writing homework task is a "life or death situation" – it is idiocy. It is not "naive" to ignore clear instructions at the top of the RefDesk, it is either ignorance or arrogance. Probably both. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Come on, it's pretty obvious the OP was not actually implying they were about to be killed. It's a common expression, a saying, an idiom. And I don't see any indication at all that they were being arrogant either. They were just desperate and naive in thinking the Reference Desk would do their homework for them. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c with TT and then again with 82.43.*)
Are you going somewhere with this? Or are you just berating him simultaneously for deleting a post, and not deleting it enough? APL (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to highlight a potential problem. When a thread is to be removed from the desk, its removal should be discussed on this talk page. I think this principle extends to locking of threads as well, since that is effectively removing the thread from being able to be commented on. I don't think it is right that TreasuryTag locked down that thread on a whim based on his own personal opinion that it was "stupid". I just feel strongly that it could and should have been dealt with in a much better way instead of alienating a potential contributor on possibly their first edit. Anyway, I won't push the point any further. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I won't push the point any further. Splendid—so I guess this discussion has reached its resolution, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No. This discussion has not "reached its resolution". I stand by everything I've said here and still maintain you should not have locked that thread. I just not pursuing it further. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If you, as the OP, are withdrawing, and the other active participants (myself and APL) are of one mind, in what sense has the discussion "not reached its conclusion"? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not "withdrawing", and in no way at all am I conceding to your viewpoint. Nothing has been resolved here; I disagree with you and you disagree with me. The discussion has not reached any conclusion whatsoever. But I see that it is pointless to continue the discussion because it's very unlikely we will reach any sort of agreement, and we're just going in circles now. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I won't push the point any further. I just not [sic] pursuing it further. In what sense are you not withdrawing? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not withdrawing in the sense that I am still here and ready to discuss any new points you might have. But since you don't have any new points and neither do I, continuing the discussion would be silly. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Just so we're clear on this, are you the OP, Special agent 500000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I wondered this... ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No I am not. Feel free to request a wp:checkuser. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Nah, no reason to at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This question was asked before and it did received a good response in the end. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_April_3#CAN_YOU_HELP_ME_WITH_A_SONNET.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F. --99.244.91.182 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Your point being? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 06:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
That would imply that it's just trolling, as the exact same text from a question 2 years ago isn't a very likely coincidence. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Homework question on WP:RD/H: section-break

I should say that adding a collapse box is far better than deleted a Q, as then there's no sign that it was ever there (other than a trace in the page history), and people who otherwise would contest it don't know to do so. That's why removals should always be listed here, to allow for oversight, while collapse boxes don't need to be, unless there's a disagreement over them. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, no-one other than the whining IP ever suggested deleting it, only {{archive top}} or, as you say, a collapse-box. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. I NEVER suggested deleting it, you are making that up. I said that you shouldn't have used those archive templates on it, and that the huge meta-discussion taking place on that thread about that archive templates should have been put in a collapse-box (which you disagree with) 82.43.89.71 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm making it up, am I? So I just imagined you typing, Why not remove the thread entirely if it's that "stupid"? above then? And imagined APL's response to you, Or are you just berating him simultaneously for deleting a post, and not deleting it enough? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Are you really this.. no I won't continue that sentence because wp:pa. I used that as an example of why you shouldn't have locked the thread; the thread clearly wasn't delete-worthy, so shouldn't have been locked down with a template say says in big bold letters "No further edits should be made to this discussion." Your use of the archive template was akin to deleting the thread because it prevented anyone else from commenting on the thread. Do you see now? 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Do I see that asking people not to edit a thread is akin to deleting it? No, of course I don't. The National Portrait Gallery discourages visitors from adding to the paintings, but that's not tantamount to destroying the paintings themselves. Stupid and ridiculous notion. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not a valid comparison. Wikipedia is not a art gallery it's a wiki, a site where editing and adding to discussions is normal. Asking people not to post additional comments is just wrong, especially when the thread wasn't worthy of being deleted, wasn't a troll thread, wasn't medical or legal advice question etc etc. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

< I maintain that it was basically a troll thread, particularly in light of the fact that it was asked, verbatim, over a year ago. I also fail to see how it should be treated any differently to other threads that contravene our RefDesk guidelines, such as medical/legal issues. Finally, I maintain that your assertion, "Your use of the archive template was akin to deleting the thread," is simply daft, and if you can't see the difference between deletion and simply not editing, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it had been asked a year ago, but I don't see how that makes it a troll thread. Also, medical/legal questions are removed because Wikipedia could be sued over them. Homework questions are never removed. The guidelines do not even state that homework questions aren't allowed, they just say "If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." Usually we simply inform the OP that the Reference Desk won't do their homework, by using the template {{dyoh}}. So any action on your part against that question, based on that fact that it was homework, was wrong. And Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you if you think stopping people from editing perfectly valid threads is the wiki-way. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, if you're dim enough that you can't see that bizarre dupe thread as trolling (StuRat and I both can), and you don't see the difference between closing a thread and deleting it (APL, StuRat and I can), it's impossible to engage in discussion with you. However, there appears to be a broad consensus that my action(s) were appropriate, so I'm satisfied, and will be removing this page from my watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. This goes beyond this one question, but you are apparently too narrow minded to see that. And claiming 2 side comments = "broad consensus"? Wow. Anyway, it's probably time this discussion ended for good because it's obvious it's going nowhere. Feel free to have the honors of boxing it in an archive template if you like. And rest assured that I will ignore any future archive templates you throw up around questions you personally deem "stupid". 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you threatening to edit-war? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No, where did you get that from? 82.43.89.71 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well if it's trolling I'm glad I didn't waste my time trying to come up with a sonnet on people who leave their homework to the last 10 minutes and then try to get others to do it for them. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who thought of that, what 82.43 seems to be missing is the reason no one really tried to answer it was because composing a sonnet isn't easy. If the OP had asked for a haiku there'd probably be like 10 of them on people leaving their home work to the last minute and related matters but it wasn't (as it is we got one anyway) and no one can be arsed wasting their time composing such a sonnet Nil Einne (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Chemicalinterest - Science Desk

Chemicalinterest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently-created account User:Chemicalinterest appears to be created exclusively to post faulty information on the reference desk. Their user-page self-declares as a young-earth creationist who enjoys posting to the Science desk.

Whether these constitute a visit by one of our old friends, or a new trouble-maker, I just want to alert the community at large so we can monitor for future disruptive edits. Nimur (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"I believe in the literal seven-day creation of the universe by God." At least he's not hiding his supposed POV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And I would think a real chemist would know what the Rare earth element are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It was a misunderstanding on the "Completely incorrect answer". I wrote the explanation in there.
Scabs are the body's natural defense against bacteria, as are skin. Of course, some bacteria can get through, but it blocks out most of them. Just like bacteria can infect skin (e.g. athlete's foot). --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't edit the comment; someone just took it too seriously.
I see others putting their own religious opinions on talk pages. I told anyone to feel free to move the debate to the talk page to prevent cluttering of the ref desk. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything too problematic yet. The first diff is a (poorly explained) example to illustrate that alloys have different properties than their component metals. The second one is a religious post, but in a thread that was about religion (that is, the thread got out of hand, with lots of people making posts they probably shouldn't have). The third, while maybe running afoul of our medical guidelines (or maybe not...) appears to be a good faith edit that's probably reasonably true. The fourth one was a joke (that is, he doesn't think Turkey Vultures are pretty. I'm inclined to agree). What's in order here is a request to Chemicalinterest to use more references and stay on topic, and an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors, at least as of right now. Buddy431 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
All of God's creatures are beautiful. However, some are more beautiful than others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, why is athletes foot treated with antifungal medications unless it is a fungal infection rather then bacterial? Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What? Buddy431 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I probably should have put "For example" in front of it; it would clarify it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You already did 'e.g.'. I don't get how it helps, Athlete's foot is a fungal infection, as quick check of the article would have confirmed, so GM's point remained valid, it's not an example of bacteria infecting skin. It's true you can get a secondary bacterial infection but AFAIK that's due to the damage caused by the fungal infection and in any case the relevant thing here is cellulitis. Or did you mean the for example should have been under the bacteria bit? In any case, it does seem none of this is particularly relevant to the thread, which concerned viruses not bacteria and fungi. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Revising headings

The instruction box at the top of each Reference Desk page has the following instruction.

  • Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments (shortcut: WP:TPOC) mentions some "examples of appropriately editing others' comments", including the following example.

  • Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.

Sometimes, I have revised headings on Reference Desk pages, and with one recent revision, I made the following comment.

I am revising the heading from "IV" to "IV = intravenous" to facilitate watchlist alerts and archive searches, and to apply search engine optimization. See WP:TPOC, "Section headings".

My practice of revising headings was challenged, so I am mentioning the matter here for discussion. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what Matt means by "breaks the links of the people who contributed to the thread." And no one owns talk page section headings, they are subject to change in order to make them clearer, or more relevant, or to remove personal attacks and such. In this case, I don't see why changing IV to IV = intravenous is such a big deal, since you retained the IV part. Now, if you changed IV to "Roman Numerals for Four", that would be a poor choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that the link from my contributions breaks when the header is changed. I understand that my POV on this will be a little foreign to you because it wouldn't work for someone who posts multiple times to almost every thread. When I start up WP, I check my watchlist, then I slide over to my contributions and click the thread links to see if anyone has responded to what I wrote (like I say, either requesting more info, or putting me in my place...). For example, later tonight or tomorrow, I'll check my contributions by clicking on the thread link for Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Revising headings to see if you've acknowledged my point or raised another point I hadn't considered. However, if someone was to change the heading here from Revising headings to Revising the headings I would no longer be able to do that; clicking the thread link would only bring me to the top of the page as the # tag would no longer match. Now, my personal preferences aren't really a big point in this; I can usually figure out what went on and find what I want (albeit at a cost of time and effort, however small). My concern is that other users, including questioners, aren't going to be as versed in the workings of WP as I am and assume their question has been removed and/or become discouraged by not being able to find "their" thread easily. My opinion is that the thread exists as a service for the questioner to learn about something they want to know; anything that impedes that service should only be done for exceptional circumstances like BLP violations or bad markup and such. Matt Deres (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I always start with the watch list, which of course shows the latest contribs to anything I'm watching. If I go to my contribs, I see diffs and I see history. Changing a heading doesn't break anything, the diffs and hist still work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And even if we strive not to change headings, sometimes we have to, for example if it's BLP violation such as "Why is [public figure] such an idiot?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
While the diffs and the history still work, what it breaks is the link the specific section; changing the thread title changes the associated anchor text, so someone can no longer click on the little hyperlinked right arrow in the edit summary in their contributions (or in the page history) to hop to the current version of the section.
In any event – in the rare cases where it is necessary to change the heading – it's a good idea to keep the original text if at all possible (BLPs and release of private information notwithstanding); only make additions to the existing word or phrase. This at least means that even though the hyperlink from the contributions is broken, it will still give the original poster a fighting chance to recognize his or her question in the page's table of contents — or even when scrolling past it on the page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"ease of use by the OP is far more important than any supposed advantages to a hypothetical searcher down the road. We're there to help the questioner, not the search engines." - Many potential respondents only have time to skim the headings to see if they're interested. That's why headings are important. If we're primarily concerned for the OP, it's better to attract as many relevant minds as possible. The reason the "Do not write Question or Query" rule was put there is because a lot of OPs do that, often on the same day. One OP will have a question about Peruvian actors, another about Moon landings, but both questions are headed "Question". The first guy comes back the next day, finds a header called "Question", and wonders what the hell all this stuff about Moon landings has to do with his question about Peruvian actors. Even if there was only one "Question" heading in a week, it's still far better to have a clear, unambiguous heading from the outset, and if the OP isn't up to that, someone else is allowed to change it, particularly since the OP is not abiding by our rules in the first place. I've never seen any evidence that an OP has been phased fazed by the rewording of their header. Sometimes OPs come back and re-ask their question; but that's usually because they couldn't find their original question if their lives depended on it, and those cases typically have nothing to do with any headers being changed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I first try to use a section link, but, if that fails and only takes me to the page, instead, I then do a Find/Search on the original title. If it's still in there, I will be able to find it that way. I would typically change a title like "Question" to "Question (Who's buried in Grant's Tomb ?)". StuRat (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
@Jack. Having people using "Question" as their title is not a really part of the equation here. Titles like "Question" and "Query" are, besides being indistinct, also common; multiple instances of them would cause the TOC to not work correctly as all the links would snag on the first #Question tag they came across. I'm in favour of us re-titling such threads because nobody will be able to use any kind of shortcut to find that thread again anyway, whether it's through my contributions or the TOC or whatever. A thread titled "Question" is broken and giving it a better name fixes that. To my mind, there's nothing broken about a title like "IV"; it may be indistinct to us, but it means something to the OP. I haven't seen specific evidence that changing the title fazes the OP either, but that could well be because they've given up and gone elsewhere - "absence of evidence" and all that. Matt Deres (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If I were the original poster who used an uninformative or ambiguous heading, I would prefer that someone thought enough to improve the heading so that a larger number of interested editors would answer the question, instead of leaving it unchanged and answered by only a few editors. (If I thought that the change was not an improvement, I might want to change it back or to something else.) -- Wavelength (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I buy the premise that a better title would mean more editors answering the question. In theory that should make sense, but it seems to me that there are a good score of people here who read virtually every single question on the desks (or at least the desks they like). Since they're also the ones who answer 99% of the questions, I think it's pretty much a wash. Matt Deres (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced that there are 20 people who read virtually every question on every desk they like. Here are objective data about watchers for the different desks and also for this page. With clearer headings, more of them might provide answers.
-- Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
With all respect, those numbers suggest there's a lot more than 20 people who read virtually every question. Why would someone watchlist such a high-volume area unless they were a real RefDesk junkie? If they wanted to just pick and choose which ones to read, what would be the point of watchlisting? Heck, I don't have any desks watchlisted at all and I read almost every single question (except on Math, which is scary). If 1,566 people have the Science desk watchlisted, I'm thinking it's more likely that 1,000 of them are reading almost every question - if not every single post - than it is that only 20 of them are. Matt Deres (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Those numbers do not suggest that to me. I have them all on my watchlist, because someone might ask a question that I might be able to answer. I select which ones to read, and unambiguous headings save me time. If I decide to pass over questions with vague headings, the askers could be missing useful answers from me. Also, in the past few months I have had many questions to ask, so I have been watching for answers to my own questions.
You and I have different habits of reading and editing, and apparently we have different assumptions about the reading and editing habits of other editors. Without objective data about those habits (possibly from a survey), it seems that we will have to agree to disagree.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has only vague guidelines about defining and achieving consensus, and I do not wish to spent much more time on this discussion. Therefore, in the interest of not straining relations, I anticipate not revising headings for the foreseeable future. However, that is not a promise and it is not an admission of error. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(1) I can understand the problem that Matt Deres mentioned. In "my contributions", I clicked on the right arrow after "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous" and before "IV: revising heading", and the link took me to the top of "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous" instead of taking me to the top of the section. I clicked on some other right arrows and the links took me to the tops of the respective sections. I am not sure whether I have thought to use those arrows as links before.
(2) I very seldom improvise "my contributions" as a watchlist, and if I do, I do not mind that extra detour. I have all the Reference Desk pages on my watchlist, but usually only the Language Reference Desk page is continually open. If I see a section "IV" on my watchlist and do not know what that means, I may or may not open that particular page to see what the question is. If I do, that costs me a little more time. If I do not, then the questioner might miss having the attention of one potential answerer.
(3) For Matt Deres, this is a matter of both time and convenience for both askers and answerers. For me, it is such a matter also. This appears to be matter of trade-offs involving one's watchlist and one's contribution list.
-- Wavelength (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You all must have a different setup, or else I'm overlooking something. On my contrib's page, I don't have any right arrows. I have diff's and hist's. I see it now, and I understand the problem. I've never used that feature, nor do I see a need to. But as noted above, if they say "question" or something, they could end up going to the wrong section. Maybe the software for "create new section" needs to check to see if the section exists already? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings (shortcut MOS:HEAD) says the following.
  • Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections. The disadvantages of duplication are that:
    • after editing, the display can arrive at the wrong section; see also below; and
    • the automatic edit summary on editing a section with a non-unique name is ambiguous.
-- Wavelength (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
[I am removing an extra parenthesis. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)]
That's true. So? How likely is the OP to have read that, given that they haven't even read the heading that says "don't say question or query"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That guideline is useful to any editors (including a few original posters) who have read it.
-- Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously. And it's useless to those who have not read it. Can you think of any circumstances where it would make sense on any page to have two sections with the identical heading? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
See this old version of French fries. See Talk:French fries/Archive 4#Section headings and subsection headings. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Diatonic and chromatic#Non-unique headings. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The sub-headings in French Fries are made unique by their "root", kind of like a directory path on a PC. All I'm saying is that if it's important enough, have the programmers write some code to intercept duplications. If not, then live with the consequences. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that interception would help. Also, editors could sometimes repeat heading information in subheadings, as I did recently. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I don't see why not. The only real problem I can see in general is ambiguity at a particular level. There was nothing inherently wrong with listing the nations twice, under different headings, in the French Fries article. Having the same heading within the same section is the problem, such as it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that if a particular software contraption is broken when headings are revised, that instead of modifying the heading we prefer inserting a line of text as the first comment in the thread? In this case the header would have been unchanged, and Wavelength's clarification "IV = intravenous" could be the first line, probably indented, and inserted before the querent's question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An excellent, thinking-outside-the-box idea. Maybe make it stand out more, too, by bold facing it and/or making a

sub-section

out of it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That idea is not an effective solution because a section can have only one (main) heading, and the heading appears above the section and also in the Table of Contents and also in watchlists and contribution lists. As regards the subsection idea, if anyone edits by using the "edit" button beside the main heading, that is what will apear on watchlists and contribution lists. If someone edits by using the "edit" button beside the subheading, that is what will appear on watchlists and contribution lists. When two different editors have different habits of reading and editing, one editor is going to be disadvantaged.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has only vague guidelines about defining and achieving consensus, and I do not wish to spent much more time on this discussion. Therefore, in the interest of not straining relations, I anticipate not revising headings for the foreseeable future. However, that is not a promise and it is not an admission of error. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical advice struck

Here, I struck out medical advice from Graeme Bartlett, suggesting to an allergic querent that he could try to desensitize himself. I didn't remove it because another editor responded specifically to the medical advice, and partially because time has passed and the querent had already read the medical advice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless Bartlett is a qualified M.D., he should know better than to give medical advice, which that clearly is, albeit rather vague advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And, even if he's an MD, he's not allowed to give medical advice here. Anyway, if anyone feels like removing his advice entirely, I wouldn't argue; I just thought that striking it seemed more appropriate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the strike, it seems that people misunderstood what I was saying there. (which was not DIY) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Allergy desensitization is an actual medical procedure carried out by a doctor. Is suggesting a possible procedure that is used on people with allergies "medical advice"? It certainly could be, but it's not like Graeme Bartlett is suggesting people with soy allergies take a bite of tofu to see what happens. Buddy431 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, the way it was phrased (which I can fully understand was not what Graeme intended) it sounded like suggesting that you carry out this medical procedure yourself. So basically, as if he had told them to try taking little bites of tofu. There was a horrible case a few years ago (maybe 7 years ago?), which I am now unable to find, where a teenage babysitter fed a child in her care a peanut butter sandwich (with only a thin smear of peanut butter) even though she had been told he was allergic to peanuts. She had read that you can desensitize someone by giving them small amounts of the thing they're allergic to, so thought she would be helping. My recollection is that it didn't end well. So while it can be a valid medical procedure, I think you have to be careful about throwing up phrases like "desensitize yourself" without context. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Viruses sub-page marked for deletion

TreasuryTag has nominated the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses sub-page for deletion; if anyone has any comment on the proposal, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses is the page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bite removed

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

I see nothing wrong with his response (certainly nothing that justifies deleting it...) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced it, actually, there was really no justification for deleting. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

It may well have been (although he should have looked in the obvious places), but which part of WP:TALK mandates the removal of comments which are a little sarcastic? No part does. Particularly since Jayron's comment actually linked to the relevant articles, it wasn't purely snide. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:TALK might not mandates their removal, but WP:BITE strongly discourages sarcastic comments towards newcomers, which the OP of that question obviously was. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Since that was the redlink's one and only edit, it's hard to tell anything "obvious" about him. What's necessary (as I myself have been lectured countless times) is to try to resist making fun of an OP whose question is on the order of "What color is the White House?" I find it hard to believe that a newbie's first act would be to pose a question to the ref desk that makes it look like he has no clue about how to use wikipedia, and if not, how did he find the ref desk? Such inane questions are probably best answered either by terse answers ("See artery and vein.") or by ignoring them as being either incredible ignorance, or run-of-the-mill trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
How did they find the reference desk? It's very possible they followed a link from google or some other forum directly to the reference desk without ever having seen any other part of wikipedia. They might not even know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So I think it's our duty to inform these new people in a kind a friendly way that there are articles which answer all their questions. Sarcasm isn't helpful at all. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I put "vein" into google, and the first entry was the wikipedia article on the subject. Then I put "artery" into google. Take a guess what the first entry was. Since the redlink posted exactly one entry, we cannot say where he came from. He might be jerking us around or he might really want to know. At least it wasn't something quite as stupidly obvious as "Michael Hunt" or the perpetual "Uranus" jokes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP put into google "where to ask questions online" or something similar. The point is they could have come directly to the desks from somewhere else so expecting them to have knowledge of the internals workings of Wikipedia is unfair. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps they noticed the "Questions" link on the Main Page? Perhaps they then noticed the bolded "Factual questions", clicked on the first link in that section, and then clicked on the big question mark icon? Then perhaps they clicked the big "ask a new question" button? The Reference Desk is hardly a secret, elite club hidden behind a "beware of leopard" sign. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the bite again. This is childish hostility which has no place on Wikipedia or, especially, on the Reference Desk. There is no need to demonstrate your superiority to the querent: yes, you are great at Google and at searching Wikipedia, and he or she is not. I agree with 82.43 just above. Just answer the questions, please, like a reference desk librarian would. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Part of the trouble is we don't know the age of the OP. If a little kid came to a librarian and asked that question, the librarian would probably be very helpful. If someone of roughly the librarian's height asked they same question, they would probably get a look like, "You gotta be kidding!" Then, as punishment, they would be directed to wikipedia. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Age is completely irrelevant. If they went to a librarian and asked a question, the librarian should be helpful. End of story. 82.43.89.71 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You're fairly "bitey" yourself, there. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Nearly all of what you've said could also be said of you, and the way you've handled this. I've reverted your removal BTW. You don't have to be good at using a search engine to find the answer. You just have to actually use one. If they really have so little idea of how to use a search engine that they can't search for artery and vein an obtain some sort of answer of what each is (yet somehow were able to find the RD, register, find the 'new section' button, type out a heading and question and click save page) then it would be far better helping them with whatever major and basic problem is stopping them from being able to do such a trivial query on a search engine Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You know what's really awesome? Before people talk about your actions, they first come to you to discuss it personally. You know what else is really cool? When you are the subject of a discussion, someone drops by your talk page to let you know about that. Thanks to everyone for doing both things. Oh wait. No one did any of that. --Jayron32 01:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I think part of the problem is people think, someone must have already told him/her. Also since you're a regularly on the talk page, it probably seemed less urgent for people to check if you'd been informed. I had been thinking of saying something like 'if Jayron agrees to the removal then I have no problem and won't revert' but it seemed should be obvious (I'm guessing the same for TT too) Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the comment myself. You know, if one person had come to me at any time, and asked me to remove or rephrase my comment, I would have done it instantly. Yes, I was being an asshole. My edit summary where I left the commented indicated that I was aware I was being an asshole. I probably shouldn't have left the comment to begin with. Had someone just said "Hey, asshole, don't do that!" I'da removed it myself. I never even knew there was an objection to the comment until about 10 minutes ago. Please, while we're having this massive discussion about rudeness, consider whether it was more polite to discuss me behind my back and edit war over my comment, or would it have been better to confront me directly and be direct and honest. Seriously folks! --Jayron32 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't look at what exactly was said and removed, but I do agree with Jayron that we should generally try the bilateral approach when we are bothered by a comment posted by someone who regularly answers questions at the reference desk. Even then, of course, it will depend on the tone with which we present our concerns, but my observation is that a more "private" approach will usually be well-received and acted upon. Most of our "regulars" are reasonable people who don't really wish to cause offense, and most of them are human, and won't appreciate having their breaches of guidelines dragged into public that much. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Jayron32, I should have notified you on the talk page that I removed the comment. I still support removing zero-value comments from the Reference Desk, though in the future I'll notify not just here, but to the poster. I remember someone having removed a bitey, zero-value comment of mine without notification when I was new to the Reference Desk, and I was angered by the removal, but in retrospect I think that was the right thing to do rather than ask me to remove it and waaaaiiitt ... maybe I log in to Wikipedia today or maybe next week .... that doesn't work; if something ought to be removed then it ought to be removed immediately. With notification, I agree. Sorry. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that everything that would be best removed is best removed immediately. As others have commented on, when you remove something you tend to annoy people unnecessarily. In some cases when removal is important, such as clear cut case of medical advice being given then yes, remove before discussing. In cases when it isn't so important, then it's far better to politely approach the person rather the blow up the issue into a bigger mess then is necessary. In this particular case, IMHO, it's questionable if even a week is too long, there's no particular reason why that reply is somehow super bad, if the OP is offended, tough, in any case anyone was free to leave a comment to try and reduce that chance if they felt it necessary. However if you really feel a week is too long, there's no reason why you can't wait a day and then remove it yourself if you haven't received a response. Note that this is common outside the RD for even far worse things like violations of WP:NPA Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The existence of an article about "A" and and article about "B" do not always make superfluous the creation of a brief and informative response in which the two things are compared and contrasted. In the present case, the first couple of sentences from each article furnish a good answer to the question. But many articles about science, economics, mathematics, or philosophy are not so approachable. In such cases,more is to be desired than merely identifying the articles about the things under discussion. The good-faith response of some editor on the Ref Desk should not be modified. It would be better to delete it and substitute your own more suitable response, with your signature, while notifying the editor in question you have done so, and posting a thread about it here. Removals should be limited to violations of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or Ref Desk guidelines. Sometimes the Ref Desk community agrees that the question was evident trolling, and not just a naive questioner. Edison (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a Thought in Making Wikipedia Better

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

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

The disambiguation hierarchy would be:

Books
Classical Books
Greek Classical Books
Roman Classical Books

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

I think this proposal needs to go to WP:VPR, but nonetheless, if people want to finish a sentence before clicking the link, they can open the link in a new window or tab, or just finish the sentence. No need to clutter things up any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I'd vote against this, as would everyone else. Sorry, but the idea is awful, because it would destroy the ability to read the paragraph. There's a good reason that regular books don't use this notation method. Hypertext and footnotes are here to stay. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I know we should move this conversation to the appropriate talk page, but what I have done is this: configured my middle mouse button to open the link in a new window, but not switch to it. That way I can finish my sentence and only go to that other page when I'm done the bit I'm reading. Aaronite (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Or just right-click and select "open in new tab" or "open in new window". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like this proposal either. Very often, I'm looking for some term or other that I've forgotten - so I go to an article that I know is closely related to it - and skim through it until I find the link I need. I really don't want to read any further at that point. It's pretty common for me to jump off onto another page partway through reading a sentence - when I realize (for example) that there is a more tightly focussed article with a title I hadn't thought of. For example, yesterday, I was struggling to remember the phrase "simulation hypothesis" - and all I could remember was that it was closely related to digital physics. So I hit that article - skimmed down to simulated reality - and in that article down to the thing I actually needed. I didn't want (or need) to read either of the first two articles to do that. Hypertext works and is a well-established concept across the entire Internet - I don't see a reason to buck the trend here! SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This question was also asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Possible Suggestion For Making Wikipedia Even Better. Buddy431 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Providing links within the sentence is standard internet procedure at countless sites, so wikipedia should continue to follow that approach. The whole point is to allow someone to switch to another article. They can always go back to where they started, by following their browser history list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the OP might be interested in WP:POPUPS. Nimur (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This idea would make it incredibly hard to just sit and read an article. You'd read one sentence, skip a bunch of links that you likely don't need/care about, then get on to the next sentence. Think of how many links you actually click on because you don't know what the term means. I bet if you averaged it, it would be less than 25% of the links in an article. For instance, taking the first sentence of a biography, "John Doe was an American singer and guitarist for The Blah Blahs". In that sentence, you'd have linked American, singer, guitarist, and The Blah Blahs. If you know who he was but just want to read the article, only the band name would likely be a 'click and open in a new tab' type link. After all, you likely already know the other three terms. Now think about having to see those words repeated after that sentence. And then in between each subsequent sentence. And again, those links would likely not be clicked on because you probably know what the terms mean. It's just silly. Dismas|(talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Protein Question

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

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

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

It's not medical advice (it's not diagnosis, prognosis or treatment), it's nutritional. Answer away. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, general health and nutrition answers are not medical advice. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for quick feedback, Vimescarrot. Okay, I was just thinking that RD editors were holding off for some reason as 11 hours seems a long time unanswered. I've already started my reply, I'll see what I can come up with c/w references and links to relevant WP articles. I will recommend they also discuss the matter with a dietician or nutritionist. Perhaps they should eat some extra carrots?  ;-) (Oh, oh, theres an opening for BB!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In future I wouldn't read a delay as being equal to the question being unacceptable — usually an unacceptable question will receive a scolding rather than silence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's not asking for medical advice. The question isn't "Do I need to eat protein when doing strength training?" it is a question about the technicalities of muscles. --Tango (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Full protection warranted?

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

Given past vandalism, and the general lack of need to edit the templates, yes. — Lomn 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I've fixed your sig links. Please don't link to an account you're not actually posting from. — Lomn 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism is a valid reason to protect temporarily, not indefinitely. "Lack of need to edit" is not a valid reason to protect. This is a wiki. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Any changes needed would require consensus here, so protecting them is reasonable. The mere fact they are only used with the ref desks actually makes it easier to justify protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"Any changes needed would require consensus" is not a valid reason to protect. This is a wiki; we use "bold, revert, discuss" as our edit model. Temporary full protection is a tool to stop out-of-control edit warring. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

What changes do you propose for the RD headers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make my change, and if someone disagrees with it, they can revert and we can discuss. That's the wiki way. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are you afraid to state what change you intend to make? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not ascribe fear where it is not warranted. By not discussing my intended edit beforehand, I am standing up for the principle of bold wiki editing. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the argument the banned editor Pioneercourthous used to use, and when someone was gullible enough to fall for it, he messed up the article and it was quickly re-protected. I would assume the RD headers were protected by consensus, which is also the wiki way.
Also, why are you editing under one ID and claiming it's another ID?
Mike R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Hero of This Nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Also, if the header was protected by consensus, so be it. I don't see that it was, although I admit I have not scoured the talk archives thoroughly. I see right now two people who agree that the header should be full-protected (three if you count the admin who protected it), and one who does not. The one who does not appears to me (I admit I am biased) to be making solid arguments against permanent full protection. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a policy called WP:BecauseIFeelLikeIt? No, I didn't think so. The page was protected on Dec 20, 2006.[10] Feel free to try to build consensus to unprotect. Trying to build consensus is the wiki way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Having taken a closer look at that point in time,[11] the specific reason was to keep newbies from posting questions on the main page, and as noted in the discussion, the template itself was (and is right now) open to editing. Some of the editors in that discussion are still active, so they could be asked if they still think it needs protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The page I really wanted to edit was Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask which was full protected as a "high-risk template" in 2008 after a someone was vandalizing it with Avril Lavigne pictures. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The RD headers are fundamental enough to the structure (as opposed to the content) of the Reference Desks that they deserve this protection for the same reason that other structural templates do. In particular:
  • damage to them (due to vandalism or otherwise) is typically simultaneously more visible and more difficult to revert (especially by naive vandal-fighters)
  • they change infrequently, and changes should be by good consensus, so the gating function of having an admin actually make the change is not a bad thing.
I, too, am very fond of the wiki way. I, too, have been frustrated -- once -- by not being immediately able to make a change to an RD header. But on balance, I'd say the status quo here is fine. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The RD templates were not vandalized a couple times by a single vandal. They were vandalized repeatedly by multiple vandals who chatted outside of Wikipedia about new cool ways to cause problems by vandalizing the templates. Each vandal originally competed to see who could be the biggest pain. Then, they decided to work together to share knowledge to make matters worse. By protecting them, that game was stopped. However, those vandals are still here (using IP addresses and thousands of one-time-use accounts) and will certainly pick up their game again if the templates are opened up for editing. -- kainaw™ 22:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I have the technical ability to fix/improve issues with the RD templates, but I just ignore problem reports about them here because they're fully protected. Permanent full-protection seems wrong here. It would be nice if protection allowed certain users to be granted rights over certain pages. I don't want to be an admin, but I should be allowed to edit these templates. --Sean 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Clone the template and edit in your sandbox. This has the added benefit that if you break something or get stopped in the middle of a series of changes, the live copy won't break. When you have something you like, easy enough to ask here for the live one to be updated. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Medical marihuana

This post[12] says "Let's be perfectly honest and clear: Cannabis prohibition has nothing to do with protecting public safety or human health, and it never has." Besides the inappropriate rhetorical introduction this post makes a categorical accusation that is insupportable (never ?). Other contributions by the same user contain a harangue promoting their viewpoint about cannabis prohibition. Whether or not that viewpoint is persuasive, a question to the Science Ref. Desk should never be exploited as a springboard for such opinionated rhetoric. A later post by the same poster reaches a new low in lecturing boorishness. Comments? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate topic.. And one that many people to have strong opinions (sometimes strongly opposed) on. Yeah, these sort of debates aren't what the ref desk is meant for, but I don't see anything egregious here either. I don't see that this requires any kind of action. Friday (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I don't see the harm. A sentence of rhetoric here and there does not a soapboxer make. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's just make sure the thread is well referenced, whatever claims are made. Nimur (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, of course. I will note that our rhetorical poster actually is pretty good about providing references (whether they are always entirely germane is a separate and irresolvable debate). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Troll

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

And I zapped another one. Just another Elsie sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I did another which unfortunately already had a response but I've informed the responder Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nobody is asking for medical diagnosis, they're asking for the current status of research on these topics. There's a difference. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the advice is likely to kill someone. I note that Mr. 98 gave advice to those questions. 89.242.91.120 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not medical advice and it's not clear and present danger by any definition (at worst, these things have health implications that are some decades in the future). It's not even "likely to kill someone"—did you even bother reading the responses? Not one of them says, "smoke 'em both, they're safe!" They say things like, "both have their health risks, let's parse them out a bit." Informed discussion of risks is always better than blanket bans of discussion. In any case, it violates zero Ref Desk guidelines, which is the ultimately salient point here. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
"Not even likely to kill someone" - that's nonsense! Tobacco is well known for killing millions of people. You must be an addict. 78.149.199.79 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither of the questions are in any way asking for medial advice (prognosis / diagnosis). Providing readily available, factual information on topics that could be dangerous is acceptable 82.44.55.254 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Are those rhetorical questions ? I've read the Tobacco thread (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Tobacco). Certainly not a medical advice question. Possibly a legal advice question. If you don't like the question then you can just ignore it - you are not responsible for other editors' actions. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is no law prohibiting the growing of tobacco for personal use, it's not our place to be nannies and tell the OP how to run his life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Others would disagree, which is why wikipedia is not censored for content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If they are really that pliable then it won't be Wikipedia that does them in. (And it does not even begin to logically follow that banning all discussion of addictive things would actually have any positive effect, or that our discussions of such things in a rational and careful manner would actually encourage anyone to do them if they weren't already inclined to do so.) And Wikipedia as a whole does have bomb-making advice. Which would you prefer, plain-old ANFO or something special? --Mr.98 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Taking it farther, there "shouldn't be" anything about anything that can be addicting, including food and sexuality and prescriptions drugs and religion and television/radio/movies/etc. Nor anything connected with violence, which rules out guns, knifes, or any other kind of weaponry; or violent sports (which is most of them), or wars or nations that have participated in wars. Once you start down that path, you eventually end up with an encylopedia with 0 content. Which is at least part of the reason wikipedia is not censored for content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing "bad answers"

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

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

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

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

I'm not remotely interested in reading all the above drivel, though I would welcome a diff of me using the phrase "Wikipedia Police"? The policy situation is, according to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, that WP:TALK applies. The relevant section of WP:TALK clearly states, "...appropriately editing others' comments [...] generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil."
This seems perfectly clear to me. If a comment is nothing but a personal attack (for example, your #1 and #4) it should probably be deleted, or at least, I'm not sure anyone would object. If it was an attack but also answered the question (for example, your #2) then perhaps the nasty bit could be struck out to indicate that it's not acceptable.
If it answered the question, was perhaps a little brusque but with a justifiable point, including the suggestion that the questioner should use their loaf (for example, your #8) then no part of WP:TPO mandates its deletion and it blatantly should not be.
I'm astonished that anybody can find such a simple rule this complicated. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Au contraire, this is precisely the situation where you should not be ignoring rules, since it's clear there's no consensus the immediete removal was called for. And it bothers me profoundly when people are so astonishingly rude to total strangers who are trying to help strangers seeking help just because you don't agree with the way they are trying to help. In other words, I really don't agree with the continued advocation of the removal of someone's attempt to help an OP just because you don't like the manner in which it was done. You're right people are getting too rule obessed, sadly one of the reason's is because people advocate uncalled for actions without the consensus of the community and where many of their fellow contributors don't agree, which cause unnecessary tension and pointless arguments with your fellow contributors apparently because they aren't able to accept not everyone thinks like them or feels they have to follow some narrow ruleset in the way they respond to other contributors and in failing to do so, others are justified in removing their comments. If instead people would learn to let others do thing in their own manner, provided they do act in good faith, do try to help (or improve things) and don't do something which most others clearly agree was completely inappropriate, clearly damaging or unacceptable on wikipedia and perhaps give everyone includings OPs the respect they deserve allowing them to make their own judgements even if they don't agree with them, and don't think people are so completely thin-skinned they can't read a mildly brusque answer without imploding; and when people really do perhaps go slightly too far, dealing directly with the person in the first instance rather then causing unnecessary resentment and drama by an immediate removal and public discussion then perhaps we could all live happier. I do agree common sense is the best policy here, however obviously not in what is the common sense solution here. Note that I'm not saying I'm supporting unnecesary rudeness in replies, simply that the immediate removal of such replies rarely helps the situation and in fact in most cases the best option is just to let it be and if you really think you can't, the second best option would usually be to discuss it with the poster directly first. P.S. The funniest thing if you can call it that is the removed reply in question is hardly even close to the rudest thing I've seen on the RD. In fact OPs themselves can be quite rude. However even in such cases, I rarely would support the removal of an OP's good faith question, nor would I advocate an unnecessarily rude reply in return (but of course also won't normally support the removal of such a reply). Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Nil Einne, I think you would, then, say that answer #2 is OK on the Reference Desk, and that the most that should be done is to have a conversation with the poster of that answer? Really? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
After another day's thought, I think I disagree even more with Nil Einne on this one, because in every conversation I've ever been a part of, when person A makes an "asshole" comment, by doing so that person abandons any expectation of being treated courteously when person B replies. When have you ever seen Person A in a real conversation make an "asshole" comment and then act shocked and repulsed when Person B replies in kind? Sparing the feelings of Person A by not deleting his comment is not a priority anywhere in the world, I think. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I had some time to think about this, and I think removing hostile answers is the correct thing to do. The whole point of the reference desk is to help people find the information they need, even if it's something really obvious or basic question. 82.44.55.254 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Responses that violate WP:AGF are unacceptable and examples 1) and 4) are gross insults that should be deleted on sight. When an otherwise on-subject answer carries an insulting payload, I say delete the payload with a summary note "Edit can be raised on Talk page". The idea is to put the muck out of sight of the OP. The poster is welcome to try convincing us that payloads such as "asshole" etc. in examples 2) 3) 5) 6) are acceptable. Mild jokes are okay after the OP's question has been sensibly addressed. The sarcastic examples 7) and 8) are not shining witticisms but if someone takes the trouble to write them let's respect that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the Reference Desk, not the comments section of a YouTube video. It seems to me that all of the above examples, including number 7 and 8, come straight from their author's smug sense of superiority and serve no purpose other than to actively trying to belittle and humiliate the OP. Not only does such behavior run contrary to all the conventions of civil society, they contribute to the negative image of the insular Wikipedian society, potentially marginalizing yet another future potentially productive editor. In case anybody hasn't noticed, new editors haven't exactly been flocking in, and treating the RD like a Fox Network reality show isn't helping. It's harmful, and we shouldn't allow it, especially on the RefDesk. – ClockworkSoul 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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

All 8 comments above should be removed on sight, including the two which are versions of what I wrote. The ref desk is about answering questions and being helpful to people, and it is not the place to show off ones own smugness, mine included. Forget about WP:TALK. The most important in this case is WP:IAR. The ref desk is better off without such comments, and since it is, such comments should be removed because removing them makes the ref desk better. Period. I should only add that, before removing comments like this, you should directly confront the person that left them and politely ask that they remove the comment themselves. Deleting bad comments is appropriate, but good manners dictates that you directly confront someone when they screw up, and you give them a chance to fix it. But regardless, the comments should be removed. --Jayron32 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron. I agree that it's only fair to give the author the chance to remove it themselves. After all, everybody has bad days and occasionally writes something they later wish they hadn't. I know I was feeling unusually cranky when I wrote the comments above! – ClockworkSoul 04:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_71&oldid=1075171696"