Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Garbage disposal

I removed 92.28.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) postings, as its a pretty obvious sock of the banned user Light current. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you notify the posters of the good faith, and accurate comments that you also deleted? I thought not. I will do so, but please be more considerate in the future. (I do, BTY, disagree with this removal, as the question was legitimate, and the answers informative. I won't revert you in your little crusade, though). Buddy431 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: [1], [2], [3]. Buddy431 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that notifying people whose posts you have deleted in a basic courtesy. Thank's Buddy, for doing that. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Light current doesn't do anything in good faith. But if you want to play along with the troll's story about screwing his dog, you're welcome to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? Buddy431 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that StuRat and Stephen Schulz are also Light Current Socks? They sure look like they were replying in good faith to me. Buddy431 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the IP's are Light current socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. Yes, the answers were in good faith. But troll-feeding is not appropriate, even if it's in good faith. As I say, if you want to put LC's garbage and the innocent responses back, and further the feeding of that Limey troll, go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure if racially motivated comments like 'Limey' are appropriate here Bugs whoever you think I may be.--92.28.75.62 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — 92.28.75.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm of that same "race" myself, Elsie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

limey n.' 1888, Australian, New Zealand, and South African slang for "English immigrant;" U.S. use is attested from 1918, originally "British sailor, British warship," short for lime-juicer (1857), in derisive reference to the British Navy's policy (begun 1795) of issuing lime juice on ships to prevent scurvy among sailors. In Amer.Eng., extended to "any Englishman" by 1925. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, it hasn't even been two posts yet, and you're contradicting yourself. "But troll-feeding is not appropriate, even if it's in good faith." Either Elise's a perma-banned troll who should be reverted and never responded to, or they're someone you can trade witty banter with. They can't be both. If you want to castigate others for responding to known or suspected trolls, stop doing so yourself. -- 174.21.250.227 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The core problem is that I would like to RBI Elsie, but there are always some newbies who don't know about that unrepentent troll, and it becomes necessary to explain it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then explain it (politely) to the newbies, and ignore (don't respond to) posts by Elsie. If you think the post is by a troll (as you apparently did, as you ended it with ", Elsie."), just don't respond to it. This personal animosity you two seem to have is only fueling things, and not helping at all with WP:DENY. -- 174.21.250.227 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the argument was that they might not have realized that the questioner was LC. (Not everyone has your ability to see LC postings.) As that may be the case, the polite thing to do would have been to notify them (on their talk pages). You can think of it as informing them of their mistake, so they might be less likely to commit it in the future. -- 174.21.250.227 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I should have done so, in addition to posting here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish there was an automated way to do this. While I agree that notifying good-faith posters is a good idea, because it prevents confusion, this rule has the nasty side effect of making it more effort to remove vandalism than to create it.

The fact that (in the rest of the encyclopedia) vandalism is easier to remove than to create is one of Wikipedia's core features that makes the project as a whole sustainable. APL (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In looking further, the ones who lost their comments in my reversion are regular visitors to this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I re-recommend my earlier suggestion that next-generation MediaWiki implementations require a check of the evil bit per IETF's official RFC 3514; and have the software auto-revert all vandalism before it even gets posted. Nimur (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed another troll question

I've removed this vulgar question, which, judging from the IP's other question of "What is inside Uranus," is obviously trolling. The other question can be answered straight-facedly, but nothing good can come of leaving this question up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The offending question was posted from IP 88.104.81.205. User:TenOfAllTrades has done a lot of good detective work to uncover the fact that a banned former User called User:Light current now operates as a troll using IP addresses in the series 88.104.xx.yy. TenOfAllTrades has established that all postings from 88.104.xx.yy have been from this banned User. TenOfAllTrades has asked all Wikipedia Users to delete (on sight!) any posting to a Reference Desk from IP 88.104.xx.yy. See HERE 1 and HERE 2 Dolphin (t) 07:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's along the same lines as my "Garbage disposal" section above. It may be that LC has found some new IP's, or it may just be copycatting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bugs why are you giving LC such wonderful publicity? Is it that you cant stop seeing LC everywher and you are obsessed with erasing every comment that may possibly be his? I thing a visit to the shrink for obsessive behavior might be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.43.88 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed a similar question today, which was obviously posed by a sock of LC.--Saddhiyama (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

removed troll question

Here: [[4]]. He is persistent and have posted the same question several times. Quest09 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed again [5].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed attacks on a poster's religious beliefs

I have taken the unusual step of removing a sequential pair of posts by Cuddlyable3 (C3) from the Science Ref Desk. The original poster (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Kindly help me find some good used solar panels for the K-State Wesley) asked for help and advice on how to set up a small alternative energy project for his local (Christian) church group. C3 responded with what he no doubt thought was a clever and hilarious suggestion to use a bidet as a baptismal font; he helpfully provided links and a description ("fixture...intended for washing the genitalia, inner buttocks, and anus") so that the poster would be sure to understand how offensive the idea was. His other post went on to recommend the purchase of a solar-powered (Buddhist) prayer wheel for the church group to avoid "encourag[ing] propitiation to a bloodthirsty deity", and then taunted the original poster, suggesting that a failure to follow C3's instructions would demonstrate that he was "preoccupied with self interest".

While I fully acknowledge that a bit of banter and humor have a welcome place here, these sorts of naked attacks are much too far over the line of acceptable conduct on the Reference Desk. C3's remarks were not only entirely unhelpful and irrelevant to the question at hand, but deliberately and thoroughly offensive. The original poster wanted to know how to build a small photovoltaic lighting system; instead he and his beliefs were demonized and mocked by a complete stranger. While I regret the necessity of saying so, I will explicitly note that any move to restore these comments to the Desk will lead to an escalation to AN/I and requests for blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also notified Cuddlyable3 of this discussion on his talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That type of response is totally offensive. However, you failed to remove the comment that egged him on, which was posted by another user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that suggesting a bidet was offensive, inappropriate humor, and unhelpful. But I think Nil mentioned it first, and CA3 was furthering that already-mentioned idea. And as Bugs notes, Nils comment is still there as of this writing. And the other, "motorized prayer-wheel to blood-thirsty diety" suggestion by CA3 seemed perhaps marginally within bounds for that sort of thing here to me.(on closer reading, that one seemed fine: it was saying to not propitiate such a diety) WikiDao ☯ 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(It is probably not too politically astute of me to be stepping in and defending CA3 so often here...) In this case[6], I see that it was perhaps the direct connection between a bidet's use on the human body's nether regions followed immediately by suggesting it be used as a baptismal font that has provoked administrative ire. Nil's suggestion[7], to which CA3's comment was in response, just seems to have been to install one in the church as a convenient crowd-drawing novelty for use in the normal way, which is much more acceptable. I would counsel you, CA3, to simply accept that as the way it is. WikiDao ☯ 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read the comment about the prayer wheel a bit more closely. The prayer wheel isn't part of the Christian tradition; it is a Buddhist device. CA3 was saying that the Christian god is a bloodthirsty deity whom the church group should stop worshipping; they could be aided in this through the donation of a Buddhist prayer wheel which would help their conversion along. That's pretty damned offensive in my book. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that reading of it, and that the comment was both offensive and unhelpful. Cuddlyable3, you should take care that your attempts at humor on the desks do not cause offense. Other regulars, myself included, should take such care, too. WikiDao ☯ 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify my response in case there is any confusion here. It wasn't my intention to attack the posters religious beliefs. Rather I was pointing out that IP (and despite their claim they operate a purposely unsecured wifi, I've never seen any reason to believe it's not the same person) has made a variety of strange, sometimes almost contradictory claims in their posts on the RD, so that people can decide for themselves whether it's worth their time to respond. It's perhaps worth remembering this is the same IP who in their first question asked a medical advice question [8] (they also asked questions about driving after consuming cough syrup [9] and enemas washes [10] later). And about a month later [11] asked a rather specific question that we'd been asked before but stated it was not them last time (despite the IP looking up to the same location and the same ISP).

I admit the comment on bidets was unnecessary but since someone using that IP has been trying to convert us to bidets on the RD, it seemed a harmless aside. It wasn't intended to offend anyone's religion, as far as I'm aware, many/most? Christian denominations are interested in converts (some more then others of course) and increasing their congregation size. If bidets really are as wonderful as a person using that IP has claimed before, it seems plausible their installation will make people more willing to go to church. Some people may find this an offensive way to gain converts, but from what I've seen, some find it okay to make their church (or whatever) more comfortable so that people are more likely to visit with the believe that as they experience church and service, they will learn to accept god so there's no reason to presume any specific person will find such a suggestion offensive. In other words, I was trivialising whoever was using that IP's attempts to convert us to bidets (not that I think there's anything wrong with them) but not their religious beliefs.

Anyway if people want to remove my response, so be it. I don't really see anything that bad with CA3s response although perhaps the aside had gone on for too long by then. I should add that Rmhermen has made a response either to me, CA3 or both of us which was confusing at the time given the indenting and location but is even more confusing now.

Edit: I was mainly thinking of CA3's first response. The second response I can see as problematic (not that I necessarily disagree with the point but I don't think it's appropriate for the RD)

Edit2: Actually rereading CA3's first response I can see how it was problematic as well so I withdraw my comment above.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's that comprehensive defense of bidets (not that there's anything wrong with liking bidets, but the incident looks much worse without this context): archived question about washlets 213.122.25.83 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the IP [12] to avoid any more controversy about discussing people with notification Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is all much more understandable in context. We should perhaps all take more care about how our comments may be interpreted by others who do not have the full context; it is a common source of misunderstanding and confusion. WikiDao ☯ 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Unoriginal observation:) It's alright to attack religions, but not people. I guess this was a personal attack, or just uncalled-for hostility; these things are always bad, religion is irrelevant to the matter, and religions themselves are fair game. (As is atheism, for that matter, or Darwinism.) 213.122.25.83 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the religious insults, none of the mentions to bidets or prayer wheels addressed the OP's question (about the availability of used solar panels) or provided helpful references. This is really a example of a badly handled question. Rmhermen (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have just removed the answers myself - but in ten years of answering questions here I don't recall having ever done that before. But I would much rather answer a question on its face than presume it was an anonymous troll and insert oblique references to other possible trollish questions from the same address. Better to have a one-sentence stub article or a sincere answer to a question in the archives to advance our goal off promoting good free knowledge. Rmhermen (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rmhermen. The act of trolling is ephemeral and fleeting; our answers will become part of the archives. So let's keep the answers at a quality-level that warrants saving them in perpetuity. Nimur (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you have unlimited time... I personally don't and when I spend an hour or so answering a question (not that uncommon) while I recognise there is no guarantee it will help the OP or anyone else, or that it will even be read I also (usually) don't wish to waste that time when there there's no one genuinely interested in the answer. As such, I see no problem when people point out if a question is highly suspicious but when it may not be obvious to a number of other people who don't recognise whatever signs. I'm not suggesting it should be common practice but when the behaviour has reached such a level that it's very difficult to WP:AGF any longer I'm definitely not going to blame anyone for pointing it out.

Note that because I do not have unlimited time, if I spend 1 hour answering a question which no one cares the answer for, it may mean a question which is more in need of an answer will be missed and while I don't claim my answers are always perhaps not even often that useful, I would hope they some times are. Therefore it doesn't advance my personal goals to promote good free knowledge by wasting my time on trolls who have no real desire for such knowledge when I could be spending my time on people who genuinely want the knowledge.

Ultimately we all choose to answer questions with payment and from our own time. No one is forcing us to answer questions. But equally there is no reason why we should be forced to waste time answering questions, when if certain details were known, we probably wouldn't because such details are kept intentionally hidden on the chance they may offend someone or somehow present a negative view of the RD or wikipedia (that we choose to ignore questions from people who are highly unlikely to be sincere).

Note that I am not demanding that people not answer such questions, hence why I may simply point out suspicious questions rather then coming here to try and convince people perhaps we should stop feeding trolls and then even after having done so and gotten some sort of consensus getting in to further long discussions when an attempt to remove such questions is made in the future (and as for example BB has encountered above, even with clearly banned trolls, attempting to remove their questions is often a very big chore in itself). I think it should be up to each respondent, presented with relevant information, to decide for themselves how much time, if any, they wish to dedicate to a question. If people wish to answer such questions, be my guest. But equally if I don't want to answer such questions I would like it if people would allow me to make that choice (and the only way me and anyone else who feels the same can choose is if we are aware when the question is unlikely to be sincere). I for one, thing the RD benefits from this, not loses.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Of course I'm not claiming that pointing out when a question is highly suspicious always works. As it stands, I've probably wasted about 40-50 minutes on this discussion thread itself. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)I will agree with other users, than under those circumstances, it does largely redeem those answers. They were not general attacks on a religion, but a reply to a troll question, and Nil Einne and Cuddlyable would not have posted them if the original question had been made in good faith. However, I think the best way to deal with it would have been to state clearly that the OP was a known troll, instead of using sarcasm that needs special knowledge to be understood, not only by future readers but quite clearly also by the current users (including me). Sarcastic answers or engaging trolls on their level is a major aim of troll behaviour. Except for outright deletion as per WP:DENY, calling them out and then ignoring them is the most efficient method of dealing with trolls. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

...and there's still nothing wrong with making general attacks on a religion (as separate from its followers). Except of course that it would probably be soapboxing ... and difficult to keep from being inflammatory, but it could somehow be a valid part of answering a question. We're allowed to attack beliefs, such as, say, homeopathy, and belief in gods doesn't have a more privileged status than belief in water. (Sorry for this sidetrack.) 81.131.39.121 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Because that IP editor has already been warned several times about disruption and trolling, and because this affair has caused significant angst and wasted the time of several editors, I have imposed a block on 1 week on the IP address. I will follow up with longer blocks if necessary. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My (deleted) responses were based on the OP's question as presented, without supposing that the OP might be a troll. My first post:

• A practical suggestion is to use $200 to buy a solar panel and a small motor attached to a Prayer wheel.

This is ok. The OP asked for suggestions for use of solar panels donated to a church and this is a suggestion that is realistic within the money available. It offers continual "passive prayer" as an approximation to the OP's expressed wish to achieve "passive tithing".

• You will thereby make a pious gesture towards a religion...

This is correct. See the referenced article Prayer wheel. The idea is abundantly sourced.

• (a religion) that does not encourage propitiation to a bloodthirsty deity.

This is a characterization of Buddhism in which prayer wheels are regularly used. I refuse to qualify that with a disclaimer like Don't worry, it's ok if you want to pursue a biblically defined worship of a deity that craves blood sacrifice for atonement of sin (Lev. 17:11), craved it painted on doorways (Ex. 12:7, 22, 23), craved his Son's blood both spilled (John 19:34) and periodically drunk, with many more gory references available in that book which oozes with "blood of any sort of flesh" (Lev 17:14) because I don't think it is ok at all. However that is up to an individual to choose. The OP chose (was not forced) to advertise by their link a church called K-State Wesley that organises groups to drink the "sacramental blood of Jesus" during a semester.

• You can give the remaining $200 to the poor if you are not preoccupied with self interest. I extend this suggestion to anyone with $200 to spare. (OR)Following it will make you feel better than being a self righteous censor of Ref desk posts.

My second post: A bidet was mentioned. Bidets are well known in Europe but unfamiliar to many Americans who may be unaccustomed to "thinking outside the bowl". The OP's location is America.

• A Bidet is a low-mounted plumbing fixture or type of sink intended for washing the genitalia, inner buttocks, and anus. That is exactly what Wikipedia says a bidet is.
• As a church fixture a bidet could additionally serve as a novel Baptismal font. Offhand I can't think of any other ecclesiastic use for a bidet. AFAIK Christian baptism is neither validated nor invalidated by the shape of a baptismal font nor of its possible other uses.
  

I have observed that those who do not write well[[13]] [14] [15] seldom read properly either. The censorous admin TenOfAllTrades fits that profile but compensates with fertile imagination. Products of that imagination include claims that normal use of a bidet is offensive, that I said the OP's group should stop worshipping and that I claimed that disobeying my instructions would demonstrate preoccupation with self interest. But, dear block-happy tradesman, normal use of a bidet is hygenic not offensive, I allow the OP's group whatever spiritual cultivation they choose, and giving alms to the poor is my suggestion not an instruction. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty disappointed to see that response. It demonstrates one of the two things: either you are trolling yourself, or you are not capable of participating usefully at the reference desks. If you want to earn yourself a long-term ban from the Refdesks, you are going about it exactly the right way. Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> WikiDao ☯ 04:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<double sigh> Is it possible to trade-in the CA3 model to SteveBaker model? Royor (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty bad. CA3, if this is really your attitude, please stay off the reference desks. Friday (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll spell out the things wrong with this:

• You must realize that the OP, a Christian, is not interested in making Buddhist prayers, since it's normal for religious types to restrict themselves to one religion at a time and not attempt to collect the set.
• Behind the facade of literalism, you also realize that "a deity that craves blood sacrifice" brings to mind murderous acts like the throwing of decapitated bodies down the steps of Aztec temples, whereas no actual Christs are sacrificed in the making of communion wine. So this is hyperbole, and tangential, too.
• You can't pretend not to know that the phrase "preoccupied with self interest" has a tone of moral condemnation. If you believed the OP to be an ordinary and innocent poster, then it's a completely gratuitous insult.
• You can't put babby int' bidet. 213.122.57.166 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now now, 213.122, while I agree that CA went overboard, there's also no need to take the moral outrage into the other extreme, like your points are doing - re 1. The same user who posted the original question also spoke in another question (which I'm sure CA read) of going to Asian countries to convert people, so if he can consider it perfectly normal that he should go to Asia and convert Buddhists to Christianity, why is it so outrageous to suggest he might consider converting to Buddhism instead?, re 2. Have you actually ever read the Bible? It's gore galore, selling daughters into prostitution, smashing babies against rocks, calling God to bring out of forests rabid bears to maul children, genocide, you name the atrocity, chances are it's in there. I don't know about you, but to me bloodthirsty sounds like a pretty apt description of God in the Old Testament. re 3. Oh noes, moral condemnation. The guy asked a question that could be done with in one sentence: "Where can I buy used solar panels?" and make it into a neat paragraph with some extra info. Instead three of the four paragraphs are about how he's going to use them to auto-tithe at his local church, and not only that, for no apparent reason he even linked to the church's site, which makes the question borderline link spam. That does sound like preoccupation with self-interest, if you ask me. and re 4. sure you can, why not? It's just the right size.

A disclaimer: I'm not endorsing what CA wrote (although I didn't find it oh so terrible to warrant all this drama - a simple revert and a slap on the wrist would have been enough, IMO), but I can understand where he's coming from, and I find it a bit over the top to go in the other direction and pretend like there's absolutely no rhyme or reason to what he wrote. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Though this makes logical sense, you can count on a proselytizer rejecting the idea. So it's a facetious answer, not a helpful one. 2. Christianity is all about the new testament these days, I hear, and they play down the smiting, and anyway the "bloodthirsty" remark was still irrelevant, probably put in to justify the silly prayer wheel suggestion, and could cause a distracting fight. 3. We're supposed to be polite to the questioners, even if they're awful. 4. Fair point well made. 213.122.57.166 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The God of the Old Testament had a keen interest in blood sacrifices, there's no denying it, and the OT is full of all manner of atrocity, it's true. Cuddlyable3's characterization of that God, in Whom Christians profess belief, as "blood-thirsty" may be offensive to some but is not without a well-documented basis, so removing the question for "offensiveness" was not justified in my view. And donating the bidet to the church was Nil's idea, it was hardly a serious or helpful answer; CA3 just defined it for those who might not know, and then expanded on its possible use in a church. If CA3's answer was removable, then Nil's was, too. Etc.

But, all that's missing the point. We must strive to provide good, relevant, helpful answers on the desks, or else must not answer at all. Getting all snarky is not acceptable. CA3 was called on that, and should have accepted the removal with as much grace as he could muster. His long-winded point-by-point defense above is unwarranted and irrelevant. Administrators have long had their eye on him, and I would counsel him again to simply accept that as the was it is and to keep that in mind as he goes about participating further here. WikiDao ☯ 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not suppose the anonymous OP 70.179.178.5 might trolling the desk because I didn't bother to investigate the OP's history before responding. IMO there is doctrinal flaw in the OP's aim to "keep tithing to God even when not actively giving". Tithing is defined consistently in Heb 7:4, Gen 28:22, Numbers 18:26 as donation of 10% of one's disposable income to the biblical God's work, i.e. a proportional not an absolute amount. The Parable of the widow's mite Mark 12:41-44 is strikingly clear about this. The OP would like the merit of their one-time tithe to be measured in watts-per-dollar, the watts being continuously given while the OP may walk away and give no more. That contradicts the definition of tithing and expecting any sin-atonement that way resembles buying an Indulgence which is abhorrent in the OP's Methodist church. We should not make any assumption about the OP's actual belief system beyond the evidence that the OP is open to unorthodox suggestions, including a rotating mechanism such as a wind turbine. But it is theologically absurd to require God to provide the wind or sunlight to generate one's tithe to God. The OP's methodist companions might reject a prayer wheel for that reason, or they might find the wheel's buddhist conception intolerable or they might consider the practices of Buddhism and Christianity to be reconcilable. I know many who find that proposal challenging but not offensive.
Briefly @213.122.57.166, I don't think that I must realize what prayers the OP is interested in. An association between a biblical God and Aztec sacrifices may come to your mind but (unless you regard some Mormonism sources about pre-Columbian America as reliable) it is unsupportable. Your stricture about the condemnable (im)morality of being preoccupied with self interest, which is natural these days for most people most of the time, would paint the rest of us as selfish Libertines. Finally, methodists do not require baptism by total immersion of an infant.
Blood is desirable to the biblical God and self-avowed Christians have spilled each other's bloods over arcane aspects such as whether what they drink at communion is transubstantiated or consubstantiated. But they all read the same little text below that has blood in every verse.

John 6:53-56 (King James Version)

53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we are on the subject of quoting random snippets of scripture, don't forget the greatest two commandments. "Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Mark 12:30 and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31. Before you condemn Christianity as being a bloodthirsty and brutal religion, think about that. Unless I am missing something, loving your neighbor as yourself is does not require much blood-lust. Yes, Christians have done very terrible things. That is true. So have people who are not Christian. That is also true. I apologize on behalf of the Christians who judge and behave inappropriately. They bark the loudest, but they constitute nowhere near the majority of Christians. Cuddlyable3, I do not attack whatever path you follow. You believe whatever you are called to believe. I am happy for you. In return, I ask that you please don't attack me. "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil, cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves." (Romans 13:9-10). "Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." (Romans 13-14). I opened the Bible to a random page; those kinds of verses are not at all hard to find; indeed I could have kept typing more from Romans 13 alone. I do not ask you to become a Christian, or to adhere to Christian values, but I do request that you treat us with the respect that we afford to you. As you cannot be responsible for all who adhere to your faith, I cannot be responsible for all who claim to follow mine. If you are going to quote the worst in the Bible, you would be remiss to not also quote the best alongside it. Falconus^{p t c} 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved Falconus's quote up from the sub-head below because I believe it was meant as a response to the comment now above it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't specifically about the flesh and blood of Christ, but also about the references above from Leviticus, etc. I put it at the bottom because it's such a long thread. Falconus^{p t c}

@Falconus, I don't think we are "on the subject of quoting random snippets of scripture", it is you who "opened the Bible to a random page". You would be right to say (and perhaps meant to say) that we have quoted selected passages. In fact you have done just that in an effective way in support of the particular Christians with whom you identify. I query whether your address is sermonising with apologia for some pre-christian parts of the Bible both Christians and others find problematical, given the categorical endorsement in 2Ti 3:16. Please refrain from ad hominem comparison of another's path contra your path. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to sermonize, at least not any more than previous posters in this thread were. I was pointing out that while there is nasty stuff in the Bible (which is all I have seen on this thread prior to my post), there is also stuff that is good. I don't care what, if any of it, anybody here believes; I strongly respect your right to make that decision, and I do not judge you one way or the other for it. I was just pointing out that "love your neighbor" is there as well. This is Wikipedia after all - it's frowned upon to only talk about the facts that support your opinion. Both bloodthirsty passages exist (I acknowledge that without a problem), as well as passages that are about tremendous love, which I also freely acknowledge. If you are going to mention the bloodthirst, I feel compelled to mention the love, a crucial component that you left out. If you are not going to mention either, I probably won't feel a need to either. Again, I reiterate that I am not trying to push my views here; I never try to do that when it comes to my faith. Also, how can I compare it to your path, when I have no clue what your path is? Anyway, my goal is not to debate you; I am purely asking for a certain level of respect, for which I don't think is too much to ask. Falconus^{p t c} 18:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I respect all religious beliefs including the lack thereof and think all should be duly represented here. That is how it has usually worked out, too.

I recently had reason[16] to cite Acts 16:20-40 at the Humanities desk, which I find to be a very inspirational passage. But I probably would try to avoid citing the Bible at the Science desk, and would be ruthlessly critical on the Science desk to eg. any Creationists pushing to have Creationism given equal "scientific weight" as Evolution there, etc.

We should strive to be civil and informative, but should not try to define too precisely what is too "offensive" to be permitted. WP doesn't work that way, and neither should the RD (though the RD does work differently that WP as a whole in many ways, but let's not get into that now;). WikiDao ☯ 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@Falconus you have indicated that words of Jesus Christ, which are in this thread both as a referenced parable and a quotation, are the stuff in the Bible that you judge as nasty. Please correct that if it is a mistake. If you wish to retain respect then you need to withdraw your declaration that any reference to the Bible must be counterweighted by giving another reference from the other end of a purported worst-to-best scale. You reiterate, as you say you are compelled to do, passages about brotherly love in what seems an obsessive way. If you claim that your faith has a monopoly on love then you offend those others whose beliefs you say you don't care about. I see no reason for you to broadcast your testimony here. You have already admonished "Hate what is evil" and are likely to augment that with Christian doctrine that includes "everyone has inherited evil sin", the dualistic madness of "you can only be with us or against us", and eternal punishment for non-believers. Your posts seem more suited to a pulpit than relevant to the censorship that has occurred of my response to the OP who premises that failing to tithe is "letting God down". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that I said nothing in the context which you are implying, and you have made many assumptions about my faith that I did not state, and which are blatantly not true. I politely asked of you to be more respectful; I did not attempt to attack you. You have no reason that I can see to twist my words and make armchair decisions about what I believe. For the record, the ENTIRE paragraph you wrote above is wrong, from judging Jesus' own words as nasty right down to eternal punishment for nonbelievers. There is no more for me to say here. Falconus^{p t c} 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I support and agree with that comment, Falconus.

Cuddlyable3, I have no idea really what you are saying in your preceding post, or why you feel you must say it here at WT:RD at this point, but I would counsel you to consider not expounding further upon it right now. It sounds sort of punchy and argumentative, and there's just no need that I can see. You may wish, on careful consideration, to avoid trying the patience of readers of this page too much for a while.

Anyway, as your preceding comment appears addressed to Falconus personally, a better place for it would perhaps have been Falconus' talkpage – but, that user does not seem too interested in discussing this topic further with you right now, either. So, if this is really something you need to get out, you are of course welcome to try to express whatever it may be on my talkpage, and Falconus and whomever else would be welcome to discuss it further (or not;) there, too. But: I suggest maybe letting this one go right now as far as the RD is concerned, yeah? WikiDao ☯ 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I suffer censorship with a block threat[17] and am subsequently accused here by Falconus of posting an ENTIRE paragraph of error, I reserve the right to ask about the cognitive dissonance that I see. To Falconus, if your words have been twisted then untwist them now. I hold you responsible for making yourself clear.

• FALCONUS: there is nasty stuff in the Bible (which is all I have seen on this thread

CUDDLYABLE3: you have indicated that words of Jesus Christ, which are in this thread both as a referenced parable and a quotation, are the stuff in the Bible that you judge as nasty

• FALCONUS: I apologize on behalf of the Christians

CUDDLYABLE3: Christian doctrine...includes "everyone has inherited evil sin", the dualistic madness of "you can only be with us or against us", and eternal punishment for non-believers.

FALCONUS: you have made many assumptions about my faith..which are not true

I cite: Rom 5:12, Mat 12:30, Rev 21:8 respectively to the above. Please explain or withdraw your accusation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have personal grievances against me, take them up on my talk page. Otherwise, give it up. This is NOT the place to have a religious argument. You have no business arguing with me about what I believe in. I know what I believe in. You don't. I feel that I have made myself quite clear. I am very much done with this here. Falconus^{p t c} 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@Falconus, you are qualified to define your faith but were not asked to do so. It was not obviously desirable for you to post to this thread your homily in which you quoted copiously from the Bible, in which you claim to know about both nice and nasty parts, and then to be dismissive when asked what you mean. The conclusions that you leave me are 1) You have no interest in the handling by the Ref. Desk of the OP's question about tithing. 2) Something is wrong with your sight because you say you see only nasty stuff when words of the Christ that you claim to follow are in front of your nose. 3) You level accusations at me and at others who are Christians, about Biblical content you are defiantly incoherent, and you will only gush about your ineffable inner knowledge. Enjoy your gnostic certainty and pax vobiscum. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, what does this rather un-inspiring little side channel have to do with the subject of this thread, which is your own action on the RefDesk itself, and the consensus I see here that a) your actions were inappropriate; and b) your explanation of your actions is wholly inadequate? Is it your thesis that if you can find something someone else is doing wrong somewhere and talk about it for long enough that it will somehow justify your own bad behaviour? Franamax (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Falconus, I confess I haven't followed the entire thread here, but let me please assure you (and I suspect I speak for many) that we will not think any less of you if you let the cuddly pedant have his last word (such as it is). —Steve Summit (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Those who consider baptism using a bidet to be an offensive idea may enjoy the novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles (1891) in which a poverty-stricken mother cannot have her illegitimate baby baptised in a church. She therefore performs the baptism herself using a plain basin. You can read the book or the extract below. TenOfAllTrades, please read the conclusion by the "tradesman" that Thomas Hardy mentions.

Extract from Tess of the d'Urbevilles Chap. XIV

"Be you really going to christen him, Tess?" The girl-mother replied in a grave affirmative. "What's his name going to be?" She had not thought of that, but a name suggested by a phrase in the book of Genesis came into her head as she proceeded with the baptismal service, and now she pronounced it: "SORROW, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." She sprinkled the water, and there was silence. "Say 'Amen,' children." The tiny voices piped in obedient response, "Amen!" Tess went on: "We receive this child"—and so forth—"and do sign him with the sign of the Cross." Here she dipped her hand into the basin, and fervently drew an immense cross upon the baby with her forefinger, continuing with the customary sentences as to his manfully fighting against sin, the world, and the devil, and being a faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end. She duly went on with the Lord's Prayer, the children lisping it after her in a thin gnat-like wail, till, at the conclusion, raising their voices to clerk's pitch, they again piped into silence, "Amen!" Then their sister, with much augmented confidence in the efficacy of the sacrament, poured forth from the bottom of her heart the thanksgiving that follows, uttering it boldly and triumphantly in the stopt-diapason note which her voice acquired when her heart was in her speech, and which will never be forgotten by those who knew her. The ecstasy of faith almost apotheosized her; it set upon her face a glowing irradiation, and brought a red spot into the middle of each cheek; while the miniature candle-flame inverted in her eye-pupils shone like a diamond. The children gazed up at her with more and more reverence, and no longer had a will for questioning. She did not look like Sissy to them now, but as a being large, towering, and awful—a divine personage with whom they had nothing in common. Poor Sorrow's campaign against sin, the world, and the devil was doomed to be of limited brilliancy—luckily perhaps for himself, considering his beginnings. In the blue of the morning that fragile soldier and servant breathed his last, and when the other children awoke they cried bitterly, and begged Sissy to have another pretty baby. The calmness which had possessed Tess since the christening remained with her in the infant's loss. In the daylight, indeed, she felt her terrors about his soul to have been somewhat exaggerated; whether well founded or not, she had no uneasiness now, reasoning that if Providence would not ratify such an act of approximation she, for one, did not value the kind of heaven lost by the irregularity—either for herself or for her child. So passed away Sorrow the Undesired—that intrusive creature, that bastard gift of shameless Nature, who respects not the social law; a waif to whom eternal Time had been a matter of days merely, who knew not that such things as years and centuries ever were; to whom the cottage interior was the universe, the week's weather climate, new-born babyhood human existence, and the instinct to suck human knowledge. Tess, who mused on the christening a good deal, wondered if it were doctrinally sufficient to secure a Christian burial for the child. Nobody could tell this but the parson of the parish, and he was a new-comer, and did not know her. She went to his house after dusk, and stood by the gate, but could not summon courage to go in. The enterprise would have been abandoned if she had not by accident met him coming homeward as she turned away. In the gloom she did not mind speaking freely. "I should like to ask you something, sir." He expressed his willingness to listen, and she told the story of the baby's illness and the extemporized ordinance. "And now, sir," she added earnestly, "can you tell me this—will it be just the same for him as if you had baptized him?" Having the natural feelings of a tradesman at finding that a job he should have been called in for had been unskilfully botched by his customers among themselves, he was disposed to say no. Yet the dignity of the girl, the strange tenderness in her voice, combined to affect his nobler impulses—or rather those that he had left in him after ten years of endeavour to graft technical belief on actual scepticism. The man and the ecclesiastic fought within him, and the victory fell to the man. "My dear girl," he said, "it will be just the same." "Then will you give him a Christian burial?" she asked quickly

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New Rule needed?

I propose a new rule. Answer the question as posed (unless it requires clarification), or ignore it. Volunteers don't need to comment on every question. That way, we won't get this pointless, disruptive nonsense. If you can't answer a question without tossing in this kind of garbage, you don't belong here. (edited to put in correct sig)Aaronite (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what we need to say is that the RDs should not be used to attack the religious beliefs of others. I've seen a several instances on the RDs when the topic of religion is mentioned and some people use it as an opportunity to say something nasty about the religion mentioned or religion in general. This doesn't help answer the question and is in consistent with Wikipedia etiquette. If people want to debate religion, there are plenty of places on the Internet to do that. Similarly, the RDs should not be used to attack certain political views or to promote them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure we already have that rule: "Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated." 81.131.22.13 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff here. I have seen several instances where people are highly and unnecessarily judgmental of other peoples' views, especially on the Science desk. While it should be common sense not to do that, it apparently isn't for everybody. Perhaps it should be specifically addressed in the wording of the rules. And the door should swing both ways. People should not attack religions, and people should not attack a perceived lack of religion. Falconus^{p t c} 04:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The danger here is that the proposed rule might turn out to mean "people shouldn't critically analyze religion or the lack of religion", which would appear egalitarian, but would actually be biased towards faith. 81.131.22.13 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That is perhaps a danger, but I think that there is a huge difference between critical analysis ("Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that animals evolve through natural processes, as evidenced by x, y, and z."), which is imperative, and pushing one's beliefs (I have examples in the following sentence). Just as it would be inappropriate to respond to a hypothetical question about the evolution of lemurs with "Blasphemy; God created the world in seven days - you are going to hell." (an example of the type of Christianity that I do not endorse), it is equally inappropriate to respond to a hypothetical question about Christianity with "The Christian religion is defined by bloodthirstiness, and its adherents are backwards and unlearned." Falconus^{p t c} 05:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Both those statements contain attacks on people, and emotive language. Remove those and you get "God created the world in seven days" and "Interest in blood defines Christianity." Neither would cause disruption. 81.131.22.13 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Both could be appropriate in context (though I would be amused to see what the other editors would do with the seven-days theory), but there is a difference between bringing up and pushing a POV just because someone saw the word "Church" or "Evolution" or actually making a good-faith attempt to present what one considers to be a valid, relevant view. Falconus^{p t c} 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a regular here, but I must have posted once because it's on my watchlist - so I've been following this discussion. There are already rules to apply here WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE. Remember, these rules constitute one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Rude, disparaging remarks are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia, not just here. I have always been proud of the Wikipedia community's welcoming and almost aggresively polite atmosphere even in the face of POV pushers, vandals, trolls, and myraid other troubles. Let's set the example and others will follow. --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Rule-creep is a problem. All that is really required here is civility, whatever one's views or beliefs. Some of one's views and beliefs might in themselves be offensive to others, but they should not be suppressed on the desks for that reason. The desks are not meant for heated disputes, they are meant for brief informative well-sourced answers to questions. If they are kept that way, and an attempt at civility is maintained, too, then there should not be a problem too often and when there is it can be dealt with.

Cuddlyable3: the God of Christians (and Jews) no longer requires blood-sacrifice for His maintenance. In addition to having offended some people, that characterization is also simply out of date. Please try to be more helpful in the future, thanks. :) WikiDao ☯ 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 has a history of intentionally using pedantry to piss people off. Perhaps he should be banned for it again, perhaps not. But debating with him is just providing him with free entertainment at our expense. APL (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with APL's sentiment. Nimur (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. He's either trolling or he's incapable of being civil in such situations. Either way, engagement is counterproductive to the purpose of the RD. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the essence of the proposed 'change' is actually already present (in more detail, and as the product of some pretty extensive discussion) in the Ref Desk's official guidelines. The preamble states: "As always, any responses should be civil and avoid anything that could even remotely be considered a personal attack...the reference desk should be a friendly and welcoming place." The guidelines further note that "The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions", and that "The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects". Editors are advised "Responses to posts should always attempt to answer the question", and that "It's better to not answer at all than to give incorrect or misleading information".

We don't object to participants having a bit of fun, as long as it's done responsibly: "The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is relevant to the question; not at the expense of other people, including the questioner; and not needlessly offensive."

The guidelines are actually a pretty solid foundation for the way we (ought to) work here. They're linked from all the Ref Desk headers, and you can also get there through the shortcut WP:RD/G. While I very seldom feel the need to refer directly to (or to quote directly from) them – per WP:IAR, editors who participate in the Ref Desk with a mature, responsible attitude and who make a good-faith attempt to adhere to its purposes won't get into trouble – the guidelines nevertheless provide a firm backstop if one encounters a ruleslawyer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely Agree with that. WikiDao ☯ 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I did know that when I suggested the new rule. I meant it a bit in jest as a reminder, because clearly some people forget that. Aaronite (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Entertainment desk spammer

Just to let people know (in case anyone was wondering why I used rollback at the desks): I have reverted 91.64.44.189's link-spamming at the entertainment desk (three times now, I believe). After the expiration of a 1-month block, he's been at it again. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I put up a warning (perhaps an unduly mild one, but that's all I got;). WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(Well, evidently it's more than what lazy-me has got. Thanks, WD :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for three months, since the address has already been blocked three times for the same issue. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a "borderline" medical advice question?

Still just trying to get a better sense of what is and is not considered a request for medical advice for our purposes at the RD.
There is presently a question on the Science desk, "Certain voices cause dreamy sensation", that I'm wondering about. It has not been removed or tagged, and there have been two responses so far, one of which speculates that the Limbic system may be involved and suggests consulting a psychologist or a "behavioral physiologist", and the other suggests that the questioner may be experiencing LSD flashbacks.
So, this sounds to me like at least a "borderline" case according to Kainaw's criterion. Am I interpreting that correctly? What do others think? From recent discussion above I'd gotten the impression that medical-advice questions should just be removed, not tagged with warning templates or otherwise responded to -- but, should we in fact be tagging "borderline" cases, such as this one may be, with some appropriate template...? WikiDao ☯ 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a medical advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it were an unambiguous case of it I'm sure it would have been removed by now. That's why I'm asking, though: what makes this not a medical advice question? The questioner is describing a sense of pleasant dizzyness caused by certain stimuli, which could be due to a medical condition depending, I suppose, on the intensity of the experience and other details not mentioned. It could be, as the questioner wonders, that s/he is highly "hypnotizable" – but, here I am already speculating about the questioner's psychophysiological condition... WikiDao ☯ 21:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw's criterion. Why be concerned about this? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because this issue gets a lot of attention here, and I would like to try to get it right. And I think it may fail Kainaw's criterion, actually, as far as I understand the question and the criterion. Thanks for your remarks; others' thoughts about the application of Kainaw in this case would be appreciated. WikiDao ☯ 22:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades advises above:

"As a rule of thumb, if you're thinking of ending your answer with some variation of "you should ask your doctor this question" then you probably should be removing the post and using the {rd-deleted} template instead.

Well, since I first asked about this a few hours ago, I have recommended[18] that the OP consult a licensed, professional hypnotherapist, and another user has followed that up with a recommendation[19] to perhaps consult a psychiatrist, too. Which further suggests that I should just go ahead and remove the question now. On the other hand, the question has been on the desk for about a full day now and no one else has seen fit to remove it, and Comet Tuttle's opinion is that this just is not a medical question, period. So, again, further guidance on this one would be appreciated. Thanks, WikiDao ☯ 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's medical. In fact, you've probably told him too specifically what to do. "See a doctor" is the only acceptable answer. Let the OP and the doctor work out what kind of specialist, if any, the OP should see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking from the start it's medical, too, but it hadn't been removed after being there for almost a day before I saw it, so – I asked. And until now the only response I got was that it does not seem to be medical. So, I haven't removed it. If it's medical, though – shouldn't it just be removed per Ten's recent comments above on this page...? WikiDao ☯ 03:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it looks to me like it should count as a request for medical advice. The OP asks "what is causing it", "it" referring to a set of sensations which among other things includes getting "extremely dizzy", which as far as I know isn't something normal, at least, it doesn't happen to me. So it's not possible to answer the question completely without providing a diagnosis, that is, a determination of what is causing the extreme dizziness and other symptoms the OP is experiencing in response to various triggers. Even if the OP's sensations don't happen to be symptoms that point to some psychiatric disorder, it seems like it really would take a psychiatrist to make that determination. I'm just not feeling bold enough to delete the question myself. Red Act (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds closer to consensus, then -- I'll wait a bit for any further counterarguments and then just delete unless someone else does first. WikiDao ☯ 03:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I boxed it up rather than deleting, and invited the respondents to come here if they want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess -- but that contradicts what I thought I was beginning to understand about the policy as Ten expresses it above: "The only method we've found that reliably and consistently prevents well-intentioned people from offering potentially harmful medical advice on the Ref Desk is the complete removal of any requests for such advice." emphasis not mine WikiDao ☯ 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The complaint that arises from unilaterally zapping is that answerers might object to their answers being zapped. Obviously, answers without questions are pointless. So before I zap it (or someone else zaps it), the various responders should be notified. And, yes, it's a freakin' nuisance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there was only one registered-user responder besides yourself, and I've notified him. It be gone now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll tell you what, though -- I've been watching this guy Bob Ross paint[20], and that really is hypnotic, lol! WikiDao ☯ 04:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's more interesting than watching them paint walls and ceilings during the average HGTV DIY program. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume the endurance of the (suspiciously provocative-looking) question about hats titled "Medical Question" demonstrates tacit consensus that baldness isn't an ailment. 213.122.0.197 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Post mortem

I don't think a question about hypnosis is a medical advice question, unless one is talking about getting hypnotized in a therapy session. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not just "what is hypnosis?" though. It described what may have been some "abnormal" experiences triggered by a certain range of stimuli. It may well have had nothing at all to do with hypnosis. Consensus, after the discussion above, was that it was a medical question, so Bugs removed it. I think that was the right thing to do, but the reason I asked about this one was in order to try to get a better sense of what the consensus here is about what does and does not qualify as a "request for medical advice".

Did you read the removed question, Mwalcoff, and if so could you be more specific about what you feel made it not medical? Again, I am not trying to start a "debate" or to criticize any interpretation – just trying to understand better how those of you more-experienced RD responders think about this issue. WikiDao ☯ 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did, but it's been a while now, and it's been deleted. Can you remind me what the questioner's words were? Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the removal diff. The OP starts by saying they've never been hypnotized, and then describes a recurring experience they've been having:

"I've noticed for a very long time that certain sounds, types of human voices (male or female), or even human mannerisms effectively put me in a dizzy, free-falling, super-relaxed state of mind."

So, it's not like we ought to recommend they pick up the phone and call an ambulance right away. They give a couple of fairly specific examples, and then ask:

"So what's going on? Am I effectively being pseudo-hypnotized? Am I vulnerable to powers of suggestion? Does anyone else have this bizarre feeling? What is causing it?"

I don't know the answer to that, myself. I answered by recommending that any assessment of hypnotic susceptibility ought to be made by a licensed professional hypnotherapist. (By the time I first saw the question, someone else had suggested that they might be having LSD flashbacks!) It could be something quite benign and normal, or (depending on its degree of "bizarreness"?) it could also be a brain tumor, or some kind of simple partial seizure, etc.

"Can the question be answered completely without providing a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment advice?" Or is it a "borderline" case? It really is most likely fairly normal and probably does have to do with hypnotic susceptibility, but a complete answer probably would have to include a recommendation that they consult a professional, which by TenOfAllTrades' heuristic would make it deletable. What are your thoughts? WikiDao ☯ 03:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, see, to me, that doesn't sound like a medical question. It sounds more like a New Age-y, emotional kind of thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. Still, I think it sufficiently met the criteria for deletion given how I presently understand those criteria. A month or two ago, it would never have occurred to me that such a question required removal, so I thought I ought to ask. Thanks for your response. WikiDao ☯ 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The question wasn't about hypnosis, it wsa about dizziness. That is a symptom (of something or other) and rather a serious one. My first response may have been "does this ever happen when you are driving a vehicle or operating machinery?". If it was phrased as "why do I get this soothing sensation when I hear this?", yeah OK, but dizziness? Franamax (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Date Headers

Has the mechanism for generating new headers at the start of each day been broken? All the reference desks seem to think it's still the 19th. Rojomoke (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The machine where the bot (that normally inserts those headers) runs was down. It's now back up, and I've restarted the bot. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Gud music only

Does anyone else find it odd that only a few days after NIM, or Comet Egypt, or whatever his name is, was blocked, another user (Gud music only (talk · contribs) comes along, with a similar age gap between him and his younger sister, and a concern for the credits of children's shows? I know, I know, AGF etc...but still. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

NIM was blocked? I didn't know, but it's a relief I must say. --Viennese Waltz 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comet Egypt had a sister? I hadn't known that. I had thought the voice-actor thing was his own "interest". Was she 4, too? If it's him again, he is affecting a more sophisticated persona this time [21] (which would reconfirm my sense that most of "N.I.M." was an "act"...). WikiDao ☯ 16:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is the same, it fits with the suspicion of others that this is a person who makes up a persona and then becomes a pest based on that persona until blocked. I've seen requests to trace the IP, but there hasn't been enough proof to grant those requests. This time, keep a close eye on the details. If it is like N.I.M., you'll see the persona adapt from what others say to him. For example, N.I.M. (when he was anon IP) discussed things he saw until he was told about screenreaders for the blind. Suddenly, he was blind and never mentioned seeing things again. -- kainaw™ 18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm thought I'd posted this but must have made a mistake and never submitted, not seeing any sign of it in the history so guess it wasn't removed unless it was oversighted which seems unlikely since the comment I linked to is there (and I checked my email just in case). Anyway CE has claimed in the past they were watching shows with their sister Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 October 23#what's with the excessive effect on arthur episode. As with many things CE has said, I think for many of us it's a case of 'don't know, don't care' whether there's any truth to the claims. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just glad that the actual, real-world and very serious issue with NIM has been dealt with (not the mere "annoyance" factor, which I was never too troubled by myself) – and glad to hear that "Gud music" turns out to be legit! :) WikiDao ☯ 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As noted at WP:ANI, it was discovered that "Comet Egypt" and "Gud music only" are unrelated, but that "Gud music only" is an alternate account of Money is tight (talk · contribs). Neither Gud nor Money has been blocked. I've asked the admin whether Gud/Money should be cautioned to just stick with one account. Comet has been socking through an IP, though, and it's been put on ice for the time being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to say thanks a lot to the editor who suggested that N.I.M. change their name to "Comet Egypt", which I regard as a sullying of my fine name. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently his imaginary friend suggested the "Comet" part[22] (because he "likes Space"). Then Franamax just suggested adding on the "Egypt"[23]. WikiDao ☯ 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Medical Advice question removed

Diff. Nimur (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for feedback is requesting more volunteers

Just saw this at one of the noticeboards. Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is asking for more helpers. Since you are helpful people and because helping newbies is cool, I thought I'd advertise here too. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What a depressing page. It's editor after editor writing articles about non-notable people, companies, bands, and events, hoping to skirt our rules. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed humanities question from Science Reference Desk

A non-scientific question was asked at the Science Desk. I explained that it was not appropriate to the Science Desk, and suggested that someone might consider asking it at the Humanities Desk. See diff. I have now deleted the thread from WP:RD/S. Dolphin (t) 05:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask you to repost the entire thread at the Humanities desk and leave a link at the Science desk, under the same title the querent used (which in this case is "r"; yes it's one of the single-letter titles we've been seeing recently). ---Sluzzelin talk 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I originally agreed with you but after seeing it was by Tommy35750 who's been asked multiple times under his many different user names (often removing the requests so we can presume he's read them) to post questions in the appropriate desk (but still seems to use the science desk most of the time with an occasional visit to computing and entertainment) and considering that he couldn't even bother to give it a proper title I'm fine with what Dolphin51 did (noting he did inform Tommy35750). I'm not saying I'd object if someone does want to move it but Tommy35750 seems to have a decent command of English so really it's difficult to see any reason for his behaviour but laziness and inconsideration for his fellow wikipedians (presuming it's not trolling but despite his past problems I'm still not convinced he's a troll per se). The question could of course just have been left in place and I'm not saying we should go around deleting all wrongly places questions but when a user refuses to respond to repeated requests to use a more appropriate desk and particularly considering the science desk is already usually the largest desk and the question is not in any way related to science (i.e. not a borderline case) I don't see the need for people to have to waste time doing what someone else should have done. And yes I've notified Tommy35750 of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I suspected something similar. The single-letter-title questions had been puzzling me for a while, which is why I used the conditional (but left out the "if" clause). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Indentation levels

I'd like to ask people generally to be more careful with the indentation levels they choose. Sometimes it's next to impossible to follow who's talking to whom in a long and complex thread, if the indentation levels aren't spot on.

Basically, if you're responding to Editor A, indent one level in from their post – regardless of how many edits by other editors may have occurred in the meantime and regardless of the indent levels they use. Do not simply ident one in from whatever the last post was before you made your post, because that may not be Editor A. If it is Editor A, fine; but if not, find Editor A's indent level and make yours 1 in from theirs.

To give a very recent example, and this is in no way singling Dismas out, see this edit by Dismas. I had made the initial response to the OP’s question, one level in. Dismas had some more to say to the OP, and it also ought to have been one level in from the original question, i.e. at the same level as my post. But he put it one level in from my post, or two levels in from the OP's question. It looks like Dismas was talking to me, but the text suggests he was talking to the OP. It's confused and confusing.

I’m seeing a lot of this sort of thing lately, so I thought a timely reminder might be useful. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, Jack. Looking at your example, if Dismas had indented at the same level as your post his reply would not have stood out as being separate from yours. To me the whole point of indenting is not to signal who you are responding to, but to make it clear where one post ends and the next one begins. Also, the way Dismas did it, it makes the whole section flow more like a conversation – which is what it is, basically.

I also have to think about this issue of indentation when I want to make a reply to a post which has had responses added to it subsequently. E.g. someone makes post 1 with an indentation level of 1, then someone else comes along and makes post 2 with an indentation level of 2. If I have something to say to post 1 after that, I would insert my response directly after post 1 and before post 2. But I would not use an indentation level of 2, because then it makes it look like my post is at the same level as post 2, which it is not. So I would give my post an indentation level of 3. --Viennese Waltz 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Viennese Waltz. I use indentation to set off my comment as distinct from the one above. Usually, the only time I add a comment with the same indentation level as the previous comment is when the previous comment was my own and I'm adding a P.S. to it. If it seems likely that it won't be clear who my comment is addressed to, I'll add the user's name, especially when I'm responding to multiple people in a single post. Pais (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Jack is correct, VW. The visual break between posts is provided by the presence of a signature and by the automatically-generated (slightly) larger line spacing after each paragraph break. Adding an additional layer of indentation means that a top-level post with multiple responses will end up drifting further and further towards right right margin, and it makes the target of comments ambiguous — is the indented post replying to the post immediately above, or to the grandparent post, or to the very top of the thread? Interleaving your comment ahead of other posts at the same level makes the chronological order of posting ambiguous. (Not to mention the problem of it introducing an additional extraneous indentation level.)

Consider what happens if several editors apply your proposed indentation method multiple times in the course of a discussion. While unusual indentation can generally be readily deciphered in threads that only have one or two replies, it becomes a confusing mess when more editors chime in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that you can "set off" your comment from the one above by adding a blank line before your comment. Note how this paragraph is more separated from the previous one ...

...than this one is. That's because I added a blank line before my comment, to separate my comment from the previous one. Note that if a single blank line is not enough separation for you, two gives more. (But please don't overdo it.) -- 174.31.216.144 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed this being done, but I don't understand the rationale. Does it imply post 3 is more of a reply to post 1 than post 2 is? 213.122.68.78 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse Jack's request. Detailed guidance on indentation practices and markup can be found at

• Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages#Indenting
• Help:Using talk pages#Indentation
• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
• Wikipedia:Indentation

Happy editing, one and all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the worries about responses not looking like new replies. However, it's worse that people can't tell who is responding to whom. You can avoid the issue by using the indents properly and occasionally inserting a blank line, like this:

Reply 1

Reply 2

Reply 2a

Hope that helps --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

New message: JackofOz, I agree with you that editors should be more careful about indentation levels. Because the message (by Dweller) immediately above this one is not indented, I had to use your username to clarify that my message is addressed to you. The original poster might post with no indentation, in order to express thanks for replies, but no one else should do so. Also, the boldface expression "New message" illustrates another method of indicating the beginning of a new message.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

[I am revising my message.—Wavelength (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]

Are you guys serious?

I sure hope not.

because that would be...

odd. --Ludwigs2 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Let me return to the "Roman numbers" thread that inspired this discussion. Blueboar's contribution starting "Of course ..." is fine in itself, but look at the indentation level. It's one in from my post asking Dismas to be more careful about indentation levels, so it looks like Blueboar is responding to me. But it's actually a reply to the OP and their original question about Roman numbers, and should therefore have been at indent level 1, not level 4. Again, this is not personal about Blueboar or Dismas, they're merely examples of a wider malaise. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indentation has been discussed many times on various Reference Desk pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall try to do my best, but I suspect it will be like trying to drain the ocean with a thimble. Too many people don't know the indent guidelines (myself included), and we certainly can't expect new users to look that up before helping. Try not to get too worked up about it, and maybe on try and deal with the truly confusing cases. Aaronite (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaronite, did you read the detailed guidance from the four links provided by TenOfAllTrades at 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)?

—Wavelength (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I tried here,but I think (a) it looks silly (b) it is hard to read and (c) it is confusing. Aside from that, I have no opinion. :>) Bielle (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't sign! That might help, y'know. (Perhaps put a blank line after KägeTorä's post, if you're bothered.) 213.122.39.194 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a mess because it's so full of blue links it's hard to see the signatures (depending on the size of your browser window, of course). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone can produce a tutorial and a set of exercises on indentation. Please see the list under "Self-help writing tutorials" at User talk:Tony1.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jack's opinion on this matter. I don't get too worked up over it when I see it in others, but please let me know if I mis-count my colons (ahem) and end up out of sync. I have and will fix it if I catch it or am alerted to an error of mine. Also, I will note that if a thread is getting so long that it becomes difficult to work out how many colons to use, it's a good bet that the thread has slipped into discussion and/or jokes (present thread excepted, of course :-). A thought occurs... I wonder what percentage of people who make proper and rigorous use of indentation have a background in usenet discussion groups (as opposed to folks unfamiliar with usenet)? On usenet, "top-posting" a reply rather than keeping things in chronological order was usually grounds for a weeks-long flame war and it is there that I learned to be mindful of ease of attribution in whatever context. Matt Deres (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt - agree with your sense that usenet may have been formative for many who know the importance of careful text editing, but you might've mentioned "plonk" as a severe form of punishment in that space. I have wished for a kill file many-a-time since those days. Oh, and regarding this thread overall I fully endorse Jack and TOAT's comments on proper indentation. Once you use it and see it enough, it'll seem obvious. -- Scray (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, I'd love to be able to plonk! (but not for making the wrong indentation :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, maybe even often, a post will be answering the original question on the one hand, while at the same time commenting on some other points made by respondents. Sure, you could break up the various points and post with the correct indentation to each response individually, but I often see these threads as a conversation, progressing in time, picking up themes and varying them. I don't think we need to be this rigorous in all cases, Jack's example notwithstanding. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, Sluzzelin. Yes, sometimes it's impossible to be black and white about it and we have to just do our best. But equally, given the range of writing styles, linguistic backgrounds and abbreviatory paradigms we attract here, sometimes it's impossible to tell from the text alone just exactly who is being addressed, and in such cases the indent level is crucial for proper comprehension. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because we're discussing indentation, I'll mention the Template:Outdent. It may be helpful to disambiguate response-indentation, in some cases. Overuse is not recommended. Nimur (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I want to suggest that having no indentation (as Nimur's post above demonstrates) is also a pain. Because now it looks like I am responding to him, whether I want to appear that way or not! The only way to avoid that is for me not to indent, which just shifts the burden to the next person in the series. For this reason I do sometimes add an indent to such posts if nobody has yet responded to them. I know, I know — editing others' posts, etc., but it seems like a small price to pay for being clear, and I only do it when there are no actual consequences (if I started changing indents willy-nilly on threads that are already in progress, obviously that would introduce more confusion than it would relieve). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When somebody adds an unindented response (as I do pretty often), you should feel free to place things above it if you are responding to something earlier. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are "unindented consequences" of most major decisions.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me, Jack! Bielle (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that there should be no pun indented. ;) WikiDao ☯ 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for being true to your word, WikiDao. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, Jack – my inden_tations are sincere! :) WikiDao ☯ 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've generally indented at a different level to the post immediately above (so it stands out as a different response). If I need to explicitly reply to another answerers post, I would mention that explicitly or use something like "@...". Sorry Jack, but I find it confusing when there are many posts at the same indent-level and have never considered indentation as indicating to whom you are replying. Astronaut (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be time to brush up on the guidelines, as linked above by TenOfAll Trades. The relevant bits all say essentially the same thing:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages: A standard practice is to indent your reply one level deeper than the person you are replying to

• Help:Using talk pages: Comments are indented to show whether they are replies to other comments, and if so, which ones

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate who you are replying to

• Wikipedia:Indentation: 2. If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom.

Happy behaviour modification, Astronaut.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A direct reply to the comment immediately above :-) Despite that, I still disagree. The reason it is confusing comes when everyone is replying to the OP and some replies take two or more paragraphs. For example: In this very discussion Viennese Waltz's reply is split into 2 paragraphs. The next reply (by Pais) is really a reply to Jack's original question and according to the supposed rules should also have been indented with just one colon. Unfortunately, that would have made it much more difficult to spot that Viennese Waltz's reply was in fact two paragraphs by one contributor rather than two different replies. Pais' decision to indent with two colons was therefore the correct thing to do. By putting my replies on a different indentation level to the one above, I am making it clear that I am a different respondant. Therefore, I will not be modifying my behaviour on this issue. Astronaut (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

When I post something that includes multiple paragraphs, I will sometimes (although not always - I'm not sure how I decide, really) put my signature on a new line.

That provides separation between my post and a post at the same level immeadiately below it.

--Tango (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Astronaut: Pais's post was addressed to the general readership (including me) and was ostensibly a comment on the issue I raised – but it was also indirectly a reply to Viennese Waltz (he's referred to in the 3rd person) because it was commenting specifically on VW's post, not just on my original post. It could only have happened after Viennese Waltz's post, and was not independent of it. So, I'd support Pais's indenting on that basis. But not just because Viennese Waltz's post happened to be the immediately preceding post. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

edit request from new poster, de-reverted

In response to the post (IP: 212.85.7.14) on this page that was reverted, I have copied this text over the the Chinghiz Aitmatov page. It was posted in the wrong place, but by an obvious WP newbie, and shouldn't just be ignored. If Dr. Abduvalieva returns to this page, he will see the text posted at Talk:Chinghiz Aitmatov where the editors there will hopefully address his concerns. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the name, he is a she.—Emil J. 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear friends,

My name is Dr.Rahima Abduvalieva. I am the founder of Aitmatov Academy in London. May I reguest you to remove some wrong informations about Chyngyz Aitmatov on the page of Wikipedia?

First of all: Chyngyz Aitmatov won the Lenin Prize not for "Jamilia"! He won this Prize for the selected volume of his works under the title "Povesti gor i stepei" in Russian language. It means "The tales of mountains ans steppes", 1963.

Second mistake: the name of Chyngyz Aitmatov and Ghengis Khan are not the same. Chyngyz Aitmatov didn't like this comparison of two names! I worked with the writer more than 30 years . Please, don't put these two names together. It is a humilitation of personality of the writer!

The third point about plagiarism? Where did you get this type of informations? Could you provide me the sources? I feel very insalted of those type of info, because I know all Aitmatov's creation very well... Could you show me this type of plagiat in his works, which you mind?

I'll be very thankful for your understanding & help... Please let me know about your correction

my e-mail: <redacted>

Sincerely yours

Dr. Rahima Abduvalieva, Director of Aitmatov Academy in London

Note: I did not revert that message from the RD project page, but I did notify the frequently-problematic IP from which it was posted that it had been reverted. WikiDao ☯ 01:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove "Medicine" and "law"

"Medicine" should be removed from the Science desk description and "Law" should be removed from the Humanities desc. We can not give legal advice, nor medical. JustEase (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But we can surely discuss medical topics...we've had numerous ones about effects of something as related to nutrition or food-safety, human endurance, diseases, etc. We can talk all about those ideas, except for telling readers how to apply it to themselves. I assume the situation is similar for legal issues, where we can talk about laws and legal systems and...anything legal except advice. DMacks (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Advice, no, but we can answer questions asking for medical information and legal information. Kainaw's criterion is the generally accepted dividing line between the two. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the archives. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC).

I currently count about 9 questions at the Humanities desk on legal matters. Some of them are historical legal questions, but most of them are about present-day law. None of them were asking for legal advice, and they all received referenced answers (and some of them also received off-topic comments and unreferenced speculation). I quickly scanned the current Science desk, and there too, saw questions on physiology, anatomy, pathology, toxicology, that were not asking for medical advice. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) While we are ofttimes unsure, even amongst the regulars here, as to the differences between questions about law or medicine, and advice about law or medicine, the former are quite acceptable. Bielle (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea to remove the words. There is nothing wrong with asking questions about medicine or the law. It's just not allowed to ask people at Wikipedia to do the jobs of doctors or lawyers. --Jayron32 20:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is fine to do the job og a scientist, a philologist and a translator. What's so bad about interpreting a law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.27.62 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Both medicine and law are regulated professions in a large number of jurisdictions, and one can suffer great harm by following bad advice (e.g. advice obtained from random yahoos on the internet). We come back to the advice/information distinction: it's fine to talk about legal matters in abstract ("as best I can tell, this hypothetical situation would probably be decided by (law)"), but highly inappropriate to talk specifics ("what your neighbor did was probably illegal, according to (law)"). Unfortunately, we've found that anytime someone asks a question that touches on specific cases, someone invariably renders advice, rather than sticking strictly to information, which is why they're removed. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I dispute your characterizations of "anytime" [sic] and "invariably". Providing legal information and medical information is fine and the words should stay. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternates to Codeine

User:Jayron32 removed my question here and here. Since it clearly asks for neither diagnosis nor prognosis, I can only assume Jayron32 believes it is a request for treatment. I didn't think it fell into the forbidden category or I wouldn't have asked it, but my question may have been worded badly. If I ask "What non-codeine medications are available, equal in potency to Tylenol 3?" (which is what I want to know), is that acceptable? Bielle (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As one who sometimes removes medadvice questions, I'm no opponent of appropriate removal, but I think this one is a bit arguable. For example, an appropriate response might have been a reliable open-access publication describing commonly-prescribed analgesics like PMID 12356035 or PMID 18167408 (this table in particular). Important aspect is that responding did not require any diagnostic decision-making, just access to information. If the consensus is with the removal, then I anticipate my response here may be removed, and if that's the case I won't object. -- Scray (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

While it is conceivable that someone asking this question might be covertly seeking medical advice, the language of the question does not compel this interpretation. It is neither implausible nor even unlikely that the original poster is simply curious, rather than seeking medical advice. (For those who are interested in particular nuance, I will note if the OP had been seeking advice, Scray's response immediately above would have been inappropriate under our guidelines — while his response contained no diagnosis, it does indirectly offer a treatment recommendation.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Re-reading the opening comment of this thread, I would ask Bielle if it was his/her intent to use this information in guiding his/her search for or selection of painkillers. If so, then the question was indeed out of bounds for the Reference Desk. Suggesting alternative drug choices to individuals is something that should be done by a physician or pharmacist, not by the Wikipedia Reference Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think the reason it was removed was that it's a strangely specific thing to be curious about - most people in a situation to ponder the question would either have a doctor to consult, or would be a doctor, and thus have better references than Wikipedia. I think either phrasing would likely be questioned, as people would assume that you are asking because you or someone you know is allergic to/can't handle codine, and you want advice on what else can be used. Perhaps revealing the non-medical-advice reasons why you're interested in this information would allay concerns. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this has come from the US where thanks to the “war on drugs”, effective pain control for the law abiding citizen has been put beyond their reach. By “non-codeine” I wonder if the OP really means non-opiate ( as DF 118's is a next step up -outside of the US- for moderate pain control). There are others, but it depends on what the pain control is needed for. For the short term, low dose of ketamine might be OK, but the patient would need to be keep under medical observation. Thus, no good for more chronic conditions (and for other another reason). However, unlike opiates, it will not caurse the same constipation problem/blood flow etc. But the LAW in the US blurs medical comparisons to the point, that from a 'effectiveness' point of view, the best clinical answers conflict with drug control legislation.--Aspro (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To clear up misconceptions that may be associated with any of the above:

(a) it's not about a specific treatment option. It couldn't be, as all such decisions in most countries are made by physicians who are extremely unlikely to be looking here or to their patients for pharmaceutical recommendations. (I suppose it is possible that I was looking to find something on the black market, but that rather stretches credibility to the ripping point);

(b) for the record, I am not allergic to codeine - good thing or I would have coughed myself to death this winter;

(c) I am not in the U.S., but in Canada, where there is slightly less hysteria, though no less concern, about the addictive qualities of pain medication; and,

(d) I was merely curious, following on from a RL conversation, as I haven't ever heard of anyone coming away from a surgical experience with any pain prescription for other than Tylenol 3, although self-administered morphine I.V, may have been used during a hospital stay. Bielle (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot the question about whether the query was for "other than codeine" or really meant "other than opiates". The answer is that I don't know. If an allergy to codeine would also necessarily mean an allergy to all opiates, then I would be looking for a drug that was not an opiate, but just as effective as Tylenol 3. If an allergy to codeine just means an allergy to codeine, then the next opiate in the list, with Tylenol 3 effectiveness, is what I would like to know. Bielle (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Opiate comparison which you may find informative. You can have a severe allergic reaction to some without necessarily being allergic to all opiates. But allergic reactons to opiates should definitely be addressed with a qualified physician, not here. Even as much of a response as this is a violation of the no-medical-advice policy. I agree that this question unambiguously qualified for removal under that policy -- as does this thread itself, frankly. WikiDao ☯ 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But Bielle is right, the thing to do is to reword the question and then you can get around the guidelines. A question like "what alternatives to Tylenol are available?" does not require a diagnosis, and should therefore not be removed. With a bit of thought it should be possible to rephrase most medical advice questions in this way. --Viennese Waltz 11:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, simply depersonalizing the question seems to be the way around the guidelines. I've recommended that before on the talk pages of some questioners whose questions have been deleted. There seem to be, of course, mixed views about the permissibility of doing that. So, you should only do that at your own risk. ;)

At this point, having been around long enough to see how these sorts of questions tend to go, I am increasingly of the strong-guideline-enforcement camp (everything that satisfies K's criterion should be immediately and completely deleted), though not so much so that I'm not still open to the possibility of other approaches. For now though that's the policy, and for good reason, and for simplicity's sake it should be strictly followed to the letter, though it seems clear that the controversy around it will be with us for a long time to come... WikiDao ☯ 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Opiate comparison was very useful (thank you, WikiDao), as was Scray's suggestion about the open-access publications. I appreciate all the points of view expressed here. I still don't agree that I was looking for advice, but information, and out of curiosity, not need. YMMV. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about October 2005 Science Archives

I don't know if I should be putting this here, but...

Why is there green text from Media to What did cellophane replace? and how could it be removed? 99.237.87.79 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Smurrayinchester's signature was extremely poorly formed HTML — instead of using the code to say, "this part is green, now ends the part in green," it says, "this part is green, and now this part is black." In other words, it was just stacking <font> tags on top of each other, rather than actually ending them. I don't know why it caused that section and that section only to turn green, but I suspect the browser is just doing its best to make sense of a lot of malformed HTML. The result is that any </font> tag has a risk of ending the "this part is black" tag and replacing everything with green. It's idiotic and I'm surprised nobody noticed at the time how poorly done it was. It is fixed easily enough, by changing his last "make this black" tag into the requisite closing </font> tags. I have done this. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a change in dealing with medical/legal questions

I would like to propose a change in how we deal with medical or legal questions: Instead of deleting the question it shall be hidden with {{cot}} and {{cob}} (or a template made specifically for this purpose, perhaps one that automatically includes an explanation similar to {{RD-deleted}}.

The reason for this is that sometimes editors mistakenly remove questions that are not a problem to answer, and by simply hiding instead of removing them it makes it easier for other editors to quickly check. Ariel. (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That hides the question in a pretty green box, but how is that better than deleting the question and telling editors about it on this page? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people will open the box, read the question, and some fraction will go ahead and answer the question on the Desk anyway—even if they shouldn't. Leaving the question posted requires every reader of the Ref Desk to be aware of, fully understand, and willing to comply with our rules on medical (and legal) advice. We have experimented fairly extensively with applying various templates and warnings and cautions and boxes to requests for medical advice; in all cases someone comes along and – in good faith, but in complete contravention of our rules – gives the advice requested. Edit warring, recriminations, and eventual removal of the question usually follow.

If the removal of a question is disputed, there should be a followup discussion here on this talk page; if the consensus is that the removal was in error, then we repost the question to the Desk. (This is also part of the existing rules.) Yes, this means that from time to time a question may wait a few hours (or even a couple of days) before it gets an answer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I support Ariel.'s proposal. Let's try it for a month and see how it works. I dispute that "in all cases" someone comes along and answers medical questions. I think it's a better service to our public to tell them to see a doctor if they are concerned, rather than just having their question disappear when they return to the RD to see how we answered, and assume the RD is malfunctioning, and go over to Yahoo Answers to get help with their medical issue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be very surprised if you can find a single case in which a question identified as a request for medical advice was NOT answered when it was left on the desk. Even when it was clearly stated "DO NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION", editors would feel an insatiable urge to click the edit button and voice their opinions in the form of medical advice. It is my opinion that telling people that they shouldn't answer the question results in more answers, not less. -- kainaw™ 18:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, at this point, with complete removal of the question and its replacement with the {{RD-deleted}} tag, which explains what happened to the question should the questioner come back to check. It says:

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the talk page discussion (if a link has been provided).

I agree with the argument that nothing else really seems to work, and that otherwise some completely terrible legal or medical advice will almost-inevitably be made by someone. WikiDao ☯ 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In that vein, I refer to the last discussion on this topic, which took place just three weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 80#Another medical advice request removed - note on proper process. In that instance, a question seeking medical advice was left in place on the Desk for several hours. In that time, four consecutive editors each posted reminders that we cannot offer medical advice, and encouraged the original poster to seek professional assistance with his query. (Two of them also offered an inappropriate diagnosis in their posts, but no matter.) The fifth responder, despite all the reminders, took it upon himself to offer instructions for minor home surgery. Leaving the question in place requires every single person who uses the page to know and follow the rules; that just isn't possible to achieve on a site run by volunteers, and especially not on a page like this one, which is full of drop-in visitors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We should keep our current system of deleting a question, and posting a notice on this talk-page. Our current system works. It prevents unnecessary debate. When an error in judgement occurs, debate properly belongs here on this talk-page. We already have a fall-back plan, in case a question is deleted per the medical advice guidelines, but other editors disagree with the deletion. Questions can and have been restored after deletion - see my deletion from last week that was restored by another editor. On the other hand, this happens more rarely; our current system reduces the number and intensity of debates; and prevents new answers from being added while the deletion-dispute is being resolved. Nimur (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I was the one that restored it, and that was what prompted this proposal. I was curious about the question so I went looking for it, and then noticed it was an OK question. But how often does that happen? I hardly ever see restored questions, and I'm sure errors do happen. I personally feel that the risk of not answering a valid question is greater than the risk of people answering when they shouldn't - for the simple reason that other editors will criticize such things and the feedback will eventually correct the system. By having it out in the open it will help regulars get a sense for what is and isn't proper to answer. Ariel. (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, you are a vigilant (and concerned) editor; and so you found that question, disagreed with my removal, and restored it. We want to prevent irresponsible editors from contributing medical advice. If you, or any other responsible editor, are concerned about the deletion of medical questions, check the talk-page or the page-history diffs any time you see a "deleted" question. (Note that our current guidelines require that we leave a notice indicating that we removed something). Then, you can make your own independent judgement about the merits of the deletion; if you disagree, you can restore the question and/or discuss on the talk page. If there is significant debate, the active and concerned editors can discuss the question on a case-by-case basis. Most of the time, I only delete questions that I feel are "indisputable" requests that violate our rules; and I won't participate in edit-warring; but whether a question violates our rules (even the reasonably clear-cut Kainaw Criteria) is always going to be a subjective call. Consensus therefore depends on multiple editors. In a sense, our guidelines encourage the experienced, responsible editors to participate in such debates, while discouraging the "newcomers" who have not yet learned the established norms on the desk. But this is a soft rule - we never exclude any newcomers from participating in debate. However, we know from experience allowing questions to stay rarely improves the quality of the answers. Nimur (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical (and very tentative) alternative proposal

This may open a huge new can of worms, and has probably been proposed earlier without success for just that reason, but is there some kind of quarantine page we could create so that editors can inspect the text of a deleted question to judge the validity of its deletion or restoration without being tempted to answer it? Ideally, such a page (or perhaps the talk page to such a page), while not secret or restricted (except maybe to autoconfirmed users), would be best known to Ref Desk regulars and least noticed by casual visitors or the posters of questionable questions. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Like Ariel's proposal, that would be like creating a debating forum when there is already one on this page when it's needed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Shakescene: the thing you describe exists already. It's here. -- Scray (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The questions exist in the article history for anyone to inspect. They aren't oversighted or revdeleted, just removed. If anyone wants to inspect a removed question, it is quite easy to find them. --Jayron32 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GlennRichardAllison

Am I just overly suspicious, or is GlennRichardAllison (talk · contribs) another Comet Egypt-esque troll? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I warned him at the Computing Desk for disruptive behavior. After that, he removed his own question without further comment. Diff. Nimur (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference desk mentioned in another site

I came across this [24] a few weeks ago. Only a small mention and not an RS but perhaps a reminder what we do on the referenc desk is noticed by many and since it's all archived people may be seeing references to it for years to come. Was reminded of it when I read most of the answers to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#satisfaction Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has trouble viewing the link, or finding the relevant part, here's the quote:

"A reader asks a serious question about orgasms on the Wikipedia Science reference desk and is then subjected to demeaning jokes and sexist banter." (link to archived Science desk question)

---Sluzzelin talk 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a lot of that going around, unfortunately. And I wonder why less than 15% of Wikipedia users are women. Apparently a good percentage of the Ref Desk is populated by boys with a 15-year-old's sense of humor. Personally, I do wish people would start by trying to answer the question. If it can be answered sufficiently, and there is a non-obvious joke to be made, by all means, have a little fun, whatever. But on the sexual ones in particular, things quickly devolve. I have to admit finding one of the early responses to the "satisfaction" question (the one which suggests that you can "satisfy" your woman by letting her use your credit card to buy things) positively pre-historic in its sensibilities, but felt that complaining would certainly fuel the problem rather than fix it. But seeing that this has actually been picked up elsewhere makes me feel a little more emboldened to say that creating a sexist atmosphere — even one which the participants surely think is benignly sexist — is really inappropriate and unnecessary on here. We wouldn't tolerate people using outdated stereotypes for racial groups (and indeed, are quick to throw out even OK questions if they seem to imply the slightest bit of said stereotypes), but yet we seem to all have a jolly boys-night-out whenever something mentioning the word "orgasm" or the name "Dick" or other such juvenilia. Obviously some editors are juveniles and I don't fault them for that, but the vast majority strike me as a bit old for that... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:TONE needs to be enforced more rigorously on the Reference Desk. While we are a lot more informal in nature than the rest of our encyclopedia, we are still part of an encyclopedia. Our grammar, diction, and writing style, not to mention the content we choose to contribute, should be suitable for an encyclopedia. If somebody asks about sexual content, race, or scatological humor, we need to evaluate whether the question is asked in good faith or if it is vandalism; and if we choose to keep the potentially objectionable question, we must present reasonable and referenced answers in a detached manner. If a user wishes to contribute content about controversial points of view, they should present encyclopedic facts, not personal opinions. Outright sexism, racism, or other undesirable behavior, should be discouraged (with warnings and eventual blocks); overt and repetitive contributions that are unencyclopedic should be dealt with via administrative intervention. Nimur (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Note though that is not really a third-party source, the content was added by a Wikipedia editor, as discussed here, However those incidents do speak for themselves, including the RD one, which I found rather embarrassing to read. I agree with the comments above, a little more maturity would be helpful. Franamax (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross-posted here. Franamax (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the first responder to the Orgasm question and think the overall response was not unreasonable. The frivolous posts only arose after fairly objective responses, and the resulting complaint of misogyny was clearly registered and signalled by our box-and-hide practice. I think the outraged geek-feminists need reminding that orgasms exist for their enjoyment well, for some of them anyway and not much else. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the OP of that question, and I was also the one who put the off-topic stuff in the hide box. I agree with what Mr.98 and Nimur said above. 82.43.92.41 (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@OP, I think your opinion matters more than anyone else's. Do you feel that you were "subjected to demeaning" at the Ref. Desk ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC with some weird data-loss problem...) I agree with Nimur above. Although I have my doubts whether the "how long to satisfy women in bed" question was entirely in good faith, it's still a reasonable question and reasonable answers could be (and were) given. I'll also note that Bugs, who essentially kicked off and sustained the ridiculous responses in the thread from a year ago, was in fact one of the reasonable respondents this time around. In general, I've seen way too much jokiness for my liking lately. A recent example was this question about leaf blowers where I honestly had to wonder if there was some in-joke I wasn't getting. I suppose at this point I should be glad we didn't get a bunch of replies that played off the dual meaning of "blow". Matt Deres (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98 saw one meaning. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks (I think) for pointing out that I need to increase my reading skills (and cynicism). Sigh... Matt Deres (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If I saw that sentence, in any form, anywhere else in Wikipedia, I would delete it as well; and I would report the contributor with a user-warning template. Mr. 98's judgement to remove that line was solid, in that specific instance. Why do you think that your contribution was encyclopedic, Cuddlyable3? Nimur (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nimur, it's a puzzle, no peeking!

A leaf blower is a new gadget that irritates People want sex People breeding more and more people is bad for the planet People want sex People breeding more and more people who run leaf blowers is especially bad for the planet People want sex Fellatio is an ancient art that pleases People want sex Fellatio doesn't breed people People want sex Fellatio doesn't pollute the environment People want sex Fellatio doesn't waste oil People want sex Fellatio needs no industrial technology People want sex The Wikipedia article about Fellatio shows people having more fun than than the one about Leaf blower People want sex

...so which kind of blowing is the environmentally friendly kind? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable, your edits are not constructive and are interfering with our ability to discuss actual issues. You've been around long enough to know about WP:POINT. Do not continue to contribute if you are not able to make this encyclopedia better. Nimur (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Small text[25]. Big fuss. Sorry. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Soften the tone of replies

There's a lot of terse answer that, while they may be due to frustration with trolling, are not useful to new users who may be reading the questions and answers to decide whether asking here is worth their while. This applies to the questions about Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Iron Age, and many others I've seen.

I get that the questions are often either easily answered or just annoying, but the OPs aren't the only ones who read them. Please, if you feel you must answer these types of questions, do so gently and patiently, if not for the (potential) troll, by all the other new readers who are thinking of using our service. If you can't, it's easiest not to answer at all. Aaronite (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But, it is MUCH easier to block that particular OP now instead of playing his game for a few months before enough people realize he's a troll. -- kainaw™ 13:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of my point; we take the easy way out, and it really turns off new people when they see it happening. Do all the talking and being rude on the talk page here, not on the desks. The terse replies look bad to new users. Also, and we've had this discussion before, if he's trolling just by asking a lot of questions, he might not be a troll. And stupid question might indicate a stupid querent, one who needs a lot of hand-holding, not a trolling one. I repeat what I said above. If you don't like the question, don't answer it. As long as it isn't medical or legal advise or homework, who are we to judge?

Obviously, there are times when it's clearly a baited question, but asking about movies isn't one of them. (the lol after the primate one was a bit of a giveaway, though.)

My point is, if we are to function as a reference desk, we can't be selective, and have to take the good with the bad. Go to the library, ask a stupid question. Do you really think they'll ban you for two weeks just because of that? That's why wikipedia has lots of bad press about how often unwelcoming we are. We claim to AGF but we totally do the opposite, every time. Aaronite (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To highlight a point, with the question about the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, we got clarified info that should go into the article. It said in the original, "minor plot points", but didn't illustrate which ones. Yes, the movie was fiction, but the OP wanted to know which ones. We didn't tell him, and in fact stonewalled him until someone found more info from outside wikipedia. Was it a troll? Maybe. Was the answer good? Eventually, and that stuff should go into the article. I'll look into doing that, though I welcome those who found it to do so too. After all, isn't that what these desks were originally made for? Aaronite (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the OP asked 2 questions. One of them was 'Was it really based on a true story'. This question was indeed answered in the article. The OP gave no indication they had read it, which isn't surprising since they probably wouldn't have asked that question if they had. Evidentally (I don't follow the RDE) they had asked a similar question before which had been answered by the article so it's somewhat understandable if people were frustrated with a continual inability to read an article before askign a question.

In any case, when the article was pointed out to them they said 'Yes, I know about the movie. I want to know about the "True" story behind it' still giving no indication they had read the article. They never replied after that, so we have no idea if they ever read the article. The other question was 'How much of the story was actually true?' This wasn't really answered in the article, although it depends on what they meant by 'how much'. Perhaps they were just satisfied with knowing what was in the article at the time.

Other respondents including you evidentally were not. I don't think any says there's anything wrong with people asking more specific related questions raised by another question however getting all worked up abou people actually answering the question the OP asked just because it was not the answer you wanted seems a little extreme. No one tried to stop others from answering the question, they simply provided answers which did indeed answer the specific question of the OP, AGF that the OP actually meant what they said rather then making assumptions that the OP wanted a different answer simply because it was the answer someone else wanted.

When they were challenged, they did politely explain why and how their answers answered the OPs questions. In other words, if there's anyone at fault here, it isn't those who actually answered the OP's question. If people don't like an answer, they are free to provide follow up answers or ask related questions, but there's no reason to stop people from answering a specific question just because you feel the answer isn't complete enough. That's the beauty of the collaborative nature of the RD. And if I was watching from the outside, I wouldn't blame those who actually answered the question simply because some other people didn't like the answer.

People's willingness to answer questions and in particular how much time they spend on an answer is obviously always going to be affected by how genuine they feel the question is (as well as how much the subject interests them and how much they already know about the subject), there's nothing wrong with that. It's particularly ridiculous to suggest people don't answer specific questions, just because some other people aren't satisfied with the completeness of the answer and/or people feel they should spend more time then they are willing to for a question they aren't sure is genuine.

There's never any guarantee anyone else is going to answer so stopping people from giving an answer to one of the questions may mean the question could go completely unanswered which doesn't help the RD. And time someone else spends on giving an answer someone else was willing to give (but didn't because they feared the would be challenged because it wasn't complete enough for some) may be less time they are willing to spend on further answering the question (since they have to first give the answer which could have already been given were it not for people fearing answer in case they get challenged because their answer is not complete enough for some).

So yes the RD will be negatively affected if people are stopped from or reluctant to answer questions simply because some people are trying to force them to give complete answers when they are only willing to give a brief answer which nevertheless does answer one of the questions. It will also be negatively affected if people are required to be sickly sweet polite in all answers (I'm not suggesting that people should be incivil, but there's nothing there close to being incivil).

I would note comparisons to library reference desks only go so far, for example I'm not aware of people dressing up in disguises so that no one recognised them as the guy who was eventually banned after trolling for a long time. And I don't think pretending to be blind (although I'm still not convinced this is the case for CE) would work very well nor claiming you are being forced to answer because someone hacked in to your mind. I do suspect any 18 year old man saying they were the boyfriend of a 13 year old girl would be banned and possibly have the police called on them. There are of course plenty of nuances in face to face contact that is lost online that would give people an idea if the person is genuinely confused or just wasting their time. Then of course there's the financial and time aspect...

ChemI, JohnRS and I guess Vchimp can probably attest that asking too many questions isn't in itself a problem. At worst they may be partially ignored or people suggest they probably should look a bit harder themselves or reduce their frequency if they want people to be more willing help. However when the questions and other behaviour is questionable and they don't seem to read the previous answers or refuse to accept them (or they ask the same question again and again), that is when the problems start (e.g. BowH, Asian-white marriage guy).

P.S. I have no idea if the OP question is a troll, I haven't seen enough of their behaviour to comment. My statements stand regardless.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My problem wasn't with a short answer, it was with a terse answer. Short answer are fine, but when the reply came and said that the answer was right there in the article, as in "minor plot points" the article never said which ones were those points. In other words, the second half of his question was not answered.

This doesn't change my premise, though. We can't take it out on querents if we are frustrated with them for not reading the article. It's probably a different user every time, and they just aren't as thorough as we would like them to be. They will never learn, and we simply have to get over that. But volunteers though we might be, we still have a duty to do our best to make sure the answers we give are clear (and they usually are). Link to the article for sure, but try and clarify what they can expect to find. Leave the frustrations to the talk page. Don't take it out on the OP. Aaronite (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Medical Advice (allergy medicine).

So user:Jayron32's gone ahead and removed the question about the strongest allergy medicine [26]. While this is certainly pushing the envelope in terms of medical advice, I don't think it crossed the line (the poster was asking a factual question, that while maybe not really answerable, wasn't asking for advice). I also though the responses were mostly reasonable, though they did seem to be assuming that the poster was looking for an allergy drug for themselves, when in fact that was never explicitly stated. Thoughts? Buddy431 (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore: [27]. Remember, I am always wrong. Take it as an axiomatic truth. Just revert me next time and think nothing of it. I am quite sure that I am at fault. I should pre-apologize for these kind of blatant disruptions and abuses that I commite. Ah well, c'est la vie. --Jayron32 05:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation tag because extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit other users' signed comments. Nimur (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this question is acceptable, if not easily answerable. I think that in situations like this where it's not an out-and-out obvious request for personal medical advice, it's best to seek consensus on the talk page before deleting. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Jayron32 paradox. Either you're right to say you're always wrong and therefore wrong to say it, or vice versa. :) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I can violate the laws of physics AND of logic. Strangely enough, when I say I am always wrong, I am wrong there too, without ever being right at any other time. I know it shouldn't work, but yet it does... --Jayron32 14:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again! I don't know how much of your post is facetiousness for humour and how much is frustration, but it's clear to me that the only reason you might get taken to task a few times is because you're one of the most prolific contributors here. I disagree with the removal, but I think the system worked the way it should: WP:BRD. Matt Deres (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Its neither. It is the cornerstone philosophy of my life. Conflict causes higher stress than being wrong. So I am always willing to admint wrongness. I always assume that I am wrong in everything that I do. It means that when someone claims that I am wrong, I can honestly agree with them. Makes life much easier that way. I cannot stress enough that this is not meant to be humorous or facetious in any way. I am very serious. I don't doubt myself, or second guess myself, and I am not wishiwashy. I have a wholehearted and deepseated belief that I am always wrong. --Jayron32 19:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

While that conclusion seems rather unsettling (if not outright wrong), there is something to be said for setting the bar so low that there's no way you can get under it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayron's conclusion is indeed outright wrong because it is impossible to do wrong at the moment of doing it. We commonly suppose that an action can be classified or judged to be wrong but it is really possible only to regret the action in retrospect. Abrahamic religions don't think this way. But if you think something is wrong you just didn't think back to what really caused it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I just don't consider myself to be superior to anyone else. Insofar as others agree with me, I am fine with that. Insofar as others make the case that I have done something wrong, I am fine with that too. There is clearly no point in maintaining a position which has been disproven or shown to be in error past the point where it has been so shown. Nearly all of human conflict is caused when one side of the conflict refuses to admit to being wrong when shown that it clearly is. It comes from clinging to ideas as though we own them. I don't choose to cling to any idea at all. I hold no attachment to anything I think or say, especially when it can be shown to be wrong. --Jayron32 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good – to a point. If one is right, then one should "cling to" being right. You make it sound like you are prepared to yield your point to any objection whatsoever that may be raised in opposition or contradiction to it. Clearly that is not truly the case. I have seen you believe yourself to be right quite a few times now, Jayron, and I've seen you believe others to be wrong. Sometimes you have been right about that, and sometimes you have been wrong. But you are not completely indifferent to being right or wrong, and I strongly suspect that you must generally prefer to be right – as all of us really ought to be, especially those of us that answer as many questions here as you do. Nevertheless, one should welcome the opportunity to be shown to be wrong, because when one is wrong then seeing that is the only way to become right. In other words, one ought to prefer to be right strongly enough to be willing to accept that one is wrong when one is! WikiDao ☯ 01:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know the difference between being right and deluding yourself into thinking you are right when you are, in fact, wrong? --Jayron32 02:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you really need to ask that question, as you have already answered it below. WikiDao ☯ 02:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me, though, of an old question about an ancient Taoist bull:

"...unless I discriminate, how will I perceive the true from the untrue? Not yet having entered the gate, nevertheless I have discerned the path."

"10 Bulls," Kakuan WikiDao ☯ 03:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure setting the bar low is the right metaphor, since setting the bar low implies that you still care about getting over the bar, and still plan on getting over the bar, but don't want to make much of an effort. Jayron32, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm understanding Jayron32's philosophy right, I think the high jump analogy of his philosophy would be more like using normal height bars, and making a normal amount of effort, but going in with the expectation that you're going to knock the bar every single time. The advantage of that approach is that you're unlikely to quit the sport out of frustration if you knock a few bars, because you weren't planning on actually clearing any bars anyway, you're just doing high jumps because the process of doing high jumps is enjoyable. I think Jayron32's detachment from the need to be right is probably a significant contributing factor to how he's been able to be as hugely prolific on Wikipedia as he has been without burning out. I think that may also be a part of how he wound up becoming an administrator. It seems to me that having no emotional investment in being right would be a good thing to have in an administrator. It'd make me more likely to vote for him.

His philosophy sounds to me a lot like WP:FUCK, which in the high jump metaphor is perhaps like using normal height bars, and making a normal amount of effort, but doing high jumps just because doing high jumps is fun, without giving a fuck as to how many bars you actually make it over. Red Act (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Try to think of it this way. I do make a good faith attempt to be right. I do genuinely care, when I am composing a thought, that I am right at the time that I am composing it. For example, when I research questions for the ref desk, I look though Wikipedia articles and google, I gather information, and I present an answer. The trick is, when I put the thought into the world, I let it go. I release it like a bird into the world; a bird that I raised from a hatchling, that I cared for, but a bird nonetheless. I have no attachment to it after that, it is free to be right or wrong after I have let it go. If someone can demonstrate that I am wrong, I feel no need to continue to defend an untenable position. Many people are so stuck on having the thoughts they have already released into the world be right, when they have no ability to go back and do anything about those released thoughts. They become so attached to them, they continue to guard them and cage them and defend them, even if they are wrong. If you release all ideas once they are published, and just let them go, see what happens. If it is clear that your idea is wrong (usually by the reactions of people who respond to it) then let it be wrong and move on. Admit your wrongness, own your wrongness, and then get on to something else. If your idea is right, so be it, but don't celebrate or gloat either. Let it be right, and move on. --Jayron32 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

non-archived content

If anyone wants to grab the text I somewhat peremptorily deleted with this edit, and instead manually create Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 February 1 with it, feel free. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we could probably keep the encyclopedia afloat without having that archived forever (any more than it already is...). Matt Deres (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

Hi folks, I know I am not supposed to report an article's (repeated) vandalism here or on the RefDesks, but I have inadvertently done so here. Where should I go normally for something like this? Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There's WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but that's really for reporting vandals who are currently in the process of attacking Wikipedia. I don't think there's a place where you can report individual pages. According to Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, you should just clean it up yourself. Always check the page history to make sure anything that got deleted in vandalism is restored. If a page has a really long history, and you can't find where the vandalism was added, or if the vandalism is so obscure and/or subtle you can't really tell whether it's vandalism or not, I guess you could report it at the relevant WikiProject's talk page (if there is one), or WP:AN/I. Pais (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers - I'll bear this in mind. That particular page was a little troublesome, with it being so tiny and yet subject to so much vandalism. I wasn't sure what to do about it. Thanks for fixing the page, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If the vandalism is happening repeatedly, and its coming from many IP addresses, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. --Jayron32 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

S'igh. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I reported this to WikiProject Mali, to which the article belongs. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Now the page itself - Diako - has gone. No idea what's happening here nor how to find out. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Diako" page was removed, but the original article is still present at Diago. According to the only references, (this Mali government statistics website and this page from Michigan State University), the preferred spelling is Diago. Nimur (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Economic advice

I think we should have a policy on not giving economic advice. Very few of the Wikipedia editors have the education to give reliable advice on investment and other economic topics. JustEase (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you must mean personal financial advice. I can't see many governments, central banks or think tanks asking for our advice on economic policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a problem? I haven't read many questions where people show up asking how to properly allocate their 401(k) investments or how much life insurance to purchase. I don't see where this is a problem that even needs addressing. Do you have any current or recent questions we could look at to see if the problem even exists??? --Jayron32 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User:JustEase may be a vandalism-only account. See Special:Contributions/JustEase and judge for yourselves. JustEase, if you intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia, you are welcome here. Please be aware that we have historically had trouble with "newly created accounts" who express strong opinions about Reference Desk policies and that your present behavior is suspiciously similar to other troublesome editors. Your actions will speak for themselves. Nimur (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

JustEase has expressed a fair opinion which is not dissimilar to what I said a while ago. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned, you may want to have a look at my contributions at Nowiki and think twice. JustEase (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at his talk page at no:wp (Google translate) as well. He's been warned several times for creating unnecessary wikidrama. --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

...and now he is blocked for disruptive edits at no:wp.[28][29][30] --Eisfbnore ^talk 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Add a resolved box on closed cases

This will allow for identification of ones that still need help. Perhaps we add a notice for people to do so? It makes it much easier. General Rommel (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But who decides that a case (by which I assume you mean a question) is closed? Often only the OP can know if their perplexity has been resolved, and they are the least likely to carry out such a housekeeping task. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been several previous discussions on this, some I found in the archive; [31] [32] 82.43.92.41 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

When a OP says anywhere Resolve and anything similar to that word (i.e. resolved, answered satisfactorily, etc), then we proceed to enter the box in. General Rommel (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How much time does it actually take to read a question and determine if it has been answered? Even the busiest of the Desks might see a dozen questions over the course of a day, and most Desks and most days are rather lighter. What effort are we actually saving by closely monitoring questions and adding additional tags? The previous discussions linked by the IP make good reading on this topic. Here's a quick summary of what I see as the problems with applying such tags.

1. OP's seldom return to tell us that their question is resolved (or to express appreciation for our assistance in any way). Relying on them to return in order for us to apply the flag is an exercise in futility.
2. Even if a question has been answered to the OP's satisfaction, that doesn't mean that other editors aren't interested in further exploration of the question or subsequent discussion. We don't want to inadvertently choke off deeper discussions of a topic.
3. Questions that have an answer don't always have a full and correct answer. A question can appear to be 'resolved' for quite some time before another editor sees a mistake. We don't want to actively discourage review of responses already made.
4. The vast majority of questions already receive a rapid, prompt, reasonably correct answer (in my experience on the Science and Misc Desks; I can't comment on other Desks). We don't generally seem to have difficulty finding the questions which require responses.
5. This will have suboptimal effects on watchlists. Each time someone adds the 'resolved' tag, editors who have watchlisted the Ref Desk will be seeing the subject line for a question already answered. It's more constructive for them to be seeing the edit summaries and thread headers for new questions and for active discussions. (We want to use every tool at our disposal to serendipitously suck in the Ref Desk's occasional volunteers.)

What might be more useful is some means to flag questions which haven't received attention after a set period of time (24 hours, perhaps) because after that length of time has passed they are otherwise likely not to be answered at all. I suspect that the questions that do go unanswered generally do so because we lack the skill, knowledge, or expertise to approach them, rather than because we didn't see them — but I'm just guessing. Someone with more time on his hands might want to go through the archives and to see what we haven't answered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to all this stuff. The problem with "Resolved" is that so many of the answers on the RefDesks are wrong. The problem with flagging unanswered questions is that in so many cases the best response to a question is to ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with ToaT and Looie496. If the OP wants to mark it as resolved, fine, but otherwise it's no big deal. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay then! General Rommel (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On some websites that offer a similar service to the RD, the questioner has the option to choose the answer he or she feels best answered his or her question. Maybe there could be a similar template to the {resolved} box that the questioner can use. schyler (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea, although it seems that few OP's acknowledge seeing the answer, in any way, shape or form. I wonder if adding such a template might encourage them to do so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But that mechanism, along with a points system that rewards people for answering as many questions as possible, is part of why Yahoo answers is such a cesspool compared to here. Why would we try to emulate that? 86.162.68.36 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As discussed a bit in the previous suggestion above, it seems OP's just don't bother with putting resolved tags, so why here? General Rommel (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Resources

I propose copying the contents of User:Wavelength/About Internet & WWW/Ask an expert to a new page to be called Wikipedia:Reference desk/Resources, with a shortcut WP:RD/R, or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Ask an expert, with a shortcut WP:RD/K. It can be listed under "See also" at Wikipedia:Reference desk. (There can be additional pages for "Search engines", "Web directories", and "Databases".) It can have a number of uses.

• as a list of alternative places for visitors to ask questions
• as a list of resources to help respondents to find answers to questions
• as a means to assist Wikipedians and others in comparing the quality of service provided in different places

The new page can be revised by the Wikipedia community, but I prefer to be the only editor editing the original page.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is prompted by my recent reply at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, although I have for some time considered starting such a page.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support the general concept with details such as name of page and exact scope to be hammered out later. This seems like a pretty good idea. --Jayron32 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as above. Some ideas for formatting: we could structure the page as a "Comparison of Online Reference Services" and use a sortable wikitable for the list, with separate columns for various features, subject-areas, and so on. Take a look at articles in Category:Comparisons, or the tables of our Web Browser feature-comparisons, for ideas about the sort of formatting I think would be useful. Nimur (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron32 and Nimur, for your support. I have given the matter some more thought, and I now deem the name "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Resources" to be too general and vague. I am now considering the following names.

• "Wikipedia:Reference desk/List of online reference desks"
• "Wikipedia:List of online reference desks"
• "List of online reference desks"
• "Comparison of online reference services"

A page with either of those last two names would be in the article namespace, and it might be more prone to deletion or to stringent requirements of notability for its listings. The new page can be listed under "See also" at Wikipedia:Reference desk, along with the following pages.

• Library reference desk
• List of online databases
• List of search engines
• List of web directories
• List of wikis
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange

I have considered columns for various features, and I have deemed the following features to be useful.

• Registration (yes/no)
• E-mail (yes/no)
• Active (yes/no)
• Archives (yes/no)
• Payment (yes/no)
• Language (English/...)

Unfortunately, I am not ready to spend the time in setting up a table and in researching data for populating its cells. If I start the page, is someone else ready to format the information in a table?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfotunately, I'm not much of a coding guy. I'm a prose kinda guy. Tables are a chore for me, and I'm not very good at it. As for you other proposals, I think either of the links in the Wikipedia namespace would be good. Since it isn't actually a reference desk (where you may ask questions), it probably shouldn't be a subpage. But it could have a prominent link in either the main refdesk entry page WP:RD and/or in the generic refdesk header on each of the actual ref desks. --Jayron32 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to find a little time to help out, you could start it out of article space and I'll certainly fiddle with it bit by bit. Would the word "other" be useful in the title? "List of other online reference services" - that way not implying they are from wikipedia. Worm 08:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. To my mind, it would be better to keep this out of article space, so as to allow us to include links to less-notable sites and also to allow critical commentary, if needed. I'd be happy to help out with the tables. I've only had limited experience with making tables, but they turned out alright and I'd actually like to learn more. Matt Deres (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've created an initial table based on Wavelength's sub page. Needs a little tidying and a fair amount of research. User:Worm That Turned/List of reference desks. Will do some more tomorrow, but if anyone fancies a fiddle, feel free. Worm^TT 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just started Wikipedia:List of online reference desks, and I have just listed it with 6 other internal links under a heading "See also" at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Editors are invited to transform Wikipedia:List of online reference desks into a table. If the Wikipedia Reference Desk is included in the table, then the word "other" is unnecessary. This is not meant to dissuade editors from revising the new page just started by Worm. We can adopt the best features of each one.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Wikipedia Resource Exchange should be in any general lists as it is designed specifically for Wikipedia editors, not for "public" use as a way to circumvent copyright restrictions. It is justifiable for editors, since access to copyrighted materials to write an encyclopedia can be claimed as a fair use. Franamax (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that link from the list of internal links.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

EDITABLE responses

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

---

WHEREAS raising the quality of mainspace articles in Wikipedia is a shared goal of volunteers who edit in consensus;
AND constructive editing proceeds by critically reviewing what has been posted and making corrections and additions concerned with factual content, its relevance, English prose form, politeness and grammar;
AND questioners at the Ref. Desks can reasonably expect response(s) whose quality exemplifies the quality of Wikipedia as a whole;
I PROPOSE THAT
1. When an editor posts a response and can tolerate that it be reviewed by others then he or she may use the word EDITABLE instead of a regular signature at the end;
2. The posting may then be edited by others in the same way as a mainspace article.
PROVIDING
3. Posting an EDITABLE post is optional for anyone;
4. Only EDITABLE posts are freely open to changes, deletions or additions by anyone;
RATIONALISING THAT
5. An EDITABLE response is no more or less anonymous than an ordinarily signed post, because its poster(s) can be located in the page history, but they do serve to depersonalise what an OP is likely to read;
6. Giving an EDITABLE response can shield the OP from subsequent discussion that often arises between editors, and that may still be done collegially on this page or on an individual talk page;
7. An EDITABLE response provides an avenue for editing facts and grammar without causing embarassment or offence to another editor.
PLEASE COMMENT. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I made minor formatting changes to the above for readability [33] WikiDao ☯ 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Will anyone think to do this? Personally, if we were just answering questions, well then we can see all the opinions of people. It would get hard to find what the last opinion was. Discussion may also lead to a better answer. And usually we don't mind about punctuation and grammar . And if the person had bad grammar I don't think that person would be a person who would bother and put a 'editable' tag before the 4 tiles (or whatever they are called) What do others think? General Rommel (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

4 tildes, mein general. The heading at ref. desks says "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere". The proposal says EDITABLE instead of regular signature, see point 1. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the benefit really. The reference desk isn't about "improving" the language of contributors and it sounds a bit like bureaucracy to me. What's more, I think that it's important to know who created the question, so I'm not keen on "instead of" signature. Worm 10:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "know who created the answer" which one still does, see point 5 above ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I was under the impression that this was aimed at the questioner, rather than the responders, I misread. Either way, I do not feel that point 5 is sufficient. Looking in the page history for an edit is a chore, especially on high traffic articles. What about after archiving, it will be even harder to find the user who responded. I know that there are editors for whom correct spelling/grammar is high on their list of priorities, but I'm afraid I am not one of them. I believe that language is evolving and (in non-article space) it's the meaning which is important, not following archaic rules. Worm 11:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Worm, your apologies are accepted. If point 5 is really insufficient, a poster could declare both an EDITABLE and their normal signature. However that creates a problem as soon as anyone edits the post: do they add their second signature or leave the original signature on a changed post? If the meaning is, as you say, important, why do you attach such importance to finding the user(s)? They can be found using the date filter in the archive. Please see the article Wisdom of the crowd as it may relate to consensus contra anyone's wish to keep published Wikipedia material (not on Talk pages) exclusively attached to their name. You make your view about English clear and I suggest you find another forum to denigrate modern educated English (US or British) as bound by "archaic" rules. If that is a sensitive point for you, which is understandable if you sincerely believe you are on the cutting edge of a language revolution, then you may understand why point 7 was needed. It addresses the problem of editors who continue to post responses knowingly in substandard English and protest bitterly at any move to correct, or even notice, their repeating error. That should not be a problem for you. (Please do not make it one here. Wikipedia has articles on modern English grammar that you might try to improve if so inclined.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The heart of the matter for me is the fact that the reference desk is not article space. It should not be held to the same grammatical standards. I don't believe that I am on the cutting edge of a revolution, I believe that language is constantly evolving and as long as meaning is not lost, I do not see any problem with minor grammatical issues (even if I do want to shout anyone who says "should of"). Whilst attribution is maintainted by the editing history, signing posts allow further discussion with editors, thanking and viewing patterns of editing, should they be needed.

On a personal level, I have no issue with my posts being edited, as long as my meaning isn't lost, but I'm pretty easy going and I understand why people would have an issue. I know my grammatical skills are not up to scratch as my specialism is mathematics and I keep that in mind when I write in the article space. In that article space I actively request copy edits to ensure the articles I write are high quality. However, I would never use an EDITABLE flag as it specifically implies I don't trust myself. Worm 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuddlyable, once again you fail to understand the purpose that brings us here. Correcting grammar on the ref desk is a waste of effort and should be discouraged rather than encouraged. Bringing the "wisdom of crowds" to bear on finding referenced answers to question is the point. Wasting that roughly finite resource on beautifying the page is not.

It has been explained to you again and again that the consensus is that correct grammar is nice, but unnecessary on the ref-desks. That is what the wisdom of this crowd has settled on as most efficient. If you really believe in using the 'power of crowds' to solve issues you will concede that this decision has been made and it's time to move on. APL (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, this entire discussion is a waste of time, but I can't resist asking: Cuddlyable, if you believe in the wisdom of the crowd, why can you not respect that crowd's right and ability to evolve language? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

NO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Reference Desk generally follows the conventions and rules of talk pages. See Help:Using talk pages for information on the established norms. Nimur (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem. Ref desk answers may be used to improve article space, but there not supposed to just be copied too articles without any additional thought. --LarryMac | Talk 15:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Absofuckinglutely not. This is a blatant backdoor attempt by Cuddlyable3 to return to This total bullshit from last year. Please lets not go back to that again. Don't open up mechanisms to allow Cuddlyable3 to correct people's grammar again. It is just likely to lead to more drama and heartache as it did last time. We should continue the current practice. We ignore bad grammar and spelling when it does not affect the understandability of the response, we ask for clarification when it does (however, we do not stray into WP:POINT when clarification really isn't needed), we correct factual errors with further posts and references. That is how it works now, and how it should work. This is a ludicrously misguided and selfserving proposal. --Jayron32 16:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. It achieves nothing useful. It introduces new rules and procedures, and it will almost certainly reduce the accuracy of the reference desk. All so cuddlyable can get a thrill from correcting someone's use of "it's" to "its".

Cuddlyable, if you've got such an unhealthy obsession with fixing homonyms, why not join Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? At least that way you'll be editing in a situation where correcting people's homonyms is a good thing and therefore you won't make an ass of yourself while feeding your homonym-correction urges. APL (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My vote is NO. No further comments are needed. Aaronite (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

<shrugs> OK by me I guess if others want to say "EDIT this response if you want to" at the end of their response, though I'd still prefer they sign, too. If others want to state such "permission" at the end of each response, who's to stop them? No one has to do anything per this proposal. I agree though that it is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and I can't imagine it catching on. But it does not seem to warrant such strong -- or such foully expressed -- opposition it seems to have provoked in some... WikiDao ☯ 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) p.s. I am going to format your original post with some <br />'s, if you don't mind, Cuddlyable3

The reason why it has provoked such a strong negative response is because Cuddlyable3 was involved a few months ago in a very disruptive and distracting campaign to correct other editors' grammar and spelling. This latest proposal appears to be an attempt to resurrect that conduct through an elaborate bureaucratic procedure.

This is a reference desk, no more and no less. We attempt to put people with questions in touch with sources that contain answers. It isn't an experiment in new forms of talk page interaction, nor is it the Wikipedia School of Grammar. Cuddlyable3's proposal doesn't aid us in achieving our aim here; instead, it is a recipe for conflict and confusion. (If two editors disagree about the correctness of an 'editable' post, then we invite an edit war, instead of the threaded discussion through which we usually handle such situations. If someone silently 'corrects' or adjusts a post at the head of a threaded discussion, it may render subsequent posts nonsensical. Without laborious tracing through the page history, it becomes difficult to determine who said what, when in any given post.) The Reference Desk is an interactive service where unique individuals participate in a discussion and exchange information. It makes no sense to try to format a conversation as an article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. At first I saw no reason to actually oppose it, though: if people wanted to actually state "feel free to edit my response" I didn't see where the harm would be in that (not that I can really see that happening much). On further reflection, though, that really shouldn't be permitted, as it may easily result in confusion about who was responding to what version and so on. Best that things be left as they are, or else struck-out with a clear notice that a change has been made, should that be necessary or helpful, by the editor him-or-herself who made the response that might require such a change. WikiDao ☯ 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat my statement from a post last week. Cuddlyable3, you have been around Wikipedia long enough to have read WP:POINT. Please stop disrupting the reference desk. Your point has been made, and you are clearly in the minority. The consensus of other editors is very clear: the reference desk currently works fine; we do not need major changes in our operational policy, because the current model is very effective at providing references; and we do not want our signed posts to be edited, per the talk page guidelines. Nimur (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. For the reasons stated above (esp the WP:POINT issue), and because this proposal would undermine one of the little rewards I perceive when reading the RD: the sense of community. Signatures are a big part of that. -- Scray (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Who has responded is often important to me as a user/reader of the encyclopedia. Some responders I will read even when I have no other interest in the question. Some responders are just better than others -more informative and more entertaining. I would hate to lose signatures that quickly show me where I won't be wasting my time. And I would equally hate to find their answers were being messed about, especially by others who may be just plain wrong. (Even if the proposer of this new practice never errs, there are many, many others who will "correct" what wasn't wrong in the first place.) Bielle (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One possible concession: Cuddly could post his own responses to questions with a tag that says, "Other editors are free to edit my comments." Then we can see if his proposed experiment has legs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Harmless enough. It's not like we're deciding a policy. Watch Cuddly do it, link to an essay page, and see if people pick up on it - it's way better than arguing this. It'll make everyone feel better that they all have some recognition in this issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Me, I'm just idly wondering

a. how much time (that could have been spent answering questions or improving the encyclopedia) has been wasted vehemently commenting on cuddlyable's proposal here, and

b. to the extent the waste is a problem, whose fault it is. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seen this. At the risk of wasting even more of our collective time, I'd like to say no, no, no, for the love of God, no. If anyone has the urge to correct other people's spelling and grammar, they have 6,908,832 articles at their disposal. We deal with inaccurate or incomplete refdesk answers by civilly offering a better response, properly explained and sourced. I cannot see how pre-sanctioned refactoring of others' comments, by any passing user who feels like it, will produce a simpler or more effective refdesk. -- Karenjc 10:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment. At present, any edit of another user's comment is considered vandalism and can be reverted quickly. If we permit the proposal, we will have to vigilantly guard every edit of another user's comment to manually monitor which edits are acceptable, and which are malicious. That would be prohibitively difficult. Nimur (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Although Cuddlyable3's intent is to improve the grammar on the Reference Desk, the improvement to the Reference Desk as a result of grammar corrections to others' posts would be tiny, and the unintended consequences of this proposal would drown out the tiny improvement with a river of problems. If SteveBaker were here and hadn't been chased off the Reference Desk by Cuddlyable3 in the first place, he would point out that somebody might correct his use of "automagically" to "automatically" which changes the content of his answer, which of course is unacceptable. Content changes would sometimes happen even though Cuddlyable3's proposal is that this be optional. No. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

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