Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

someone please close the race baiting thread

Would someone please close http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#U.S._Census_Bureau_Classification_of_Asian ? ObsidianSoul's decision to start calling people racist and throw around terms like "nigger" and accuse people of calling people "yellow" is disgusting and cannot be expected to be responded to civilly. I refuse to have family and lovers and self sop insulted. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support collapsing everything below AnonMoos's answer. The question itself is fine. Or Obsidian et. al can have a semantic discussion on the language desk, if they want. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did that (before reading this, actually). Looie496 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, while I don't object to the closing or entirely agree with OS's responses I would argue part of his responses is clealrly on topic and not just a matter of semantics. The fact is, the idea all SEAsians are very close to Easr Asians and far from South Asians is higly questionable. Given that, its hardly surprising the census bureau would't want to use seperations that make little sense. In fact In fact even the difference between South Asian and East Asian is not always as clear cut at the op seems to think. As for the racism flak, while its arguably off topic, pointing out a term is often seen as offensive isn't ecactly unusual on the RD and while perhaps OS did not approach the matter very well, I don't think the followups helped. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)e

It wasn't a race baiting thread. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, I'm not sure how to put this, so I'll just do it plainly and bluntly: I am disgusted by this thread, too, but primarily at your contributions to it. ObsidianSoul's digressions may have been misplaced, but they started out sensitive and well-intentioned. It was you who jumped down his throat almost immediately with a "listen, buddy" and a false analogy, and then started berating him (with a nice, gratuitous "fuck you" thrown in for good measure). Your facts may be right ("Oriental" is not and is not typically used nearly as offensively as "nigger") but your attitude, your tone, and your holier-than-thou sanctimony are all wrong. Please, please, please let's (all of us) try to just answer questions, not call the kettle black as we hijack threads. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC) [tweaked 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)]

Oh, please. I would have preferred simply to delete the insults and personal accusations rather than respond to them. I have done it before. But I have been told not to shut down threads or hat comments. Shall I just respond in kind then when such occurs in the future, and hope others will take the appropriate action, as Looie (my sincere thanks) did in this case? Having someone accuse me of being the sort of person who calls people nigger because that someone wants to argue that the word oriental (literally, "Eastern") is a deliberate insult is beyond taking. Why were such comments not deleted or hatted before I saw them? I have lovers and blood family members who are black, and I do not accept such accusations lightly. I have also had close oriental friends who have cried in my arms over the Tiananmen square crackkdown as it happened and on other occasions. No one should have to suffer such provocations; there is an explicit refdesk rule against it. Nowhere did I or anyone else try to insult Obsidian Soul, who came out with deliberate provocations and personal accusations of racism. and intentionally began a contentious name-calling debate. That is against the rules, somewhere, I think. Yes, I told him to fuck himself. No, I did not call him a yellow-skinned whatever, nor did anyone else. I'll take your criticism as meaning that in the future I should delete such comments, as has been my preference, rather than respond to them on an equal level. I'll take your expectation that I behave better than other editors as a high personal compliment. But I have no intention of continuing to participate in this conversation or accept the notion that I should quietly suffer intentional racist attacks and moral insults. And neither am I expecting anyone to justify their actions or opinions in response to my crie du coeur here. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like hat, delete, and respond are your only three options. I commend to you a fourth: ignore.

I didn't see Obsidian Soul do anything like what you're accusing him of until after you'd completely unnecessarily escalated the argument.

—Steve Summit (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the arguably tangential nature of the subject matter. The issue was that both Medeis and Obsidan made it personal by bringing their own ethnicities into it. If they'd both assumed mutual good faith and argued their points without imagining personal attacks, there wouldn't be anything wrong.112.215.36.171 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Brief announcement: More opportunities for you to access free research databases

The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Go sign up! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving to Canada question

I've hatted some bickering in the Moving to Canada question. I feel that the first response was an unhelpful attack on the OP, and the three other comments (mine included) are better made elsewhere. I should've done it earlier, given the question is a few days old, but comments are still coming in on it. Anyone is welcome to unhat it if they feel my change was inappropriate. Mingmingla (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me I may have misinterpreted the whole thing. My apologies to all the editors involved. The comment the first editor made could be interpreted two ways: one is the sense of "Good Riddance", the other is "get out while you can". I assumed the first. I blame the internet and the inherent difficulty of communicating without the visual and audio cues of normal conversation. I adjust the hat. Mingmingla (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the rhetorical question that is raised is, are the other people actually telling him he should stay longer? The real problem here is the request for opinion couched in terms of an opinion: "I think the US is bad, do you prefer Montreal or Vancouver?" Why not Toronto or Winnipeg? If the question had been posted as, how do these US and Canadian cities compare on these criteria, it would have been much more amenable to response. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What rhetorical question Medeis? Looks to me like you were the first to answer so there were no "other people" saying anything yet. So why did you feel the need to make such a totally useless answer? You conveyed absolutely zero responses to the OP questions. Whereas I provided a link and information, including some objective comparison points between the two cities. I didn't find it all that difficult either, why was it so tough for you? Has anyone told you yet that you have the option of just ignoring questions you don't like? Franamax (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Were you one of the people who gave info about licensing? That was rather helpful; bully for you, if so. My point above was, of the people who objected to my suggestion, what was their point? That he should stick around given his valid fears? In any case, someone else seems to have removed him as trolling. I didn't. I told him to take his own concerns seriously. Shame on me for taking him at his word? μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That ranks right up there with anything else I've read from you to convince me that it actually you who is the troll here. You appear to be completely blind to anything except your own desire to cause a fuss everywhere you can. My point is that your answer was TOTALLY USELESS, but unless you've forgotten, take a look here. That is a totally useless answer my friend. Whether or not someone else is a troll is no excuse for you to switch into troll mode yourself. The OP had expressed no fears at all, had they? You are exposed as a hypocrite and liar sophist IMO, but for purpose of civility I will immediately retract that, and since you will only converse through edit summaries on your own talk page, remind you here that user RFC is becoming a possibility here. Oh, and if you had actually read anything, one good reason for delaying a move would be to complete the degree or diploma in question, now wouldn't it? Franamax (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird, I didn't get an edit conflict and the software interwove my later-stamped comment above Jack's. If I'd gotten an e/c I would have backed up and did it all over, but some MediaWiki developer obviously thinks I'm more important. ;) LOL ;) Franamax (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it's not for us to be telling our OPs what to do, or even giving our opinion. We know nothing about the OP except for the extremely scant details they provided. He asked whether Montreal or Vancouver would be better. However one regards such a question, the least helpful response to it is "Who cares where?". Obviously the OP cares, otherwise they wouldn't have asked in the first place. As it stands, it's asking for an opinion, which we **say** we don't answer at all. But if we're going to reframe it as "What are some of the pros and cons of Montreal vs. Vancouver", that's a slightly more referenceable way to handle it. Obviously even that sort of question is going to depend on many personal factors that we're not privy to, but we could maybe find some general pros and cons and hope some of them are relevant to the OP. That would require a little digging, and that requires a little time and effort for those prepared to do the work. If you're prepared to do that work (and I'm not, I happily declare), that's the sort of approach that an OP might appreciate. If you're not prepared to do that work, best to remain silent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that "Be Bold" and "Have the courage of your convictions" are great bits of advice. At this point the only thing that has confused me is what deletions it is that Looie is talking about. I have sought, but not found. Any diffs? μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Diff and diff. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that "Be Bold" and "Have the courage of your convictions" are great bits of advice. - I couldn't agree more, as a general philosophy. A friend might say that to the OP. But we are not the OP's friend. We don't know the OP from Adam, and even if we did, it's not our place to be dispensing life/career/travel/sexual/financial/spiritual/medical/whatever advice. It's our place to answer questions with references, where the question is one for us to appropriately deal with. We provide information; it's up to the OPs to use that information or not, as they see fit, and in ways that only they can determine having regard to their full life circumstances, of which we typically know nothing. We don't even know when this OP is graduating - it could be next week or in 5 years' time.

Fwiw, your response was not your quoted "Be Bold" or "Have the courage of your convictions". The question was essentially about whether his American medical degree was transferable to the Canadian regulatory environment, i.e. whether or not his qualifications would be recognised. That requires a cited and detailed response to be half-way useful, not something trite and glib. Then the Montreal/Vancouver thing came next; maybe he's thinking there are different regulatory regimes in different provinces, and maybe there are. I wouldn't know offhand, I'd have to go looking for a reference. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a history. I apologize for being friendly. But I stand by my advice. Do you suggest he stay in the US? μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. Stand by your advice till doomsday if you like, but it will never be relevant to our mission here. The Wikipedia Reference Desk is not the place to provide such advice. We provide information, not advice. If you want to befriend the OP privately, please be my guest. Your last question requires no answer because it is wrongly based and wrong-headed. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

keeping things interesting

There's a concern raised just above that the reference desk is "dumbing down", that there aren't as many good questions any more. I don't know if that's true (I don't personally find as many questions to answer, but I don't look as hard, either), but if it is true, it's reasonable to ask why that's happening and what we can do about it.

Once upon a time, at least, the Wikipedia Reference Desks had a reputation (both within Wikipedia, and out on the intertubes) as a place where you could ask just about anything, and get an erudite and decently-researched answer if there was possibly one to be had. A lot like The Straight Dope, but with the answerers pretending to be reference librarians instead of a wise guy.

What would our overall reputation be today? Still not a bad place to ask a question and get an answer, but it's more and more colored by two trends that have been growing for some time: (1) You're quite likely to get criticized or have your question hatted or deleted if it doesn't follow a mixture of written and unwritten rules about what is and isn't permitted, and (2) You might have to put up with copious quantities of questionably-relevant banter and in-jokery (and bickering) by the "regulars". I worry, too, that we might not only be discouraging the people with real questions, but encouraging the trolls, with our too-predictable stuffy responses to Questions We Don't Like. "Hey, let's troll the fuck out of the Reference Desks." ("LOL angsty grownups".) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify when "once upon a time" was?

I just browsed the archive for August, 2009, and then compared it to the current state of the boards. The result of this experiment was ... I dunno. Seems answerers back then (or should I say: at that point in time) were more conscientious about including a reference when replying. There was a certain amount of joking and some bickering. Nothing was hatted, but nothing needed hatting. In comparison, the desks at the moment ... don't seem particularly stuffy either. Possibly I am being wilfully blind (more likely I am being unobservant): I see a lot of perfectly reasonable questions being given perfectly reasonable answers in a calm and helpful manner. That is the main impression I get of the state of the reference desks today. On the other hand, everything is in a steady decline which began earlier than 63 BC, as is well known.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant discussion from 2009 here. I've noticed this too, but I don't think the issue is the questions. In the past, more people seemed to like giving long, researched answers - even to questions which asked very simple and obvious things, or things which could be considered slightly trollish. People seemed to pride themselves on producing a quality answer to even the most ludicrous and frivolous question. While this still happens of course and there are some fantastic answers being given every day, there has been an increase in snap "google it" type responses and a general lack of good faith being assumed all around. As is said above, questions today have a much higher chance of being removed or collapsed, endlessly argued about, and the questioner basically chased off the desk. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there were ever any good old days, but the current state of the Ref Desk is not much to be proud of. Too much biting, too much blathering, too much punning, too many baseless opinions, too much trolling, too much bureaucratizing for the sake of it. It's dispiriting but I see no real push to improve it, just occasional posts here that get no result whatsoever. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The solution to the Census question seems reasonable. If we hat or delete the nonsense that is patently not related to the question, stick to the answer, maybe (naive of me to assume, I know) the users who add that kind of crap will slowly get the point. Answer the question, or leave it alone. Mingmingla (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To you nitpickers, yes, we should still not have opinion requests, medical or legal advice. But other than that, answer the question, or leave it alone. Mingmingla (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much about what sorts of questions we "should" get. People will ask whatever they damn well like, and we have no say in that. It's how we deal with the questions we do get. In particular, it's how we deal with the types of questions we've long pretended we don't answer. There's wording at the top which goes "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events" (my bolding). Not "may not answer", but the unequivocal "does not answer". That is, our own rules prevent us from engaging with such questions AT ALL, and current practice would require them to be immediately hatted or removed altogether. To impose other rules (such as your "Answer the question or leave it alone") on these sorts of questions is like requiring people who are in the act of holding up a bank to still hold the door open for any little old ladies who are wanting to enter or leave, and as long as the robbers do that, we'll just conveniently close our eyes to the fact that there's a hold-up going on.

If we're actually happy to answer opinion questions, we should remove the misleading wording at the top, which is honoured far more in the breach than the observance, and develop some sorts of protocols about how we answer them. But if we're not happy to answer them, then we should stop answering them. Either way, let us have no more of this "We say we don't but we actually do" bullshit.

And by the way, it is most certainly not being a nitpicker to focus on this issue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well what about the thread referenced below, about moving to Canada? Some will say it was asking for opinions, but the only problem there was people answering with opinions. What was not objective about my own responses? (And yes, I was well aware of the jingoistic attitudes of some of our editors, so I did have that in mind) You don't have to offer an opinion and never should. If the question is blatantly asking for opinion ("whose butt is hotter, J.Lo or QE2?") or blatant trolling ("Why are teh black so fucken stoopid?"), that's easy to deal with. But in most cases, there actually is a way to offer up some objective (and linked-to-source, which many here seem to overlook) information to let the OP decide on their own. Remember that please, LET THE OP DECIDE ON THEIR OWN. IMO it is the verbally diarrhoeic responders who simply must see their own sig regardless of content provided who pose the problem here. And since we can't control the original posters, maybe we could all spend a little more time on self-restraint? </rant> Franamax (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack said, "People will ask whatever they like, and we have no say in that", and Franamax added, "we can't control the original posters", but my point in starting this thread is precisely that we do have some say. It's indirect and far from absolute, but the overall tone we set by the totality of our answers (and metadiscussion) is what selects for the posters who will ask the next questions. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But another thing we can't control is the maturity and/or restraint of the responders here. It's taken how many years now to beat Bugs into shape after he washed up here as a noticeboard refugee, and he's still just barely on the leash. And now we have Medeis partying out, casting their own personal interpretation onto every single word and making sure the entire world knows about what Medeis thinks. And StuRat carrying on as usual, giving opinions about absolutely everything in the universe, such as how your auto mechanic is going to beat you up if you look at him wrong. Would naming names like I just did help to improve the situation? I dunno. But to keep naming names, I think we did have a "golden age" for a while, when TenOfAllTrades, SteveBaker, medical.geneticist, D. Rosenbach (as well as the surviving regulars who keep providing top-notch well-thought and referenced content) and more names I've undoubtedly forgotten would offer up essay-quality answers that were just a joy to come here and read. But excellence moves upwards and mediocrity remains, or does it's best to drag excellence down to it's own level of mediocrity. I personally found that after I took "the pledge" of trying to source all my answers that I had much less to say. And even if it might (unlikely) result in questions sitting there for an extra ten minutes, I think the answer to your OP is that everyone should be concentrating on quality not quantity. I'm sure I sound like a broken record by now, but too many people here focus on seeing their sig show up as soon as possible, as often as possible, as opposed to taking pride in what they put in before the signoff. That has always been a problem at the Desks, but maybe is mounting lately. Franamax (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well put. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the way you singled a few editors out for special negative mention. That's about as provocative as you can get. But I do agree there is a lot of knee-jerk egoistic stuff going on lately. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Jack, I don't like myself singling out editors either, and I recognize it's quite provocative. But I don't think any of those three will feel blind-sided by what I've said here, as I've said it before (as have others). And ya know, I've gone much further in singling out editors for special attention here on the desks and they are gone now - which I'm not chuffed about, but it needed to be done. To be clear, I'm not suggesting block/bans for anyone present just now, the special attention was for special disruption. But we very much (IMO) need to take personal responsibility for each and all of our posts. I'll wear my comments above because I genuinely mean them. And I'll accept criticism of my own posts too and keep trying to get better. When (if) I post a first response on the Desks themselves though, me, I think the only standard is as close to excellence as I can get. And I will continue to believe that we all should be doing that, and if I'm going to criticize people, better here than on the desks themselves. Franamax (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair call. I agree 100% with your philosophy "the only standard is as close to excellence as I can get". Unfortunately, a lot of people equate "whatever I think" with "an excellent answer". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there no worm too unappetizing to bite?

Un sabroso pedazo de estiércol. ¿Habrá una perla dentro?

I have closed obvious trolling this nonsense: [1]

My question is, why are there editors who find there is not a single worm they will not attempt to swallow? And people complain about the quality of the ref desk. Just Say No. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds kind of like that one editor some months back that was always asking unanswerable (i.e. not-in-the-script) questions about plot lines of films and/or TV shows. Like, "Why did or didn't they do this or that?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But, Bugs, I luvya man, ya shoulda hatted it. Ya coulda beena contenda. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was curious about who or what the OP was talking about. I'm supposing it's a TV show. In fact, the OP has previously posted on the same general subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By which you mean the troll has pretrolled? Does he come with available sense? My hatting was without prejudice; do please reopen if you can reword a coherent and encyclopedic question. I maintain it is not otehrwise our function to buscar las perlas en el estiércol.μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Some call it manure, others call it fertilizer. :) Nah, don't reopen it. Now that I know he's got some weird obsession with those TV characters or whatever they are, we can let the sleeping dogs lie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We probably ought to have an article about Kelle Hampton. She writes a very popular blog, mainly about raising a child with Down's Syndrome, and recently published a book called Bloom with HarperCollins that seems to be selling pretty well. Rick Smith also writes a blog covering his experiences raising his son Noah, who also has Down's Syndrome. So there actually is some logic here. Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are more OPs who just don't make any fucking sense, than there are trolls. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting, but inscrutable link, Someguy. Can you paraphrase it in God's own English/American? I can't. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It means the OP might actually think he makes sense. A fairly substantial portion of the population seems to lack the ability to see things from anyone else's POV. So, to the OP, it might be perfectly obvious who all the obscure people in his post are. Thus, he feels no need to explain. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Like the OP just assumes everyone thinks about the same stuff he does. So a good response might have been, "Who are you talking about?" As with the character that wanted info on "creepy" wikipdia articles, a good response might have been, "Define 'creepy'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to be annoying, but that was the first real response in the "creepy" thread. I posted it. Many others also posted it. Before the answers devolved into silliness for their own sake, those were the responses given. Why they couldn't be left at that, I guess is a question for us, not the OP. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked about "creepy" pages, and the first responder gave them an article to look up, and the OP then made a snippy comment to the responder, and it kind of went downhill after that, so the OP is not blameless by any means.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

From the title I thought this thread was going to be about WP:BITE. I see it actually is about WP:BITE, but not the way I was hoping. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed questions

I have today removed two questions from 205.142.178.36 (talk · contribs), who has been cluttering the desks with increasingly erratic and useless stuff. This IP is responsible for two of the things discussed above, Coast to Coast and Moving to Canada. If this is not trolling, it is having a similar effect. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He also asked an extremely vague question about "creepy" wikipedia pages,[3] and then got miffed when editors couldn't figure out just what he was asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the question I should have asked here, the diffs for the deletions are: Diff and diff. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my, what "interesting" questions, from the standpoint of the question, who is trolling what now? μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You should notify a user on their talk page when you delete their questions. This person stated in the question "Time manipulation" that they were writing a comic book, which is presumably the motivation for these erratic questions, and presumably the questions are useful to the asker, and are not deliberate acts of annoyance.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you fix the attitude the OP copped when his question was too vague? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hatting of "Responding to Prayer Requests"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#Responding_to_Prayer_Requests

User 75.166.207.214 has asked, in response to my hatting the question and the answers so far: "Are the dynamics of personal interactions really not within the realm of humanities, or are they perhaps the most central of all humanities?"

My response is as follows: This is the wrong question to be asking. It's not about whether such a question belongs on the Humanities desk vs. the Miscellaneous desk vs. the Computing desk vs. whatever. It's about whether it belongs on the Wikipedia Reference Desk AT ALL. I can't remember seeing a clearer case of the answer being NO to such a question.

Ask yourself this: Would you go down to your library and ask this question of your friendly librarian? Would they be able to suggest a good reference book to answer the question? Or a good website? Very doubtful, imo. Well, we're in the same boat.

We're always telling our OPs not to trust advice they get from anonymous people on the internet whose qualifications to answer their random questions are unknown and very likely non-existent. Yet look at what happens when someone asks us questions that we have no business answering. I appreciate that people just want to help, and are well-intentioned. That is not the issue here. Our expertise is finding good references, where the work of other experts is available for the OP to read and use as they will. When we profess to become the experts in personal guidance ourselves, that's exceeding our brief, but not in a good way. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Good close. I should not have commented on that thread. 149.135.147.110 (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that, whatever the "Citizens Advice Bureau" is in Australia, in the UK it exists to give people assistance with dealing with bureaucracy in whatever form: it does not take requests for advice on interpersonal relationships. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be an etiquette question. There are books on etiquette, so, I suppose, if a librarian was asked, they would refer them there. Miss Manners, Emily Post, and Letitia Baldrige wrote several such books. StuRat (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I grant that there may be some etiquette book somewhere that deals with this type of question. I doubt it's the sort of issue that most run-of-the-mill books would address, but it's possible. The role of anyone who wanted to get involved in answering the OP was to track down such a book and tell the OP its name and preferably the page/section that deals with the issue. Or a suitable website link. There is a reason why this is called a "reference desk".

Just because the OP asked "is there any type of response that is compassionate and honest and helpful", rather than "is there a reliable book or guide to the etiquette in these situations", doesn't give us carte blanche to just start spouting our own personal opinions and thoughts and recommendations. If an OP asked which party or candidate to vote for in an upcoming election, or which religion to join, or which career to pursue, or for advice about their marital woes, or which bank to patronise, or which shares to buy, would anyone here feel it was their place to advise them directly? I most certainly hope NOT. Most of us have opinions on a wide range of matters, but the great bulk of those opinions are irrelevant to this desk and its purposes. People's desire to help is laudable, and presumably that's part of the motivation of every regular here. But that desire has to be tempered with a strong sense of where and when and how best to help others. If people want to get into the personal advice/guidance game, fine. But the Wikipedia Reference Desk is not the place to do their boot camp training. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a google search for "etiquette for atheists" revealed that there are lots of references for the exact thing the OP was asking about e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. So how come those links are provided in here, while the OP remains blissfully unaware of them out there? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the thread is closed with a whole lot of messy conversation going on underneath it. You add it in if you want. I'm not touching that thread anymore. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that the thread is open again, I've added those refs there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What the OP is really asking is, "Should I be selflessly supportive or should I impose my personal belief on them?" Is it more harmful to tell them, "I'll pray for you", which is untrue but may give them comfort; or to tell them, "I don't pray, so go F yourself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks to be a reasonable summary to me, but it's no more answerable (in RD context) than the original formulation. Apart from "consult an etiquette guide" or "ask an advice columnist", I don't see much that we should be providing as an answer. — Lomn 14:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So who do nonreligious people ask for moral advice in situations where religious people would ask their clergyman? Pais (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone they respect, whose opinions they regard as generally sensible. Looked at that way, it's nice that someone tried to ask the question on the RD. However, since they cannot possibly get anything other than an opinion in this case, the hatting was a fair call to squish an inconclusive debate before it went any further. Karenjc 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of any prohibition against personal advice in WP:RDG, only professional medical and legal advice. There is no mention of any prohibition against questions without factual answers. There is no evidence that there is not a factual answer to the question. It would be entirely within reason for a psychology or sociology researcher to explore what kind of interactions between grieving or anxious people and others with different religious beliefs result in the most parsimonious outcomes. I think the hatting and the very verbose and patronising manner in which this was hatted was wrong. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a selection of quotes from the Guidelines (my bolding):

• The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. In a library, users consult the professional staff at the reference desk for help in finding information. We don't have professional staff, so fellow Wikipedians work to find information relevant to questions posted by others.
• The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources.
• Responses to posts ... should almost always fall into one of three categories: (a) direct answers or referrals to Wikipedia articles, web pages, or other sources; ....
• Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a very easy matter to provide references to notable thinkers who have written on the matter. I suggest we focus on that. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I would love to read some. If authorities in interpersonal relations have written on the topic, then I presume that would address all of Jack's concerns above. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Being the OP who started this discussion as well as being a persistent sort, I have followed the discussion here. The discussion is a piquant mixture of answers to my question and arguments that the question should not be answered at a Reference Desk. Thanks to all for your attention to my question.

I knew when I asked the question that it was not likely to have an easy answer but I was sure that other people must have asked and answered the question before it sprang to my mind. So I seemed to me a fair question to ask at a Reference Desk.

Just for the record, my initial question included the statement that in the context described I WOULD NOT give an answer of this sort: "I am so very sorry but I don't believe in prayer". CBHA (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis is right. Here is some detailed exposition on the topic by someone who has obviously thought about it enough to churn out several pages each. There is more at http://www.squidoo.com/sympathy-101-for-atheists (that host is in our spam filter for some reason) and it's an even better essay in my opinion. Here are some briefer forum suggestions.

I'd like to undo the hatting and its commentary and add those links for the archive unless anyone objects. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I think we should do is hat the remaining comments that don't answer the question (we shouldn't be debating policy there) and IP 75 you can copy your above under the new subheading I made at the bottom of that thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#what_serious_thinkers_have_said_on_atheists_and_prayer

I have expanded the hatting to all irrelevancies and reformatted the thread, and taken the liberty of copying the body of 75.166.207.214's response there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&pe=1&#Responding_to_Prayer_Requests μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! 75.166.207.214 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No prob. StuRat seemed to have some relevant comments on etiquette above that he should probably repost as well. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have, but there seem to be some better answers given which address the specific question better than my general response. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

actually, I think your comments are independently helpful. I didn't see that you had identified these as questions of etiquette before I did. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they were helpful, but now that we seem to have consensus to unhat the Q, my response has been superseded by more relevant comments to the OP's specific Q. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed uncivil comment

I removed this edit. It was unnecessarily uncivil and unhelpful. I have informed User:Reisio. This kind of thing is totally unnecessary. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. --Tango (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 98. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Racist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, that isn't really helpful, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I could have used stronger words than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor who is looking for an Arab web hosting service has been pushing a rather extreme pro-Zionist point of view in other places, so there is certainly some weirdness here, which some editors have picked up on. But it would be best if the snarkiness would stop. Looie496 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish people, if they didn't want to answer a question, would just keep their traps shut. Insulting posters is not helpful to anybody. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wish people, if they wanted to pat on the head every person who is clearly wasting not only their own time but lots of other people's, would not freak out over a little joke. In real life he would have known he was being silly by the expressions on our faces, but this is a text medium and such subtleties are harder to pull off. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And some more

Seriously, what's wrong with you people? OK, it's a homework question. So just say, "this looks like homework" like 67... did. Don't say "no." If you can't be bothered to do that, then just don't answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Newton's Xth Law applies here. I think those terse responses were understandable reactions to being given an order, rather than a request. The question was essentially "Show that XYZ is the case". No "please", no courtesy. If the OP can't bother to even slightly reword the question as if they were initiating it, but just parrots the exam paper in blatant defiance of our rule about NOT doing homework for OPs, then they can't really expect a whole lot of courtesy in return.

Btw, I understand your frustration, but if you're wanting to raise the level of general discourse, asking "what's wrong with you people" is not exactly being a role model. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On the latter comment: fair enough. Anyway, I don't know why I allow myself to get so frustrated by this — I'm mostly irritated that I still get irritated. I guess it's because I thought better of this little corner of the Internet? But perhaps that was always a silly thought.--Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a time when I thought people could keep their panties straight and not become censors over a harmless joke not even at their expense, too. Oh, the times! ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that time was called "back in the days of Usenet". You apparently can't even help yourself from making a misogynist gibe right here. The current sites that accommodate your desire to make jokes at the expense of others would likely include 4chan or SomethingAwful, but Wikipedia is not one of them. See at WP:NPA. And it's not for you to decide what counts as a "harmless" joke, rather you should let the target of your humour make that decision. So how about if you just confine yourself to making jokes about yourself? Then we can all have a good laugh... Franamax (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The target of my humor hasn't commented on the matter at all. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And I do mean that last suggestion genuinely, I don't set out to comment on myself with any RD-joke, but I really do try to make sure that I'm riffing on human foibles which could perfectly well apply to me. And I use the double-indent-small-text notation almost always to make very clear it's a meta-comment. And never ever as the first response to a thread, unless it would be some hilarious comment where everyone could join in laughing at me, the OP included. Franamax (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we grading responses now?

I'm just curious how this started. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"We" aren't grading responses. Only Medeis is, as far as I'm aware. He started a couple weeks ago? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Those of you who wish to have Medeis alter your posts in such manner as Medeis sees fit to do, please organize an opt-in list. Otherwise I shall be reverting this on an administrative basis, until and unless I see consensus at an RFC allowing individual "ratings". Franamax (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fart. (Oops, pardon me for rudely reporting my bodily functions as editorial comments). You just missed the RfD on this, and your unilaterally deciding that you will stalk and refactor me will go straight to ANI. Anyone who wants to remove his own star is free to do so. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For how it started, take a look around here and go back and forth a few thousand revisions. The star comes in and at some point goes over to using the template here. I think it's Ec5618 using it and they are the author of the template. Medeis has challenged me on my talk page with the argument that a TFD discussion condones their usage, which the actual discussion does not. In fact, that discussion notes how it is hardly used at all - and looks to me like just a few 2006 pages. For more recent discussions, perhaps someone else could dig up the last iteration where we discussed (I do believe it was, but could be corrected)-Dweller's resurrected "thread of the week" award, which was kinda nice and worked OK-ish but got comprehensively demolished by another regular on the basis of consensus-or-don't-do-it-at-all. In any case, there has never been any established consensus at these Desks that individuals are permitted to alter other people's posts with any sort of iconography, nor to liven things up with any sort of fave points or thumbs-up. If editors feel that consensus has changed, this is likely the best place to discuss at the outset. Franamax (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's such a bad idea, except the questioners (I hate the term "OP") won't know what it means. What's wrong with just posting "good answer" in reply when you see something you think was answered well? 75.166.207.214 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the point was for the OP to place it next to the answer they like best. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OPs have no more authority to alter anyone else's posts than any regulars do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but I also thought that it should be placed after their comment, not before as I've seen people actually do it, and the one time that I've placed one I also left a small signature so there was no abiguity as to whether it was part of someone else's comment. 149.135.147.110 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's what those stars are. I thought people were just adding them to their own posts. Seemed a bit egotistical.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make that particular leap, but equally I didn't get that it was coming from another editor, until this thread. If that's not totally clear, the whole exercise seems rather pointless. That's aside from whether it's OK to dabble in other editors' posts. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this about 2-3 weeks ago, about 1-2 weeks ago I checked to see who it was and confirmed it was μηδείς (sad to say, one of the contributors I thought the most likely culprits). I didn't agree with it but couldn't be bothered making a deal of it. I would fully support anyone who wishes to revert these additions. They are unsigned and none of us ever appointed μηδείς as the official gold star awarder, and from what I've seen many of these additions are questionable (the post they are added to is often not what I could call the best one in the thread). They also have the potential to cause confusion, personally I was worried OPs would think we have some official system of marking the 'best' replies but it's apparent from this thread another concern is people think posters are adding them themselves which is likely to reflect poorly on the poster. Personally although I know it has been controversial in the past, I don't mind if μηδείς wants to give gold stars, thread of the day or whatevers on their talk or user pages or posting to other user pages when the people themselves don't mind but there's no need to clutter up the RD proper with it. (Even if we did develop a method of signing such additions, it would still be too much unwanted clutter particularly if others decided to join in. I would probably make an exception for OPs adding them if they desire.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss. If someone gives you a star (anyone can do so, and I am not the only one who has done so) and you don't want it, feel free to delete it. If placing the star before a post is seen as 'modifying' that post then I will simply place them after. I did that at first, but aesthetically I thought it looked better before. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming people always (or should always) check their posts to see if someone has added a star (or whatever else). There are also the other problems already mentioned (unsigned and confusion to both OPs and established editors over who put the star, cluttering up the desk particularly if others decide to join in and we solve the unsigned business, the fact that it's on the desk means there's more likely to be unnecessary controvery over stars which have been awarded). Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis is — to not put too blunt a point on it — an accomplished troll. He or she enjoys irritating others, enjoys getting them riled up, enjoys baiting them, enjoys pretending to put them in their place, enjoys disrupting things. Why you are attempting to reason with him or her is beyond me. He or she does not care what you think; he or she will do exactly the opposite of what you desire until there is finally enough critical mass for people to declare Medeis a sufficient detriment to the community here to ban him or her from these pages (or everyone of any seriousness just abandons the place). And even then I'd be surprised if he or she doesn't just set up a new account and continue the same actions. This is all quite obvious; I think we're well beyond the point of assuming any good faith here. This thread — like every other Medeis thread — makes it quite plain, and no doubt some snippy little comment by Medeis after this one will further confirm my point yet again. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So my putting a star, designed for the purpose, next to someone's good answer is trolling? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Every interaction you have with other users, especially those who are unhappy with something you've done, but even those who are just trying to engage, is characterized by bile. You can see it plainly up above. You can see it plainly in your edit history. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew Kibo, and Medeis is no Kibo. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Nil, it's an easy matter to put a signature as a < ! - - comment - - > in the edits to make it clear who has done what. I think it is a change of pace and a nice way of showing your appreciation for someone's effort. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much never read the wikimark-up of other people's responses, and even less often their signatures. So for people like me, and for anyone who isn't editing at all, just reading, they will never see your hidden signature. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as 203 hidden comments are not the solution. Many readers will simply never see them. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis is not a troll. She is strong-willed and not in a way that I think is a character flaw. The amount of effort she puts in to answering and correcting is very substantial. I think it's against WP:NPA to call people trolls, unless they are being so obviously disruptive that it prevents questioners from being answered. Most obvious trolls don't even come close to doing that. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, if you "don't understand all the fuss" that's too bad, but it's clear that consensus is very solidly against applying those stars in that way, so please accept it. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize what those stars were, and who was doing it. Let me make this clear from my perspective: Medeis, please stop doing this. You are not the arbiter of quality and of appropriateness around here. For the past several weeks, you have been spending an inordinate amount of time to deciding what kinds of questions and answers are appropriate and not, and to be blunt, no one needs you to do that. Answer questions you want to, don't answer questions you don't want to, and please, I am begging you, stop trying to manage the "quality" of the reference desks. It isn't helpful, and is only bound to end in heartache and discord. Just stop it and instead just answer questions. In every other time before you when someone has involved themselves with this sort of silliness, it has ended badly for them. You are not different. Just answer questions, or don't. But please stop trying to manage the desks. --Jayron32 17:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the stars themselves as being a big problem, if they're used in a way that makes plain who posted them there. As for being the arbiter of quality and of appropriateness, the placement of stars is really just a short hand way of saying "That's a good answer". I don't see how the issue of clutter is made any worse by using stars instead of a line of text. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no issue with occasional compliments and feedback, as such (as long as any one editor does not appoint themself the regular arbiter/police/inspector-general of everyone else here). But there are ways, and then there are ways. If I wrote "That's a good answer" or whatever, (a) I'd do it as a new post, (b) I'd indent it under the existing post, and (c) I'd sign it. Using a star symbol to replace those words does not mean I'd be off the hook with the other elements of the procedure. Sticking it in front of the existing post is not on. Not signing it, and thus making it seem like it was an inherent part of the other editor's own post, is particularly not on. I agree with Jayron's general remarks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have used the symbol a grand total of about half a dozen times, and every time in good faith. If I have not already made it clear that next time I use it I will place it after someone's post instead of before and sign it in the edit, I hope it is clear now. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If I am reading this discussion correctly (and without a doubt one or more will let me know if I am not), Medeis, you are being asked to desist placing the stars at all, though there is a "soft" position that adding them after a response and signing the addition is not as objectionable as up front and unsigned. As I do agree that no one of us should be presenting our individual approbation as any sort of official comment, I also believe these stars, like barn stars, belong on the responder's talk page and not on the Ref Desk at all. Like flamboyant and/or unreadable and/or unpronounceable signatures, they are eye clutter to no real purpose except to single out one person's opinion in a way not in keeping with the focus on helping the questioner and off any internal competition amongst the responders.YMMV. Bielle (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Then make this about the template, not about me. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that putting something like:

* — μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

after a post would be the equivalent of complimenting the answer in a follow-up post. But adding the star inside at the beginning of (or anywhere within) the answer is not appropriate.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think "good answer" serves the same purpose while being obviously less likely to confuse questioners, and as is clear from the above, senior regulars. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Michael J's example there is more or less ideal. @Bielle, I think the star (or an equivalent comment) does serve a purpose, which is let the OP know which answer the other editors here agree with. For questions where multiple conflicting answers have been given and the OP lacks the knowledge to evaluate the answers, other editors evaluations can be helpful as a guide. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am enjoying this fantasy of a parallel universe in which all the ref desk regulars can agree on which answer to a question is the best, and, working together as a team, place a small star next to it. It is a beautiful dream, but overambitious.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do the regulars all have to agree on one answer? Why can't they each just place their own stars/comments with a signature under whatever answer they personally prefer? 149.135.147.66 (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. The post I was replying to said "which answer", singular, but perhaps "answers" was intended. Having a single star on the best answer certainly seems more useful (drawing the eye quickly to the most interesting place) than having multiple stars, but I won't pour cold water on this idea, perhaps multiple stars could be useful too. It would have the effect of drawing attention to all the replies that two people liked, one of whom would be somebody enthusiastic about stars. This is a fairly imprecise filter, but perhaps harmless.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Will it really be worth the effort? It's just going to clutter things up with stars everywhere, and I guarantee that we will start arguing about it on day one when one of us decides that we don't think something is the best answer. This will just lead to and edit war over a tiny dot. Mingmingla (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

When Card Zero said he was "enjoying a fantasy" I assumed it was just that! Let's not argue too much over the interpretation or implementation of the fantasy, lest we prove ourselves to be the fractious lot about whom such a cooperative effort could only be a fantasy... —Steve Summit (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

For those saying there there's no difference between people commenting on an answer being good and a signed star, as others have said a comment is less confusing. Perhaps more importantly the reason why clutter is a concern here is, for all that people sometimes say there isn't enough thanks or praise going around on the RD, we also don't want the RD to become mostly about thanks and praise. The level that μηδείς has been awarding these stars (which from what I've seen was greater then 'half a dozen') is starting to clutter up the desk, and while it would perhaps be okay if they were the only one doing it, if others did start to join in at the same level it will start to get the level of being simply too annoying. Now if μηδείς had actually used these stars appropriately (they've been here long enough they should know it isn't appropriate for them to hand out stars unsigned and at the beginning of the post), I likely wouldn't have cared and probably wouldn't have bothered to comment here (unless others had joined in and the clutter was starting to get annoying) but since they did not, I think it's worth discouraging even reformed handing out of starts to the level they've been giving them. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no way of searching to tell how many stars I have given out, but it was never more than once or twice a day, and usually every third day or so. Indeed, since this kerfuffle has broken out, I have only once been tempted to give out a star, but it was for jokes about indenting by three authors (talk about "clutter"?) and so I refrained, since I did not think it appropriate to give three stars in one thread for jokes. Oh, and thanks, IP 75 for your compliments above, I do appreciate it. I do seriously put effort into my research, responses, and references, and it is nice to have that recognized on occasion. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been used on 13 pages of reference desk archives in 2012. One of those has 2 uses of it, and I used it once, so Medeis could have used it up to 12 times if no one else did. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC) *

Excellent! All but one of those stars is mine, and I stand behind every one of them. They were all given in good faith. None of them confused or cluttered anything. One about the human potential of 4 1/2 foot tall baskeball players was awarded to a questioner, rather than an answer. (Please do ban me as the "practiced troll" if that use of a single character space ruined wikipedia.) I am quite happy to award you a star, W203.27.72.5, for that most helpful response. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can see you never did move that star I gave you to your talk page like you originally said. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an end to the Teamster's strike. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to actually start properly signing your stars since you didn't here. (As me and others have commented, hidden signing is NOT a solution. Well unless you hide the star as well....) Do I take you don't stand behind your claim you've only given the star half a dozen times considering it sounds like you're saying you used it 11 times (or is that 12, I'm a bit uncertain what you mean 'all but one of those stars is mine') i.e. close to a dozen times? Do you also no longer stand by your statement 'I am not the only one who has done so' which without clarification seems a little misleading if you've used it the vast majority by far of times? Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

links in titles

These edits: [8] [9] carefully remove wikilinks from question (subsection) headings on the assertion that they would otherwise "cause problems with archiving". Now, I know a little bit about Reference Desk archiving, and the only problem I know of is that if a section heading contains too much markup, the individual-question links on the monthly archive index pages get a bit garbled. I had to go back a few years to find an example; one can be seen on the archives of the Miscellaneous desk for August 2007, specifically August 12.

But this effect was rare when it happened, and I think at some point I managed to fix the bot to not garble things so badly, anyway. So: is there any reason to be concerned about links in headings? (And even if so, is the cure -- wedging the link into the OP's question after the fact -- better or worse than the disease?) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to message Wavelength who knows such things. I have taken him on faith. Surely the correctional edits have cause no miscarriages. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63#Dysfunctional links in archived section headings (September 2009), and follow the links to the archived months in my list, and then follow the links to the cited dates, where you can see that some links to discussion headings are still dysfunctional. Links to articles can be included in questions. (Headings should not be questions.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeh'ok, but Ummit is the one who actually does "know a little bit" about the topic. :) What is the current problem (if any) with the archiving bot? The examples I'm seeing in your 2009 list are unbalanced brackets, which of course any editor is able and encouraged to correct. Is there something more recent than 2009? Because August 17 looks OK to me: apple being linked here and clickable from the archive page. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. Thanks very much for providing that link. Not only had I forgotten fixing the problem, I had also forgotten that thread where we discussed it.

But: The known bugs are adequately fixed, I think. (That the examples you cited, most of them before March 2009, remain broken is no surprise, as they were never retroactively fixed.) It should be safe to use links and other simple markup in question headings, and it shouldn't be necessary to spend time patrolling or adjusting them. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is no dysfunction with links in headings of discussions archived nowadays, I still practice caution by avoiding square brackets and certain other characters in headings, in harmony with recommended practice elsewhere on Wikipedia. An editor seeing a link in a heading at the Reference Desk might be influenced to copy that practice elsewhere on Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won't sit upon a cold stove lid, either." —Mark Twain

Steve Summit (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed trolling

I removed this little gem: [10]. StuRat (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You did more than take out his erect member, you totally rubbed him out. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He's from Pekin, so that explains a lot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not our only recent troll from the same area of the land of Barack and Lincoln. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For a hot second there, I thought LC had moved to Illinois. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Question about Oral Sex

A question about oral sex was just hatted as a request for medical advice. I don't have a problem with the question so long as we steer clear of giving any medical advice in the answers. We have sections of articles that are about this topic in particular. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the question was asked anonymously during my frosh orientation at Cornell. It could be asked and answered appropriately. But I hatted it as a second to StuRat and didn't feel it was appropriate for us to prompt the poster for a less trollsome wording. It is certainly not our place to allay psychological anxiety with quack nostrums. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The question can be fully answered without providing a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recomendation. My answer gave a relavent answer without giving advice (and actually had a couple references, which seems to be getting less common here), and I'm not happy about it being hatted. Buddy431 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's similar to the info I gave the OP on their talk page. I don't personally object to such info on the Ref Desk, but I believe the consensus is against it. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time, we had the notion that requests for medical information were fine, and only problematic if they asked for diagnoses or advice on the questioner's particular condition (which this question carefully steered clear of). But perhaps that's not the operative guideline any more. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If the question weren't hatted I'd add a link to this utterly classic Straight Dope column. —scs 23:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "liquid protein" diet. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I moved the hat to encompass Buddy's well referenced and non-medical-advice comment pending a consensus here. If a thread is hatted, it's not normally appropriate to continue to post further responses. I would prefer to unhat the entire thing (or maybe just leave the metadiscussion hatted) and just avoid giving medical advice. My reading of the question is that the OP requested some general information and then continued to give some context on why they were interested. If we take that back to a brick and mortar library ref desk, just because after someone had stated what they were looking for, they rambled on about why they want to know, doesn't mean that the librarian would then be open to charges of practicing medicine without a license. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the question clearly amounts to a request for medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see what you mean. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't provide the advice someone is looking for, but when someone requests basic, universally agreed upon public health information, it is unacceptable to say that it is wrong to provide that information because he or she is at risk of the condition it is directed against. Wnt (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The user was asking a medical question about himself. The ONLY valid and ethical response is, "See a doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering ref desk questions on the OPs talk page

Is it appropriate to answer questions posted on the ref desk at the OP's talk page? If it is appropriate, do the rules about medical/legal advice and opinions/general discussion still apply? Is its appropriateness affected by the question being hatted or removed from the reference desk? The spirit of "Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed. You must return to this page to get your answer," seems to be against it, but in practice I've seen this happen multiple times. I'd like to hear the community's take on it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ref Desk rules don't apply to other talk pages. Talk page rules apply there. The whole reason for all these rules is that advice on the Ref Desk could possibly be interpreted as "advice from Wikipedia" (even though it clearly is not). There's no possible way a talk page comment can be taken that way. It clearly represents the view of the poster, and nobody else. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

However Wikipedia rules do apply, particularly WP:UPNOT. Please read up on that StuRat, if you are not commenting on the RefDesk you are perforce commenting in context of the actual encyclopedia - so please specify which article or behaviour you are commenting on, or which aspect of the community you are trying to build, or at least be prepared to defend yourself so far as going out of your way to give out medical and legal advice. I suspect you will find judgement much much harsher outside the privileged space of the desks. Franamax (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Much harsher judgements on talk pages ? I don't think so: 'The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia.' Do you see any part of that guideline I've violated ? StuRat (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the context: "I have a serious medical concern that bothers me so much I have altered my behavior out of fear, and rather than go to a doctor and be embarrassed, I want some random stranger on the internet to tell tell me it's alright", I think it's highly inappropriate to offer any comment, including supposedly objective ones. The person is asking for the comfort of any answer so he can ignore his better judgment. We shouldn't be offering that in any form whatsoever. Given the psychological element, doing so on the talk page is even worse than doing so where the question was asked. μηδείς (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you're perfectly free to say it's highly inappropriate, for example on whatever talk page you have in mind. But it's not up to you to censor editors when they choose to share useful information with one another. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your advocacy for flouting rules and ethics is well known. Thanks for the continual reaffirmation of that fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

political trolling

I do not know what to call it besides trolling, perhaps there's a better term. Uttering irrelevant and unsolicited political opinions on the Language Desk is bad enough. Posting blatant falsehoods "they think those at the opposite end must be killed, as in the Gabby Giffords shooting" (see Jared_Loughner#Views_on_politics for the shooter's actual "beliefs"), and then, when challenged, suggesting another editor make up their own opposing political nonsense, "You can always substitute in your own example" as if a debate were appropriate, is unacceptable. We do not need to go there. Would somebody else please hat the political conversation after AndrewWTaylor's valid response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.22Reverse_Definition.28.3F.29.22 since I am involved. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to hat the discussion, as I've also posted there, but I broadly agree that the political discussion going on there has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP's question, and should probably be hatted as it's totally off topic. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not as bad as all that in terms of offensiveness, but it is also totally irrelevant to the actual question. Hatting of that stuff should be fine. Mingmingla (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should all be hatted though if at all, because its a tangential dispute that is relevant and not terrible egregious, and my recent contribution does address the OP's question. When we are not starving or ridding the boards of real trolls, these disputes are sometimes not all that difficult to resolve with a bit of diplomacy, I hope. -Modocc (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is rather straightforward. False information shouldn't be on the board at all. Off topic opinions are inappropriate. We don't all need to say everything that pops into our heads. A challenge to engage in debate, whether implicit or explicit is not appropriate. I am not interested in calling this trolling per se or castigating one person. It should simply be shut down as off topic. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps on BLP grounds only, but otherwise I don't see it. Ironically, the topic is about cherry picking, spin, and censorship too, thus there no sugar coating that this sometimes turns violent. Lets do our best though to keep the thread focused on the OP's question. --Modocc (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Without reading the conversation, I'll say that off topic content can be hatted or even (when clearly so) removed, but false information has a place here. Probably a quarter, if you're picky maybe even half of the responses to the science questions are wrong. But even a wrong response is a starting point. Wnt (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of such false information comes because many editors regard this entire reference desk as some sort of quiz show where they get to display how much they know about stuff. In their rush to be the first to answer a question, they come out with any old crap, on the basis of "Whatever I think is always the truth, and that means my opinions have the status of knowledge, and everyone's lives would be so much richer if I shared my knowledge with them. Plus, there's a good chance I'll get public praise for being so knowledgeable".

We can always rely on our trusty Neo-Alchemists to produce knowledge from mere opinions with the click of a mouse. If only it were as easy to convert base metals into gold. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I myself have given plenty of wrong answers. But I do so in good faith in the assumption that refs and links are necessary, and I admit and correct my actual mistakes and accept correction when I make them. Jack has criticized me previously, and not without good faith, although we have disagreed. In this case I think the facts are supremely clear. I am still disappointed that this wasn't hatted, and still think it all should be hatted. As I have said before, it is not necessary to say everything that comes into your head. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RD stars again

I know this has been discussed recently, see here, but I missed that discussion and in any case it has now been archived. Medeis has now added another star, see here, and I think this is ridiculous. The only reason I haven't deleted it is because he refers to the star in his comment below it, which would not have made sense if I'd deleted the star. But honestly, Medeis, I think you need to stop doing this. You are not in a position to say what is and is not a good answer. --Viennese Waltz 07:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If they want to put small images in their own comments I don't really see an issue (although equally I don't see the point either) but the problem here is that the image has been put on the same line as the other persons comment and almost looks like it is part of their signature, which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Sig#Images. This is confusing and annoying, and I agree it needs to stop. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is getting better. The original objections were because the stars were being attached to someones answer and not being signed, implying some sort of officialness. Putting a star inside of one's own comment makes it clear that it's just the commenter liking the answer. I often leave comments thanking people for good answers, this is just a form of that. I think the star should be embedded in the star givers comment, just to avoid ambiguity. This is better than it was, however, in that Medeis is making it clear who is leaving the star and why. But starring the answer shouldn't be done. --Jayron32 11:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If a good answer receives one star, then what kind of answer receives five stars?

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A good answer to a five-part question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to Medeis' actions in relation to my comment contained in the diff above. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, do you wish to explicitly opt in to a list of editors who grant Medeis the right to modify their posts? If so, please indicate here. The editor has an active final warning on this, so it would be best if you be very very clear on this. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fooling around with other editors' posts is not good, although I've seen much worse than this gold-star thingy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Franamax, when other editors irritate me they do hear about it. I love you all so much that I am regularly silent. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed trolling

I removed trolling by 76.16.47.115 (talk · contribs) and given him a warning. --Jayron32 03:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

well done! The Masked Booby (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

personal attack removed

I don't recall the last time someone has posted as insulting a response to a good faith question requesting sourced answers as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=510515192&oldid=510515003 I have deleted it as a personal attack. Asking for sourced answers is hardly trollingf on anyone's part. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the question is in good faith, it's asking for a journal reference to a discussion of a rotting cat from a quantum thought experiment; what's more, the insistence that responses lacking such citations will not be suitable makes the whole thing look even more absurd. Seriously, it's hard to take this as an honest question, I've seen the asker on here before, I have trouble believing they genuinely expect articles discussing this matter to exist. The only way I can see this as serious is if they are trying to ask about how quantum superpositions evolve in time, if that is the case, then they are doing so in an unnecessarily colourful way; and, again, I doubt that's their intent. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe a question is inane or based on misguided assumptions, insulting the person asking the question is disruptive. -- Scray (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have been insulting, especially not on the main page, that was uncalled for. However, my point is not that I think the question inane or misguided, it seemed like it was purposefully inane, as in the poster was not sincerely asking a question, but being goofy. If they had simply asked the question, I would have no problems, it is the insistence (and the way it has been insisted) on a reference for something that obviously isn't going to be in a journal as well as the later reference to a biologist. It's just really really hard to imagine that the poster legitimately had this question and came here looking for real responses. It'd be like somebody asking whether, or not, the trains in Einstein's thought experiment ended up being on time since they underwent relativistic effects; I can't imagine that you guys would be okay with such a question, especially if the person demanded published articles discussing the matter, there is little difference here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You started this apology well (about attacking the editor who asked the question), but then unwound it. You seem perplexed that others did not pile on with the criticism, but I approach answering refdesk questions in a manner that is mindful of the audience, to whom I feel greater duty than to the person who asked the question. Consider the people reading silently, both in real time and in the archive, what is better - to provide a thoughtful and verifiable answer to the question (however silly), or to disparage the question? The former approach dilutes silliness with facts and references. The latter response amplifies the silliness, may discourage others who contemplate asking a question, and encourages a troll who's just hoping to be disruptive. It's like the kid in class who asks about some titillating topic, to which a mature reply from the teacher is the best antidote. -- Scray (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This silly disparagement of the OP's question is in itself absurd. With relativity, the concept requires discarding the invariance of simultaneous events, but we point to the article about the trains running on time. As for a smelly cat, its a tad colorful, but hardly surprising considering the original analogy is about a dead or dying cat. If one wants to understand the difference between physical states that are superimposed and concurrent, verses those that are not, its natural to want to know to what extent the dead cat thought experiment is either useful or useless. In short, the request for possible references on this version was fine. Modocc (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP is making the point that the premise, of the cat being both alive and dead, is preposterous. And if that is the OP's point, then I agree with it. The red-link user was out of line in verbally smacking the OP around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All good points, and I feel the same way to be honest and would say the same to myself, I have no idea why this one question rubs me so wrong; I also don't get why it's making be such an ass. At any rate, I made my point and am being more trollish than whatever I was accusing the original poster of being, so I apologize to everyone and will just move along.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I've realized why this aggravates me. About six years ago I was tutoring someone one Laplace Transforms for a class they were taking and they just kept objecting to things with really inane analogies and digressions because the material wasn't making sense to them (it eventually did:-)) At any rate, this question reminds me a lot of something they would say, and so I assumed it was said for similar reasons, and it got under my skin. Obviously, as I can see from all your responses, that isn't the case and I read my own bad experience into the question, so my fault, please excuse me, I'm usually not this rude- I saw a very different motivation behind what I read than what was there, I'm sorry.71.195.84.120 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we drop this. I did not start this thread looking for an apology, or excoriation of the OP, just explaining my actions, since i did think the offered trichotomy: "ass, troll or idiot", was unfair. Having studied historical linguistics in quite some detail, I can imagine being very irked if someone came along and offered the Sun Language Theory as an hypothesis worth discussion. But I did and do offer my cat question in good faith. If this were a topic I were versed in, perhaps I might know where to look. As it is, I know biology, and I know that dead verus not dead is a very temporally false alternative. I am quite happy to accept links and refs at the question itself. I am old enough and have had enough friends, relatives and lovers die on me that I hold no grudge and find no importance in any dispute here. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you obviously do not fit the offered trichotomy.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed a Clearly Trolling Question

Hi, I removed a question from the science desk that was definitely trolling/asking for medical advice. I've never done this before and simply deleted the entry, is that the correct method?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well first, you should provide a link to the removal, like so. ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That said, I think it was a good removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you:-) How do you provide a link? Sorry if that sounds like a stupid question, I've never done more than provide answers on the desk, I am entirely unaware of how to do anything else (is there a useful help page?) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out where to get the link, should've just looked first before asking. Nonetheless, is there a useful help page- I know there are a lot of pages about rules and how to's and such, any that is especially pertinent? Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Help:Diff 92.233.64.26 (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should notify possible non-trolls on their talk pages when deleting their possibly good faith questions.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Would this case count as that? It was an IP that was asking for blatant medical advice and a subject that seems exceedingly unlikely to be real, or is at least rare. Or do you mean in general? If so, what would distinguish the two cases? Thanks:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus distinguishes the two cases. :) Yes, I mean in general. My evaluation, if you want it, is that this guy way probably trolling but might have honestly had some unfortunate condition, so I'd have left him a message, if it was me doing it (except I think I've only deleted trolling on the ref desks about once). Leaving a standard message on a talk page serves several purposes: it lets innocent but confused posters know what's going on, it prevents them from trying again in confusion, it's a record for other visitors to the talk page (assuming the borderline troll is lazy and doesn't delete the messages), and it avoids aggravating posters' paranoias which might be fuelled when their messages silently vanish. Oh, and it's a courtesy.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.235.206 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

deskhelp about

so if you search and need help for <math> format why does wp not return any reference you can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.106.110 (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Or (interpreting the question a third way) it could be that you needed to search from the search box at WP:HELP instead of using the normal article space search box.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

right,no one can look for help for %3c;math&gt3e using this dialog; what is its purpose ifnot to infor about wikiepedia itself

The less-than sign (as the article says), and several other characters, can't appear in titles, because there is lameness. It seems that they can't be searched for, either, and are just removed from the text of searches: a search for <3 brings up the article 3 (number) as the first result, not the article less than three. I expect it's difficult to fix due to clashes with the symbols used around tags in markup languages. Please don't delete bits of my posts, by the way, even if they aren't much use. From a pragmatic point of view, that is to say, putting aside anger at the technical limitations of Wikipedia, I think that WP:MATH ought to be very useful to you if you're trying to search for help with <math>; but you deleted this link when I gave it just now, so what information did you want, if not that guide to displaying formulae?  Card Zero  (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone remember?

There was once a drive to mark or collate articles created or improved as a result of a Ref Desk question. Sorry that's rather hazy. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration. The project is mostly inactive, but I still use the templates from time to time when something at the ref desks inspires me to fix, create, or update an article. See Talk:V. Everit Macy for one of the times when I used it. --Jayron32 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Posting that to ANI. --Dweller (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't hat things

Can people please stop hatting things? If it doesn't belong on the desk, delete it. Hatting things just draws attention to them and makes people click on them to see what is going on. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to fix anything you need fixing. If this is a reference to something I hatted, you are free to remove it. Be aware that I would be happy to remove anything I have hatted. The problem is, I get tired of hearing the incessant bitching of people who demand that every trolling question or request that we cure someone's disease must not be deleted. Hatting is a compromise to avoid that mess. If you want to remove what I have recently hatted, please, do so, but then you can defend it when people complain. --Jayron32 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That describes the problem exactly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Jayron's reply (with respect to Bugs' opinion it is perfect already :), one of the dilemmas of removal is that a group of commentators insists that each and every editor must be informed when a thread they contributed to gets removed. IMO this puts an unreasonable burden on the remover, thus the rational strategy is to hat threads (or portions thereof) as an alternative. Also Tango, you may be correct that hatting draws attention, but the real question is whether or not it shuts down the actual disruption - which IMO it does, since it is vanishingly rare to see editors adding into a hatted thread. Franamax (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point, though it wasn't my actual intent, I do agree with that side of things. The main problem is that there are a few people who treat WP:AGF as a suicide pact: they appear as though they cannot conceive that a person would do anything to merit a thread being removed. All posts, no matter how patently rediculous, must be treated with the utmost care. I tend to err on the side of good faith; I answer many questions in earnest many people would ignore or be suspect of, but even I have my limits. Some people, howver, do not apparently. --Jayron32 04:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well there is the rub: "a few people", "Some people" - who are those people? Can we progress without naming those people and entering into substantive discussion? Or are we confined to shadow-boxing? I've recently not been shy about identifying the problems (i.e. editors) I see but that is not a general trend. So should we have an honest and open discussion? For some reason I have the impression that RD disagreements have been leaking out into the encyclopedia-werkz lately, and as always, this is a very good candidate for MFD - so can we right the ship here in this venue? Franamax (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not here to make people feel bad. They all mean well. And the RD still continues to work very well. Things have been going pretty good, there's lots of good, informative, and well referenced answers to people's questions. Yeah, sometimes theres' a fight, but there's no need to overreact. I'm not really sure why you'd threaten MFD, it seems kinda petulant, if you ask me "You kids straighten out, or we'll delete the whole thing". Seriously, can't we have good-faith disagreements over a few issues once in a while without threatening to shut the whole thing down every time that happens? --Jayron32 05:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "threatening" anything and my roots are right here at the desks, so please don't make me into a monster. If you want, I could go back into AN/I history to dig up the threads, outside observers look at what happens here and question how it meets the encyclopedic mission - and I can also link a recent AN or AN/I thread discussing RefDesk editing. I will not be proposing deletion of anything, but the en:wiki project does have a history of pruning off unproductive offshoots, a fact which I believe all those who think the RefDesks have an existence of their own should keep well in mind. We exist at the sufferance of the encyclopedia.

So put up or shut up then Jayron, if you want to get petulant. Who are those "a few people" you don't want to make feel bad? Why did you mention them in the first place, whoever they are? Were you trying to encourage them? Who are they? Let's celebrate their accomplishments! Or perhaps have a rational discussion with minimal input of emotion. Franamax (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for what I said. I meant no harm against you. This thread is going off the deep end, and I apologize to you Franamax, against whom I hold no ill will, and to anyone else who had to read through this. I'm not sure where we got off track, but it's gone past the point of a productive discussion. I would love to have a meaningful discussion over ways I can improve my performance at the reference desk, I am always seeking personal improvement. But this discussion isn't going anywhere fast, so I consider my part in it done. Again, I am sorry to you Franamax for insulting you, it was wrong of me to do so. I also apologize to anyone reading for my comments in what was otherwise an important discussion to have about how to properly handle inappropriate threads. Please carry on with that discussion. --Jayron32 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

test1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
test

No small part of the problem is that the hat dealie is colored. If it were the same as the background color, it wouldn't be nearly as attention-getting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, (though you can specify a bgcolor: I'm pretty sure) I do wish there was a less obtrusive way of hatting, more like a sub-section heading so it didn't cross the whole screen. (After e/c, that 2nd test suxxorz! :) Franamax (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

??? I might have messed up the box a bit. But it doesn't look like there's a parameter to change the color. I also noticed that the background color is not precisely white. But it definitely seems much more subdued this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I can change the background-color: white in your example if you really want to see it turn to Burnt Sierra, but my main thing is that the hat spans the screen, even in your white example the "show" box is at the right side - so it's calling attention by being there at all, what normal editor puts clicky-links off to the right? (Oh yes, I think I put some red in your example, revert as you wish :) Franamax (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the red, but the point is that it's less attention-grabbing than being colored. If flat-out deletion is preferable, that will inevitably lead to yet another discussion here, nearly every time, with the usual suspects griping about the deletion. Hatting gets the point across without anyone's precious pearls of wisdom disappearing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c, replying only to the above) Srs, when you click on "show" over from your test2 hat it doesn't expand to a red outline box? Strange that. I do agree with you on the value of hatting, and I do agree it should be as unobtrusive as possible - my beef is with the "span:100%" nature of the banner, which spreads the collapse/hat banner across my browser screen, whether it's white or eggplant background. I think that is what Tango was talking about too, calling attention to the hatting. So if you can find a way to compact the hat so it looks like something a (Latin alphabet-based) normal editor would do, I'm all for that. Franamax (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It does. I was somehow expecting the narrow strip to have a red band around it. In any case, I think white calls less attention than color does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The problems with full deletions are many:

1) One person makes the decision to delete, without consensus, and frequently without notifying the OP and answering editors, or even leaving a note here. This leaves the OP baffled as to what happened to their Q, and they may repost. There may be no reason listed for the deletion, or it may be vague, like "trolling".

2) Such deletions quite often have turned out to be wrong, as a consensus develops to restore them. That is, of course, when anybody spots the deletion and brings it up here.

3) There is that Assume Good Faith policy, which means that anything which could be a serious Q should stay.

4) There's the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" problem, where a valid Q and valid answers are deleted because of some bad answers. Since deleting just some of the answers is a bad idea (people could do this to delete anything which disagrees with their answer), hatting is a better alternative.

There are also problems with hatting, though:

A) Overuse. This is similar to non-lethal weapons in the hands of police. If only used as an alternative to deletion (shooting somebody), this is good. However, you can get cops tasering anyone who argues, and editors (particularly Medeis) hatting every other Q.

B) Can disrupt the flow, if part is hatted and the follow-on answers refer to the hatted bits.

Still these problems are far less severe than all those deletion problems. I'm not saying no Q should ever be deleted, but this should be limited to those which nobody could possibly argue to keep, like say "Kill all fags !". I look to the distinction, in article space, between speedy deletion (which is appropriate for things like this) and listing it under "articles for deletion", waiting until a consensus develops, and then taking action. Unlike that method, the hatting does take place before a consensus, but those who disagree are free to unhat (versus undoing a deletion you don't even know about). StuRat (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite frequently delete sections that others have hatted (as I did just before I started this thread, although I didn't link to it because I don't want to draw attention to what was obvious trolling), and I don't think I've ever been reverted or even had any serious disagreement. I've had people disagree with unilateral deletions, though. That suggests a policy of allowing any two people to delete a question would work quite well. Perhaps a PROD-like system of adding a template to the top of a section (could hat it as well, but I don't see much benefit) and then anyone else that agrees can delete it. Can someone create a bot to notify anyone that has a signed comment in the section? That should pretty much resolve your first three points. I do agree that hatting can sometimes be appropriate for a few responses to a question, rather than the whole section, although I'd actually prefer a non-collapsing archive box. It makes it clear people shouldn't add more to that discussion, but doesn't have the same "ooo, what's the big secret?!" reaction that hatting does. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh that reminds me I hatted the whole digression from StuRat's bizarre answers about the Middle Ages the other day. I've never done that before so I didn't know I was supposed to inform everyone. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't a bizarre answer when I stated that the decline of the Ottoman Empire was due, at least in part, to the influence of religion: [11]. Some may disagree, but this doesn't make the answer bizarre.

Also, you don't necessarily need to bring up a hatting here, but should explain your reason somewhere, like in the text of the hat, and sign it. StuRat (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured you were just being a ridiculous troll. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think practical use of the Refdesk involves occasional digressions into inappropriate material - this is essentially unavoidable, in the sense that if you want to prohibit it you end up inflicting much longer digressions of inappropriate material, i.e. Wikilawyering, which is far less pleasant to read. But inevitably digressions will on occasion get too long and distracting, and there a hat can be handy. Titling hats with descriptive, rather than judgmental summaries does much to reduce their obtrusiveness. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

the archiving bot, and RD date headers

I have finally fixed the bug that caused the bot to occasionally insert date headers in the wrong order (as reported in several threads [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] on my and the bot's talk pages). It's a straightforward fix and I'm decently confident in it, but I haven't tested it at all exhaustively, so if you notice any glitches, please let me know. —02:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, whoever you are. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! This is evidently some new variant of Skitt's law.

(And the very first run of the new version had another problem, so there's more work to do...) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Remaining bug(s) fixed, I think. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again ! StuRat (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

As mentioned above. I'm interested in reviving this WikiProject. Anyone else? --Dweller (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this one. Will add my name on the project page. I enjoy writing new articles and developing stubs, but every time I go looking for inspiration at WP:RA I just come away depressed. This is better :) - Karenjc 09:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That sort of thing just comes up organically, it's not really meant as a project to intentionally create articles from RD questions. (Why it is a WikiProject at all, I don't know.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject or no, I'm pretty sure the impetus for revitalising it has come from recent ANI discussions, such as this one. I'd be interested regardless, but I appreciate the idea of being able to quantify the impact of the RD via the improvements it generates to the encyclopaedia. I have some sympathy with those who dislike the way the RD runs and want to abolish or exile it, but my own view is that we serve a purpose and, overall, the help we provide outweighs the dross. If Dweller's suggestion can help improve the evidence in support of the latter pov, then I like it. - Karenjc 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I support a revival of WP:RDAC, if it is actually inactive. I do not know what or who determines when a project is inactive. I recently added a related template to "Talk:Bribery".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Adam, the idea absolutely was to have a project to intentionally create articles from RD questions: see the original discussion on this page, five and a half years ago. --Dweller (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well I've certainly created articles based on Desk questions, but it seems rare. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the idea of the project is to encourage it and to celebrate it when it happens. --Dweller (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

True friend/s or not (Miscellaneous Desk)

I really think this sort of question ought to be closed down. How does one even define "friend/ship", let alone "online friend/ship", let alone find references that could possibly answer this question in an appropriate way for this desk?

I see the first two three respondents so far have not provided references, but have just given their (no doubt well-intentioned) advice and opinions. Trouble is, this is not the Wikipedia Advice and Opinions Desk. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

By your command http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=508206285&oldid=508203956 μηδείς (talk) 00

02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You started your reply with a semicolon instead of a colon, but I know how you hate anyone to change your indents, so I'll leave it messed up. Also, the idea is to wait for a consensus, not to immediately hat it. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There certainly are plenty of books on such things, so a reference librarian would refer people to those. Jack, it's looking like you just want to close down any Q without an exact scientific answer, which pretty much would be most of the Humanities, Language, and Entertainment desks, for a start. StuRat (talk)

We get quite a lot of these "agony aunt" style questions. I agree they aren't strictly speaking what the reference desk is for, but we can usually give answers that are useful to the person asking the question. What's the harm? --Tango (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool how that inadvertent semicolon worked out, huh? The motion was seconded and hence carried out. No one is preventing anyone from adding references or links after the hatting. The question was not deleted. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconding it is not the same as a consensus. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have tried to unhat the thread with a +1 Sword of Referencing but have been unable to do so? μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP has removed their own question now, so this one's null and void.

But no, Stu, I'm not wanting to be as hard line as you suggest. I do, however, want to see a little more rigour about what's in and what's out. It's one thing to say that there are plenty of books on such things and a reference librarian would refer clients to them. But if that's true, why did none of first 3 respondents track one such book down and give its name to the OP? You can't have it both ways. "Both ways" is when you argue in one place (above) that suitable references exist and hence it's a suitable Ref Desk question, but when it comes to actually answering the question, all we get is personal opinions, which, as I pointed out the other day up above, are meant to be “limited to what is absolutely necessary”.

And what's the harm, Tango? Potentially, lots. As I also pointed out the other day, we often advise our OPs NOT to accept personal advice from anonymous strangers on the internet. We Ref Desk people are not some special breed of human who are inherently trustworthy. As far as OPs are concerned, we are all "anonymous strangers on the internet", and our personal opinions have no more intrinsic merit than anyone else's. Telling OPs not to accept anonymous personal advice, but in the next breath providing ... anonymous personal advice, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

But that’s not even the core issue. There’s virtually an infinite number of questions that could conceivably be asked. A small subset of them are appropriate for the Ref Desk to be tackling. Questions about the mechanics of personal relationships are, in my mind, exquisitely inappropriate for us. There is no one size fits all answer to these types of things, and the few words an OP types here about their issue are just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Anyone genuinely able to help would need to sit down with the OP, or at least talk to them by phone, to get more important detail with which to help them find their own solution. It should not be about just giving people the answer; it’s about support. The way we’re set up is completely inimical to providing this type of support. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because the first couple answers don't provide links doesn't mean that the question is invalid. Plenty of hard fact questions don't get a useful link on the first couple of responses either. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think as a general rule we shouldn't judge a question by its answers. That is to say, just because poor answers have been given doesn't mean there are no well referenced ones, and the OP is entitled to ask for an answer if one conceivably exists. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the compromise is that we should hat the answers, not the question. Maybe someone could hack together a hatting template with text along the lines of "It is not within the scope of the Reference Desk to offer advice or personal opinion. Answers should be confined to those with objective references." - Two important points in the wording. First off, I think we should avoid "please ask elsewhere"-type wording, as it could be misinterpreted as a "piss off, loser"-type response (especially when coming from a formal template). After all, in this scheme it's not the question that's the problem, but the non-referenced personal opinion answers. The second point is the explicit encouragement for replies with good references, so people are clear that answering the question is still encouraged, as long as it's the right sort of answer - With such a template, we could then move answers that are too "opinionated" under it, allowing for the possibility that someone might be able to provide a later, scholarly response. -- 71.35.112.120 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful thoughts, 71.35. But it seems we've been overtaken by events, and I feel a distinct lack of general support. The latest invitation to engage in speculation (Humanities: "If a disaster destroyed Mecca, what would Muslims do …") has been whole-heartedly taken up by 8 editors, mostly old hands. In light of this, I don't see any point in even bothering to try to bring some order into proceedings here. Why don't we just cut to the chase, remove all restrictions on speculation and opinion from our guidelines, and have open slather? I'm completely serious. I'd be much more comfortable with that set up, than the current one where we say we frown on speculation but in practice we speculate on command, just like Pavlov's dogs. The first respondent was even told off by the second, not for engaging in the banned practice of speculating, but for not speculating rationally. Apparently even when you're breaking the written rules, there are still unwritten ones to be mindful of. No offence, Andy, but what a joke! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That also seems to be a Q with a reasonable reference-type answer, which was provided, that Moslems are only required to visit Mecca if physically possible. So, what's wrong with that question and answer ? StuRat (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that question was pretty much the same type as one about who would be president if Obama and Biden died, or who the next king or queen of England would be should the royal family all die. It's speculation, but there are references to what would happen under those circumstances. Mingmingla (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Mingmingla and StuRat, there was nothing wrong with answering that question about Mecca. I provided quite a few refs to wikipedia articles that the OP may have found helpful. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks all, you've enabled me to see it with different eyes.

I'm still keen to pursue the issue I raised earlier. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But apparently nobody else is. Maybe I'm the odd man out here. Most everybody else seems committed to reinventing the wheel as often as possible, to making it up as they go along, and to having a set of guidelines that are more honoured in the breach than the observance.

I think it's time I took a long break from the Ref Desk. It's suffering a malaise and I'm not enjoying it much lately. Spring arrrived here 20 minutes ago, and in the Spring a young man's fancy turns to ... other things. Have fun. I shall return, but I know not when. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, Jack, enjoy the fancy parts on your young man. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussing how people decide if online friends are true or not sounds like a really important, fundamental question in the humanities that could be pursued with considerable vigor by someone with the right training. Now, I don't have that training, I don't even know what you'd call someone who does, but it would be best to leave such questions up in the hope that they can be answered. They seem very important, not just in a philosophical or anthropological sense, but also in terms of organizing online communities and creating sites worth billions of dollars. Please, take these things seriously, assume good faith, respect people. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-criticised replies

Here's an idea: non-trivial replies to questions go into a kind of holding area, instead of being posted straight to the desk. They are honed by several editors into a consensually acceptable form, like an article, for, say, six hours. Then the result is posted to the desk as a single reply, with everybody's sigs at the bottom. (This is supposed to solve the problems of bickering, rambling on, and guideline-breaking, and to make us less trollable.)  Card Zero  (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I could be interested in the general concept. But the 6-hour thing won't work. In case people weren't generally aware, we come from the USA/Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia/NZ, and other places. I sometimes log on, to find a question has been asked, been given 6 or more answers, and a resolved tag stuck on - all while I was sleeping. So, if you want to be as inclusive as possible, you're gonna have to give everyone a chance to be involved. That means a a minimum of 24 hours. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds overly bureaucratic to me. I think the best RD responses are short, succinct answers with pointers to Wikipedia articles or external sources. This approach sounds likely to produce TLDR essays instead. If you want to trial this on an optional basis, by all means go ahead, but I doubt I will personally make much use of it. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree, except in principle. The principle is that the RefDesk is the holding area. It is true - we let the answers to the question scroll off into the archives, without even good indexing by title let alone topic, and we don't edit them down into single concise answers. All that should be done, but I think that if you want to do it, you should do so by adding the more edited final versions at new pages on Wikiversity. Except by historical accident, probably the Refdesk belongs at Wikiversity (which has its own Help Desk that largely duplicates the Refdesk's role). Starting a Wikiversity project to index, sort, merge, and condense all the answers in the WP Refdesk and its own Help Desk into a brand-new resource should indeed be a worthy enterprise. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care. I'm reacting to other people's complaints, which may be inadvisable. On the recent ANI thread, one old regular expressed vicarious embarrassment at our "wrong answers, petty bickering, rule crazy censoring of questions"; another user mentioned how one-to-one discussion in the silence/privacy of a library "eliminates trolling, arguing, competing advice"; another said we contribute to Wikipedia's "reputation as a haven for garrulous dilettantes". What they all seem to want is for us to make our mistakes somewhere behind the scenes, instead of on the desks.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I'm kind of wondering if I'm one of the garrulous dilettantes but am afraid to ask. But seriously, if we had a professional Refdesk with two or three full time employees, they'd have to be experts on many more different things to cover the position. To me, the desks are as "behind the scenes" as you can get - there is, or should be, no distinction between "employee" and "customer" in Wikipedia; we're all just editors and everyone is welcome behind the counter. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I know, any visitor can answer questions, and we are just some of the more regular visitors, distinguished only by greater familiarity with Wikipedia and a tendency to answer questions more often than we ask them. There is a behind the scenes, though: it's this page, we're behind the scenes right now. It's not a secret, it's just sort of demarcated as a place for less pretty things to happen. I'm thinking that if we made more effective use of the talk page, like posting here instead of to the desks whenever we're feeling uncertain or garrulous, the desks might become more charming. I'm gonna try doing this unilaterally and see how it works out.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to the AN/I discussion, Card Zero. I'm sort of stunned that that occurred without this page being alerted. Not everybody here regularly visits that place. It was a matter of obvious interest and concern to many editors here, but we weren't told it was happening. Pity, that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I saw it announced here, but I guess it was just Medeis's edit summary here. The thread was then alluded to here and here. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. Allusions to things are very easily missed, and even if they're not, they don't necessarily tell the uninvolved (but not disinterested) reader what they need to hear. Reading edit summaries is the exception rather than the rule for me, and I missed Medeis's.

I think it ought to be standard practice that when anyone refers any issue about this Ref Desk to AN/I or any other dispute resolution forum, they give an unambiguous notice to that effect here, with an appropriate link. An edit summary is good in itself, but is an inadequate form of notice. If the referring editor fails to provide this notice, anyone else will do. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Drink this?

I am sorry, but what part of advising an individual that drinking small amounts of deadly poisons like glycerol and isopropyl alcohol is safe doesn't fall under the ban on medical advice? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=510822568&oldid=510822335 μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bogus. The question does not ask about what not water-based drinks are safe to drink, it asks about what water-based drinks are drunk. Isopropyl alcohol is drunk as a non-water based beverage, as is diethyl ether, and glycerol, as is attested to in each of those articles. Buddy431 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the worst closes I've ever seen you do, Medeis. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Buddy claiming that there's some "safe" level to ingesting a known poison is absolutely wrong-headed. It's fair to state that some folks drink poison, but to imply that it's just fine is a violation of the no-medical-advice rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There are very many other fluids that can be safely drunk in reasonable quantities (and note that pure water is also toxic). Please refrain from unilaterally closing or removing topics. This is about spreading knowledge. It's not hypnotically forcing people to do stupid things. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"deadly poisons like glycerol" - but it isn't. "Glycerol is used as a multiple purpose GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) food additive in food for human consumption"[21] Rmhermen (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My bottle of Isopropyl Alcohol has a strong warning not to ingest and advises what horrible things will happen. Saying that it's safe to drink is ABSOLUTELY WRONG-HEADED. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As always, the dosage makes the poison. Our article gives 15 g as a dose that can have a toxic effect - this is probably a bit less than for ethanol, but not dramatically so. But either way, the proper way to handle wrong information is not to delete it, but to correct it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "safe dosage" of poison. The only "correction" possible is either deletion OR direct contradiction of an editor who would post such a bone-headed claim, thus "showing him up" in front of the questioner. Which approach is better? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is completely wrong. Water is a poison at high doses, but necessary at low doses. The same is true for vitamin A or selenium or any number of other "poisons". --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Yeh, yeh, the old "water can be poisonous" schtick. So, tell me, what dosage of rubbing alcohol is "necessary" to your health? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, but ordinary grain alcohol will kill you, too, and I'd wager it's killed far more people than has isopropanol. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) LD50 is about what will kill you, whereas I believe what the government counts on for isopropanol is that the unpleasant gastrointestinal ramifications are enough to deter most people from drinking it to get drunk. Our isopropanol article doesn't seem to mention those, which makes me wonder whether the revenooers have somehow managed to make people think this is what will happen. But I doubt it — it's too easy to test, and there are too many potential testers out there. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What size and weight of person would that be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What size and weight of person would what be? --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You said a certain amount is a lethal dose. But if you're a newborn, it would take a lot less to kill. That's why you can't ever say any dose of a poison is "safe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I never specified any amount as a lethal dose. --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Lethal doses are given in mg/kg, which applies to newborns unless otherwise specified, with the assumption they can tolerate less than adults.

Why the EFF is it so important that we be free to give quack advice? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We're NOT free to do so. Advising someone that it's safe to drink a poison is a gross defiance of the rule against giving medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not advice - information. No one is saying "you should go get drunk on isopropanol". But in terms of understanding it is useful. Once one realizes that ethanol, isopropanol, and gamma-hydroxybutyrate are examples of a general rule - that more or less all alcohols are intoxicating, and toxic (and taste bad, I assume...) - then one can use this insight to make more reasonable decisions in life (like "hell no, I'm not trying this GHB shit, there's no reason to use some weird illegal chemical when I can drink nice tasty champagne for the same effect"). It also makes it clearer to the person who does try GHB anyway that combining it with alcohol is an extra bad idea. The reference desk is about expanding knowledge, and knowledge fights on behalf of our users in countless subtle ways that we can never fully predict, but must take on faith. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A detailed search of the internet provides Pdf's that indicate that both substances are generally several (three or four) times as lethal as ethanol. The bottom line here is that we do not need to be advising readers that certain poisons are okay if you don't drink too much. It opens us up to liability, (is based on WP itself as a source,) and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Some of the prior answers were fine, one can drink all the honey or corn oil one likes till one vomits--except that even those can kill people with allergies and other conditions. We just don't need to be doing this, folks, and "I am entitled to use WP to give whatever crackpot advice I like" is way beyond the pale. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is an lethal dose for most if not all substances we can consume and regularly do consume. Indeed, many substances that are vital for our health are toxic at higher dosages. And many "poisons" like ethanol or nicotine have traditionally been used in lowish doses with minimal health implications (and most of those result from chronic overuse, not acute poisoning). "Poison" is a relative term. And the question was not even about poisons to begin with. It was a perfectly legitimate question - compare "what non-protein based substances are eaten" or "what kinds of music not based on major scale is consumed". And most of the answers were factually correct, too. This reference desk is for sharing knowledge. If you disagree with something, feel free to disagree. Don't censor. And I'd really like to see you "Pdfs" that claim that glycerol is several times as lethal as ethanol. It is, after all, a common food additive and used as a sweetener. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And once again, Medeis, we come back to your demand that a question be removed because particular answers give terrible advice. True or false, the solution to that problem is not to wipe out the entire thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, the irresponsible answers should have been deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as this will result in you and Medeis deleting every other answer as "irresponsible". This is why we don't do this. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The question was not about what substances are safe to drink. It was about substances that are drunk. Isopropyl alcohol, and glycerol, and diethyl ether, and 95% ethanol, are drunk/consumed on a pretty regular basis. Those facts are adequately sourced. I didn't know that it was wrong to provide references that answer the question on the reference desk. Buddy431 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It was wrong because you indicated that there is some "safe" level of drinking rubbing alcohol. That was totally irresponsible on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "safe" drinking level in the same way that there is no "safe" amount of ethanol to drink. I did not intend to indicate any specific level that may be drunk without any ill effects, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I did. Buddy431 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Glycerol is safe enough for humans or animals to drink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 5:40 pm, Today (UTC−4)" ?!?! That's absolute bee ess with no authority, reference or sense of responsibility. Sorry, this is unacceptable, as is other material in response to this question as mentioned by others above. I see no point in further argument, although I am curious why so many usually uninvolved accounts are coming out in favor of the right to give vague and possibly deadly advice. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The more outrageous your deletions, the more editors will feel the need to object. Let me add myself to the list, for the reasons listed above. The question didn't ask about poisons, a question should never be deleted because of bad answers, just about everything we eat or drink is poisonous at some dosage, etc. And let me add that it isn't a request for medical advice, as it didn't ask what they should drink. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No one said the question itself was a problem. The most recent answers and their restorals were. Feel free to argue that some should be restored, or whatever. Two suggestions that lethal poisons are safe to drink strikes me as good enough to close the discussion, at the Wikipedia Ref Desk--not the anythinggoes chatroom--and two restorals by previously uninvolved flesh/sockpuppets for no encyclopedic reason strike me as a good reason to involve ANI. There is obviously no consensus that the entire thread should be restored. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand why you keep insisting on glycerine being a "deadly poison". That's really a little odd. I did find a reference to pure (I assume meaning anhydrous) glycerine being capable of blistering the skin through dehydration, but that's because it's anhydrous, not because it's glycerine. My dad told me that the stuff can cause diarrhea, which I suppose could kill you in extreme cases, but that's really sort of reaching.

Do you have any case in mind where someone died from glycerine toxicity? --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you agree that the question itself was not a problem, then why did you delete it ? You should have stuck with hatting parts you think are dangerous. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely an overreaction. These poisons are not "lethal", this question and its answers did not need deleting, and the controversery certainly did not need escalating to AN/I.

Why are you so worried about glycerol? Are you getting it mixed up with ethylene glycol? Did you read the Food industry and Pharmaceutical and personal care applications sections of our article?

I wouldn't drink isopropanol, but the simple fact is that, as a poison, it is intermediate in toxicity between ethanol (which is sufficiently non-toxic that people get away with consuming it in limited quantities all the time) and methanol (which is the stuff that will make you go blind).

Now: is there any consensus for restoring the discussion? I for one found it interesting and informative, not dangerous or irresponsible. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC), tweaked 05:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that removing the whole thread was an over-reaction, and most or all of the thread should be restored. At most, the final opinion response from Graeme Bartlett could be removed, but it would be even better to counter it with a sourced response about the toxicity of glycerol, to show that "safe enough" is not a reasonable description here (if that is indeed the case). Gandalf61 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok a reference for gycerol is generally safe to handle.[22]. If too much is consumed it may lead to dehydration and kidney damage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of these data sheets are really kind of hilarious. I found one for isopropanol that said if it got on the skin, to flush it for 15 minutes with water. God forbid that rubbing alcohol should get on your skin. Admittedly it could have been talking about anhydrous isopropanol, but you know, after two seconds of running water, it's way way far from anhydrous. The dilemma is that there is probably some useful information in these things, but when it's hidden among this sort of lawsuit-induced crap, how do you find it? --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a strange notion -- expressed more than once in this discussion -- that substances such as glycerol and isopropanol are "lethal poisons", and that to describe them as anything else is wildly irresponsible. And, I'm sorry, but that's irresponsible, too. It's as wrong to overstate the dangers of something as to understate them, and if you want to get paranoid, overstating the risks could have tragic consequences, too. So let's try to regain a sense of reasonable balance, here. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on some chemistry work I've done concerning alternative fuels, isopropanol is an acceptable denaturant in the United States due to its adverse effects. Advice stating that it is at all safe to drink should never be found on the help desk. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've chatted with Russians who did drink it during the Gorbachev era... Wnt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for medical advice removed

I removed a question here: [23] where a person asks us to interpet the results of a blood test they got. That seems like a clear request for medical advice. The initial question was borderline, but the follow-on question makes a direct request to interpret specific test results as it pertains to them. This is a doctor's role, not Wikipedia's role. --Jayron32 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with the policy, but I can't deny the second question ran afoul of it. Wnt (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The first part of your sentence is what I was talking about at ANI the other day.[24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that in a culture of free expression, which Wikipedia tries to be as much as feasible, that a person is quite allowed to disagree with established policy. They may not act on their disagreement as long as the policy is in force, but expressing dissatisfaction with established policy is a core democratic value, and Wnt is well within his rights to complain every time he sees something he disagrees with. Since he's done nothing here more than that, he's done nothing wrong. --Jayron32 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)\

Agreed, I was going to say the laws of Florida do not violate the Bill of Rights. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

When he tells people to use herbs instead of seeing a doctor, he crosses the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true. So when he does, call him on it in an appropriate thread and delete it as being medical advice. This thread isn't about Wnt. Mingmingla (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And then he'll come here and argue about why he should be allowed to give quack medical advice. It may not be "about" Wnt, but he's on the short list of those who gripe most anytime we try to enforce the rules against giving professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The first question was fine; it was just seeking info: he was just asking about the effectiveness of vaccines baed on learnign that they were not in fact %100 effective. The second question was decidedly not, and we should never answer something like that. Mingmingla (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Textbook example of a correct removal. Question A sought clarification of an existing statement. Question B asked whether he, personally, could go ahead and do X without risking contracting a serious illness. Policy says we shouldn't touch the latter with a ten-foot spiked bargepole, and quite right too. - Karenjc 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research that cannot be sourced

Hello. I know the RD Guidelines say, "Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research should be kept in mind on the Reference Desk." However, are there ever times when exceptions are permitted? To give a very narrow example, if someone were to ask why some sources list Olympic athlete Walter Tewksbury with the first name "John," I could give an answer from a personal conversation I had with Tewksbury's daughter, but that information can't be used in the article because it was never published anywhere. (I should have done so, but that was a long time ago.) Granted, that is a question that no one would realistically ask, but there may come other times when a RD respondent happens to have some expertise in the questioner's topic. Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A more common example might be where somebody can just go and look, like "Is this website inaccessible for everyone else, too ?". I think it's fine to answer in such cases. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Should be kept in mind" means should be kept in mind. If you really have the answer and it's worth providing, but don't have a ref, identify it as needing a reference. Someone else may provide the reference. Collaboration is allowed. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sturat: your answer in that particular example would be better if accompanied by a link to http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ (teach a man to fish...). -NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts about guidelines

Would it be advisable to have some sort of guideline that people who contribute to the Reference Desk should stick to answering questions that they can actually helpfully answer? When someone goes to a real-world reference desk, they don't expect to get an answer from a bunch of random people who don't know anything. A reference desk in a library is not staffed by people who offer the first thought that pops into their heads and then argue with each other about how much sense it makes. If someone gives a wrong answer here we should not have to debate them to prove it. That person should just not answer those kinds of questions.

To be completely honest, I am of course specifically referring to StuRat, but it's just a coincidence that he has a particular hate for a subject he doesn't understand and which happens to be one I know well, and it's frustrating to point out that he's wrong all the time when this has absolutely no impact on which questions he chooses to answer (and I'm not the only one who has been pointing this out to him). Maybe we're all guilty of this sometimes. Certainly I also sometimes offer an answer where I have no business doing so. But as I was saying to him earlier, I don't go try to answer questions on the math and computers and science desks because I don't know anything about those things.

It's already enough of a problem that so many questions are actually just invitations for debate, as mentioned above, and this is definitely related to that. I know this can't actually lead to a real guideline, but maybe we can just stop and think before we answer: "would anyone ask for my expertise on this subject in the real world?" or "would anyone in the real world care about my uninformed opinion on this subject?" Otherwise this isn't a reference desk and we shouldn't call it one. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of helpful answers from StuRat; you should provide diffs to point us in the right direction. Honestly, I don't think genuine brick and mortar reference librarians know a whole lot about the things they're asked about - I've seen them spin their wheels more often than not the few times I've asked one about something (though as you can imagine, perhaps my requests were uncommon). Definitely they are in the "try this that and the other thing and see if you have any luck" school of thinking where their suggestions are concerned. I think this sort of incisiveness here is usually worse than actual error and debate regarding the questions. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link: [25]. Adam thinks it's appropriate to label anything he disagrees with as trolling and delete it, despite this being against every policy we have. I certainly was not trolling (intentionally trying to cause disruption). A subsequent post even agreed with me regarding the role of the Protestant Reformation, while Adam agreed that Christianity took hold later in the Netherlands than Southern Europe. It is, of course, always possible I may make a mistake, as might anyone else, but that's not what trolling means, and it would soon be corrected, in any case. I brought this up at his talk page, but he seems rather unrepentant: User_talk:Adam_Bishop#Do_not_delete_my_contributions_to_the_Ref_Desk. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not everything...just you. I just can't make sense of what you're writing unless you are purposely giving misinformation. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated on your home page, your contributions list shows your regularly delete large sections from articles, by various editors, without explanation. This shows the same arrogance that "anything I don't understand or disagree with or don't like must be trolling, so I'll just delete it". StuRat (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@AdamBishop. Provided that the wrong answers get corrected and there is debate, I don't think it's such a horrible thing. Then again, I find it far more informative reading the talk pages of articles than the pages, in general. Of course, this all assumes that the people debating are at least somewhat informed. I think, as a community, we should gently, and informally, discuss the issue with posters who frequently answer questions they are entirely uninformed about; and that we should encourage, again as a community and informally, people who provide good answers or points in areas they are informed about. Sadly, I'm not really sure how one would actually go about this encouraging/discouraging unless they are talking with the person in some other context, or some attempt at trying to give barn stars, or some such, to people who did a good job.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(I am trying to get rid of a picture in my mind of a librarian made of bricks and mortar.) I believe Wnt is right about the reference-desk librarian not necessarily knowing anything about the subject matter of the question. What he/she will know (we hope) is where to start looking for an answer. Obviously, you get a better quality of method from a librarian in a specialist library than you will from the temp in August in my local branch. That is true here. I have the luxury (it not being my job) to skip over everything on the Math and Computing Desks because (a) I wouldn't know how to look up the answer and (b) I wouldn't know when I found the right one. In Language, Science and Miscellaneous, I sometimes have a enough of a clue (or think I do) that I can start the ball rolling, always hoping that those with more and better will come along. Sometimes I am wrong. Usually when I am wrong, someone will let me know firmly and with sources. (I have had a recent example of that, where Scray discovered that I was wrong because my source, the WP article, was wrong. Everyone learned something from that exchange and -though I haven't checked to confirm- the article may now be the more accurate because of it.) As for whether or not someone would ask for my expertise in such subjects in the real world world, well, it depends. It depends on who else is around, on how much more (or less) in general the seeker knows than I do about looking for answers. Grandchildren ask me an astonishing array of questions and, together, we go and look for the answers. And, just like here, some of them I skip over and wait for a better informed person to come along.

I do believe that it is important to correct wrong answers -politely, and with sources. Sometimes the difference is a matter of opinion; sometimes it is a matter of fact. I wouldn't worry that a mistake exists, only that it not go unremarked. Of course, if someone is repeatedly making errors of fact about a subject, that may call for greater scrutiny or even the removal of the incorrect text. Bielle (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I was with you up until that last line. Factual errors should be corrected in a follow-on post, not removed. For things which aren't strictly factual, like many Humanities Q's, the case against removal is even stronger. Instead, we should present all sides. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as they are not simply us expressing our personal opinions. Opinions are ten a penny, yet often that's what's offered to questioners here in the guise of an appropriate answer to a Reference Desk question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Even then removal of individual responses should be avoided, since there will be disagreements on what constitutes opinion. Therefore, hatting is a better option. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If a post expresses an opinion, it should always be clear that it is the opinion of the external person who's written or been mentioned in the link the editor provided. It may also happen to match the editor's own opinion, but that should be neither here nor there. That's if we're doing our work properly. Unless we want to relax our guidelines about such matters. I raised this prospect above but I don't see any support for it. That means people generally think we should not be giving our own opinions as answers. If they think that, one might expect them to practise that philosophy. Otherwise they wouldn't really be thinking that way after all. Unless it's a case of "We need to have these rules for other people, but they don't apply to me because I'm special". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think there are places where personal opinions should be allowed, like "How do I stop my table from wobbling ?". There are only so many possible answers, and you can research what the experts say, if you want, but it hardly seems necessary in a case like this. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like special pleading. Can you define clearly what makes these questions different?  Card Zero  (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If a table is wobbly, it usually means the legs have an uneven length, so the solution is to lengthen the short ones or shorten the long ones. Do we really need an expert source to figure this out ? StuRat (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds absurd, when you put it like that. So, what type of questions are these, in your view? What are their defining qualities, what is the relevant category?  Card Zero  (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Questions with obvious answers" ? StuRat (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought my "or even the removal of the incorrect text" made clear that this would not be a pro forma choice. The error being removed would have to be dangerous in its implications. The guidelines are clear that we do not remove a response just because it is wrong. There would have to be another complication factor. Bielle (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, such a guideline would not stop people who don't know anything about the topic from answering - they don't even know that they don't know the topic (and sometimes they do vaguely recall the simplified Boy Scout version, mix in some ingrained ideology, and think that makes them experts). Thus, the guideline would only be used by others to attack well-meaning but clueless editors for something that is not desired behaviour, but that they can't help. I think the drama vs. success ratio will not be worth it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That this thread has not devolved into a bunch of name calling, bickering and other nonsense proves that we are capable of handling difficult conversations. If we can keep this level of discourse, I think we might be okay. If we bring this tone to the actual questions, I don't think further guidelines are needed.

As for being experts, I am a brick and mortar librarian; we don't know everything by a long shot. For example, my specialty is trivia: I have a broad awareness of a lot of topics, but next to no depth. It's useful for casual questions, but useless for academic research. We just have an idea on where to look, usually. And professionally, I do give opinions: I have to decide which resource is most appropriate (or reliable), and that is informed by my opinion, especially for cookbooks, design books, and other subjective topics. And in terms of reader's advisory (suggesting new books to read) that is entirely opinion. The important thing is that the opinion is relevant and referenced insofar as that's even possible relative to the question.

In the library, a question that we don't agree with politically, morally or religiously doesn't mean it's our business to express such disagreement. If the premise is incorrect, sure, we can show referenced objections, but beyond that, we can't chime in every time we disagree. We'd be fired for that. Those are the opinions that we don't need to see on the desks. As far as I can tell, all of this is already covered in our guidelines. We just need to follow them a little more closely. Mingmingla (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that in cases like the given example, personal opinion needs to be allowed. As some have pointed out, the Refdesk isn't exactly like Wikipedia. People come from a particular perspective, and the way that they answer a question depends on their perspective - that is true whether we are speaking of politics, herbal medicine, or programming style. I do see that it would be highly beneficial for StuRat and the rest of us to label our perspective in advance if we're going to expound on it, especially if we start to digress a little. A labelled perspective is useful data and a starting point for navigating an issue, whereas an unlabelled perspective might be confusing to readers, especially if it is a very uncommon one or the reader is sufficiently unfamiliar with the background to recognize it. Wnt (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StS and others that such a guideline is unlikely to be beneficial. As for the specific issue, StuRat does have an apparent tendency to try and answer questions without any apparent research, even when their knowledge of the subject is apparently minimal, something which they've been criticised by multiple different people for. I don't think there's much we can do to change that short of threatening action which is IMO a step too far. The best thing is to continue to point out when they say things which are either wrong or unsupported. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pointing out when things are wrong (and not just in my posts), but not when they are unsupported. If they are right and unsupported, there is no need to criticize, and if they are wrong and unsupported, criticize it for being wrong, not for being unsupported. We seem to have some people here who are more concerned with an answer be supported than it being right. In that you can find support out there for just about any crackpot theory you want, this is easy to accomplish. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If an unpopular opinion has support, that's annoying, but fair. Just find more support for your side to refute it. If it's really so crackpot, there's usually no point continuing the argument anyway since crackpot theories are generally entrenched. Those are the kind that of arguments that end up creating these huge debates anyway. Voice your objection and move on. In the library, these are the cases where we just smile and nod. The OP can read the refs and decide for themselves. The Mingmingla (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we have to point out when other contributors have given an incorrect answer is really the heart of my problem. When giving proper answers, should it also be our job to point out the wrong ones? Why should the reference desk work like that? Why should that be an extra burden? There is a much easier solution. Stop giving wrong answers. It is totally irresponsible to think that you (or anyone) can just give any random answer you want and expect the rest of us to clean up the mess. Especially, as in the case that set me off yesterday, when the answer doesn't even have anything to do with the question, and having to correct it is a pointless and unhelpful digression. And if you don't even know when you are giving wrong answers...then what are you doing here? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But what do you do with wrong answers? Do you delete them? If yes, then anyone who thinks they are right is going to remove answers they find wrong (or at least some people will) Since anyone can come here and answer questions at will, do you eventually block people who are frequently wrong? How would you even determine this? There are already a lot of debates, if people are sanctioned for being wrong, or answers removed, then you're going to move them to the talk page; the difference is that the asker doesn't get to see multiple view points and confuses the situation. I don't see any clear way to tighten guidelines that will actually do anything given the open nature of who can answer and what gets asked here; not that I necessarily think we should anyways. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is without support or knowledge or the topic, we have no way of knowing if an answer is right. It's unresonable to expect someone to have to provide evidence an answer is wrong if they have doubts of it. In other words, they shouldn't need to know or have evidence it's wrong to challenge it. It's you responsibility to be able to provide references when challenged. Part of that means often you do have to know what you're talking about, otherwise you have no way of knowing whether such references exist. Remember, this is the Reference Desk, not Yahoo Answers. At the very least, when you have no real evidence or knowledge that your claim is correct, but just want to say something for whatever reason, it's best to mention this at the outset.

Of course it's not simply a matter of providing references, on the whole people here usually accept answers if the person appears to know what they're talking about even without references. The problem which you perhaps still don't seem to understand is me and from what I've seen others say they to simply often do not trust your answers because history has shown you are often at least partially wrong (most likely because of the reasons I outlined in my initial post). When Nimur or Jayron32 (two random examples I could think of off the top of my head) provide answers without references, they usually aren't challenged simply because they usually only do it when they do know what they are talking about. And to be honest for them or a few others (e.g. AnonMoos who I often don't agree with), even when they are challenged it's often clear it's a case of legitimate disagreement by differing sources rather then just being wrong because they didn't really know what they're talking about.

It's also not just a matter of the historic quality of the answers but the type of answers. Particularly in humanities and related areas, it's often much more of a grey area. This doesn't mean it's a good idea to provide random ideas you read at 5 am on a website with funk backgrounds and garish text. While our standards don't have to be as high as articles, ultimately we should generally aim for something near there. In other words, if what you're presenting is so weakly supported so as to have no chance in hell of being in an article, it's quite questionable if it belongs on the RD, at the very least it should be presented as such. It's not that we want people to provide references to any crackpot theory, we'd rather they not mention them at all (but if they do want to mention them, references will help people to realise it's just a crackpot theory, as I said mentioning it at the outset also helps).

Of course there are some cases when references discussing the particular issue at hand barely exist or perhaps to exist but only in the form of an entire book in the subject. Even in such cases, if what you're presenting is sort of your own thesis it still helps that your basic claims to support the thesis are supportable by mainstream sources. To some extent, it helps to do some critical evaluation, if you're making a claim you know is likely to be challenged rather then waiting for challenges to roll in, it's best to get ahead of them by providing some references.

Again, all this does require you to have some idea of what you're talking about, or alternatively do some research before answering. To be clear, I'm not talking about wobbly legs, I don't think anyone here really is. Also you aren't the only one who is perhaps a little too quick to rush in and provide answers, but it does seem you're a common perpetrator. And since you were already mentioned by name and the subject of discussion here, it seemed okay to mention you further. Nor am I claiming I'm great in this regard, although I do usually attempt to provide references when I'm not sure.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Educated and informed guesses or speculation that may eventually lead to the correct answer should be welcome on the RD. Indeed, I recall being at a real-life RD in a library, and of course the desk person does not have personal knowledge about everything. In that case, her attitude was, "Let's see if we can figure that out," providing options that could be checked out, and eliminating obvious incorrect options. It was a give-and-take process, not always a definitive "this is the answer".    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The key term here is "educated and informed." A minimum standard for that ought to be something like, "have read a serious book-length monograph on this specific subject in the last 5 years." It cannot be, "I sometimes watch the History Channel and thus have vague notions about how history works." --Mr.98 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a little excessive. One shouldn't need a professional academic's level of expertise to direct people to a Wikipedia article, website, or book to help them through their question. The key is not restricting people from answering questions because they don't have complete, perfect knowledge of the answer. Instead, we should be encouraging people to answer questions based on providing references to Wikipedia articles or external sources. It's fine to answer a question that you only have a passing knowledge of, so long as a) you make it clear that you only have a passing knowledge of and b) you clearly direct the person to places where they can read more details. --Jayron32 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider having read a book on a subject in the last half-decade to be a "professional academic's level of expertise." That's the definition of "informed." OK, maybe you've read a few long-form serious magazine articles on a topic. That counts for me. But for questions that are of serious intellectual import (which is to say, nothing that is on the Entertainment desk or is just about folks in the news), I think being informed is a rather higher bar than you're making it out to be. If someone asks (to pick a recent example) why the Middle East has been on decline in the 20th century, I don't think you can make a truly informed and educated guess just by Googling around for five minutes, much less just making something up based on a bad memory of things, unless you actually are someone with substantial historical expertise. An historian can quickly suss out historical answers even in different fields pretty quickly, in the same way that an engineer can quickly figure out what the right questions to ask are relating to engineering problems; it looks easy but it's really just falling back on patterns of thought and competency that were hard-earned. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Michael J here. We frequently get these type of collaborative solutions at the Computer Ref Desk. The first responder might suggest one thing to try to fix a problem, then the OP reports back the results from that attempt, which gives us more info, and maybe another editor than suggests something else to try, etc., until we get the correct solution. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagnostic computing is its own thing — that's a process by which you are trying to fix something you can't directly access (someone else's computer). Such an approach should not be applied to questions of history, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It could apply to history, too. In response to "What were the causes of the Cuban Missile crisis ?", you might get several answers tossed out there (some by people who actually witnessed the event firsthand). Later responders might have their memory triggered by some of those early answers and expand on them, etc., until eventually you get a comprehensive list of causes. Collaboration has the power to yield answers better than any one person can give, regardless of the field. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nimur's take, as usual. Here's the thing: if answers decay into people regurgitating things that they half-remembered from a television program years ago, then it's no better than Yahoo Answers. That means that everybody who actually knows something will move on somewhere else. And then you won't get to actually learn new things! So do yourself a favor and shut up when you are really out of your depth. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling rather singled out and then piled upon in this post, so let me point out some examples of those of you who are attacking me doing the very same things you accuse me of:

Here's Jack commenting in Wikipedia policy only 18 minutes after the Q was posted, without any link provided to said policy: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Question_about_the_Columbine_massacre [26].

Attacking you? Methinks thou doth protest too much. My criticisms are of your behaviour, not of you personally. Please don't compound the issue by hyperbolising.

Where would one find a policy that says "Unless a person actually does X, and doesn't just talk about it, it's not appropriate to categorise them as X"? That decision is simple common sense, not a matter for reference to policy or rules. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's Mr. 98 speculating about the likelihood of a future event without quoting a source (there are sources in that post, but none related to the chance of that future event): Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Could_a_former_two-term_President_run_for_election_if_a_repealing_of_terms_limits_was_also_on_the_ballot.3F [27].

Here's Adam Bishop responding within 12 minutes, without references: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Why_are_so_many_actors_from_Canada_in_the_Final_Destination_films.3F [28].

Here's Nil responding without sources: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Keeping_external_hard_drive_in_case_of_a_fire.3F [29].

And all these happened just today (or 28 hours ago, in Jack's case). I'm sure if I went through your histories further back, I could find far more, and worse, examples. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew I spoke too soon when I said this was a reasonably civil discussion. I will say it now: I don't always ref. We each as individual editors should recognize that there is an issue with frequent answers with not enough refs. That is demonstrably true, as indicated by Sturat with his examples and with Sturat's own answers. Refs aren't always required by our guidelines, but can we at least agree to make some extra effort to try and provide more refs? I can't imagine this is too much to ask, is it? I'm probably being naive... Mingmingla (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I nearly always provide a reference or have one at hand, is my criticism allowed?—eric 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, Mingmingla, that this discussion is no longer civil. Sturat was called out for specific behaviors. Many posts later, in polite words and without undue commentary, he gives diffs for those who have called him out that he feels show them doing at least one of the same things. As long as it goes no further here, we are still quite civil. I haven't checked the diffs because I already knew that almost all of the regulars -if not all of us- put up answers that appear to be "guesses" or WP:OR because we don't always show sources. Some are more scrupulous that others about sourcing; some are more careful than others about restricting their responses to areas where they have personal expertise if they are not showing sources. My best advice would be to qualify everything for which you don't have or show a source so that the OP is not taking an opinion as the definitive answer. Then, if we are challenging the response someone else has given, do so politely and certainly with a reference. On the other side, we could each take time to note how often our responses are challenged in particular subject areas. In those areas we might be best advised to just skip those questions at least until others have responded, and only add comment later by way of sourced views. As for me, I am taking my own advice: I am no longer going to answer in areas requiring knowledge of human body processes. I've made two mistakes in the past year, both of which were corrected, but my errors were, if nothing else, an unnecessary distraction. Bielle (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Bielle. I agree almost completely. I would just change one bit: "...we could each take time to note how often our responses are challenged proven wrong in particular subject areas. In those areas we might be best advised to just skip those questions...". Otherwise, you can get somebody out to cause mischief who just challenges everything you say, for no apparent reason. We should ignore such people. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I said what I said very carefully, Sturat, and I meant "challenged". (While there are a couple of regulars that I might put into the category of "setting out to cause mischief", from time to time, most of us are trying to do a good job.) In my suggestion, it is the provider of the response who is doing the judging of what constitutes a valid challenge to it. "Proven wrong" is too high a standard for assessing one's own work, I think. It is a rare person who admits to wrong, even in the face of clear evidence. At most it's a waffle -"well, that may not have been exactly right, but this part was fine and you did . . ." The Ref Desk would be a calmer and more useful place if we were each to recognize that our views in certain areas end up in drama. All that I am suggesting is that, having seen that happen, to wait until others have responded and then to comment with references. It's just a matter of self control, isn't it? Bielle (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)