Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 97

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Header width

The header on RD pages seems to have got wider in the last few minutes, so the RD menu is no longer visible on my (non-wide) screen without scrolling. I guess somebody has changed a template, but I haven't found which one. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See "New RefDesk header" above. If you are able to edit fully-protected pages, I've noted a few of the oversights in the thread above. Matt Deres (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive search not working?

When I try to search the ref desk archives I am told that the page doesn't exist and that "You may create the page "Prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Adding search terms in the subsequent search box results in the same message.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The message is a standard part of the wikipedia search engine, I'm not sure there's a way to change it beyond petition developers (perhaps not to show it when prefix is entered). Are the search results as expected? They are when I try a random search. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussions (good and bad)

There can be a list of criteria (maybe five or 10 or 15, for example) that qualify a discussion as exemplary. For discussions that meet every criterion, there can be a subpage listing links to the archived copies of those discussions. For discussions that meet none of the criteria, there can be another subpage, listing links to the archived copies of those discussions. The first subpage might be called "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Showcase" or "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Hall of fame". The second subpage might be called "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Closet" or "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Hall of shame". Each of those subpages can have section headings corresponding to the different reference desks. There can be annotations for some or all of the links listed. "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines" can have a link to each of those two subpages. (Unfortunately, a discussion that seems to be a perfect candidate for the first subpage can be subsequently disqualified by one bad contribution.)
—Wavelength (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's been discussion before on the meritorious thread idea, and while I don't remember the particulars, reception has generally been poor. As for the other side of things, just no. WP:DENY makes just as much sense in RD space, and a "hall of shame" undermines that. — Lomn 00:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reason for not wanting the second subpage (the one with examples of how discussions should not be), and I thank you for reminding me of that policy.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We could use the Resolved tag more often, perhaps. What about a "could I have some further responses?" tag? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are links to archived copies of talk page discussions somewhat related to this one.

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 93#RD stars again (August and September 2012)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 72#cool question repository? (June 2010)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly against the "cool question" notion. Leave that for the notes and queries sections of papers that want to sell copies. In terms of good answers, it's up to the OP to decide what was helpful. A simple "thanks, just what I was looking for" from an OP should be sufficient feedback. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To prevent inappropriate efforts to have particular discussions recorded in a list of Wikipedia's worst Reference desk discussions, trusted editors can select certain discussions as textbook cases of how askers and answerers should not behave in a discussion, and then close the list to further entries. The Guinness Book of World Records (now called Guinness World Records) closed the section on dangerous stunts to further records, because of the danger that they posed to people seeking notability. See "Guinness Closing The Book On Dangerous Stunts" at Daytona Beach Morning Journal - Google News Archive Search (15 October 1981).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, it is not my intention to embarrass either present askers or present answerers, despite the suggested subpage names.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When I opened this discussion, I deliberately avoided mentioning my own ideas for criteria, but now I am mentioning some of them, so that editors can understand better what I have in mind.

a section heading that is both adequately brief and adequately informative
a question that is clear and concise
answers that are clear and concise
a signature and a timestamp for every post
correct indentation for every post
correct use of language in every part of the discussion
polite use of language in every part of the discussion
supporting links and references

—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"being pedantic about the language skills of perfect strangers is kind of an asshole move."

This this little essay reminded me of how frustratingly dense answerers can be on here with regards to poorly-written or poorly-posed questions. In general we ought to be more forgiving of bad grammar, bad spelling, and so forth. Not only WP:AGF, but don't assume your job here is to try and make people feel stupid. If you can't hack that, don't participate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What he said. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Very wise. On a related note, John Scalzi's very brief essay on The Failure Mode of Clever ought to be mandatory reading. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. John Scalzi's blog is a great read in general, and that particular entry on it is particularly germane to the tenor of the reference desks. --Jayron32 16:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there are cases where the spelling, grammar, sentence structure etc., are so bad, we can't actually decipher the question. In such cases, we really do need to tell them the problem, so they can attempt to correct it. Also, in cases where their spelling is so bad that a Google search would fail, then we should correct their spelling so they can successfully search for their answer. Then there are posts like Time Cube, which are so nonsensical we can't do anything with them at all. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this in response to a specific incident, or just a general comment? μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Layout of ref desk page headers

I would like to suggest that the header on the ref desk pages (box reading "Want a faster answer? ... Main page: Help searching Wikipedia ... Search Wikipedia ... Search reference desk archives ...) is made a little narrower. On my system it pushes stuff off the right of the window, requiring horizontal scrolling, which is always a nuisance. I think it could be made narrower without sacrificing anything much. 86.160.213.0 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Better yet, is there a way to make it automatically adjust it's width to fit the available screen size ? StuRat (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New RefDesk header

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Okay, it's been a while now and I haven't seen any complaints regarding the suggested changes to the RefDesk boilerplate, while I have seen a number of !votes of support. Due to vandalism a few years back, the various templates that go into making up the headers are fully protected, which means that an admin needs to make the changes (ideally, one who really understands how they fit together as, from what I gather, it is not a straightforward thing at all). Do we have a volunteer from the audience? :) Matt Deres (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Seconding this - please? I thought Matt has a great idea; several people have given positive input and no one has objected and the discussion has continued for more than two weeks. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we retain the "and may remove" wording for the medical and legal advice. We do occasionally get questions that are bad enough that they should be removed outright rather than just hatted. Without that wording we are eventually going to get into a brawl on the talk page with the outraged OP told that we used to warn people, but we removed the wording. Given Matt's open invitation to do so, I am going to reinsert the phrase. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I second this going up as well. Someone who can read the edit history could probably contact the last admin who changed the template. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be Froth, but his WP time has been very intermittent lately. Matt Deres (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the rough draft of the proposed new header is here. I agree your addition is reasonable and have added it there (nothing against the rough draft in the earlier thread, but it needed translating into wiki-markup and user space seemed a reasonable place to hash all that out). Matt Deres (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Once someone has a final version ready to be just copied over to the relevant template/s?, add an editprotected template and link to any consensus here should be enough to get the change copied over. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message for an admin (I hope, I think User talk:TenOfAllTrades is an admin). 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message for Froth; hopefully he's online and has the time to help us out. For some reason, the bot archived the previous discussion to Archive 96 instead of Archive 97. Not sure why, but that's why you couldn't see it. Matt Deres (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The pages you're going to want to edit are Wikipedia:Reference_desk/header/howtoask and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/header/howtoanswer. They're just regular wikitext. Regards .froth. (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot's behaviour is to be expected. According to the config for MiszaBot in this page, the counter is still 96 'counter = 96'. Note that the bot does not care (and probably doesn't even know until it tries to use them) what other archive pages exist. If archive pages 1-1000000000 exists it's still going to use archive 96 if that's what the counter says until it reaches the set size limit. (At least for the normal archiving system, those using a dated archive page will function differently.) If no archive pages exist, it's still going to create and use archive 96 if that's what the counter says. If you want to change what archive page it's using, you need to manually adjust the counter.

At the time you created archive 97, archive 96 was just over 100k. However the bot is currently set to a size limit of 200k ('maxarchivesize = 200K'). So the bot is going to continue to add stuff to it until it reaches 200k. (IIRC from the way the bot used to work, even if you add stuff so the page is over 200k the bot may still add one more thread before it moves to the next page so I think manually adjusting the counter is ideal if you start a new archive page when the bot is still set to use the old one.) 200k is generally considered a reasonable archive size on pages with reasonably frequent discussions like this one, to make browsing of archives, and location of stuff you can't search easier. While also being not too unreasonable for those on slower connections only checking out one or two threads they know the location of. But if you want to change the archive size, I doubt anyone would object.

Anyway, to reduce confusion I moved stuff from archive 97 to the archiving order location in archive 96. I also checked and there doesn't seem to be any discussion of archive 97 besides this one, nor any links (from what links here) although I would have missed discussion which e.g. used WT:Reference desk/Archive 97 and other shortcut formats and only did a manual search of archive 96 since I presume nothing in archive 95 and older referred to stuff in archive 97. (Archive 96 could have since some of the stuff came from after archive 97.)

Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering Admin A decision has been made to replace the boilerplate at the top of the RefDesk pages. The new text can be found here, and the instructions about where it should go are immediately above this text. There is also a comment field on the proposed new text page which shows where the two should be split. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Monty ₈₄₅ 04:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little weird to have the two ask a question buttons so near each other, but it appears from the above discussion that the revision has support, but I didn't see any discussion of removing that one. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right. I didn't know/realize/consider that the existing "ask a question" button was separate. One should be removed. Also, I didn't take into consideration the menu on the right hand side taking up space so that, for me at least, the page does not fit on the screen. The search boxes should probably get trimmed from 60 down to 40 or 50. Thank you for your help. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but if you don’t so much know HTML/CSS well (or simply don’t care), the least you could do is not protect a thing so only you can edit it.¦ Reisio (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Full protecting the headers was a necessary step after a well known troll a long while ago. The troll appears to have reformed, but it will be hardly surprising if someone else tries the same thing. As I mentioned above, the best way for this to be handled was for someone who does understand how the templates work to propose the exact changes before hand and petitioning someone to come and make them once they have consensus and an exact proposal. This is a fairly standard way of dealing with changes to both fully protected and semi protected pages. While the RD isn't that important nor the header widely used, it's still the sort of thing for which ideally changes should be made without requiring re-editing to fix mistakes. In other words, I'm not sure if it was really ideal to make these changes live anyway although the header is a fairly complicated layout making sandboxing fairly difficult. I started to make a sandbox but gave up when I decided it would take too long for someone thing I'm not sure if anyone is going to use before it gets out of sync. It may be easier to only sandbox the parts needed to test. Alternatively if no one is confident enough they can propose a change which will definitely not break anything (confident enough they can ask someone else to copy it over who doesn't understand what they're doing) and hopefully work as expected it should be possible to seek help from someone who could. This isn't a criticism of Matt Deres, but I note no one else who cared and understood what to do (I didn't for the former and while I may have been able to for the later, I obviously had little desire to) volunteered to help design the changes that I saw. As I mentioned in an earlier post, and reemphasised here, there's no reason most this part had to be done by an admin. Working out precisely what is needed, testing it where possible, getting consensus and then asking an admin to edit the protected page via the editprotected template is a normal way of dealing which such things including for templates. If the admin needs to spend too much of their time working out what is needed this makes it far less likely a change will be carried out, the whole point of the editprotected template is it should be a simple edit for the admin. (And even if a small amount of live testing would have been acceptable, we definitely did not want a lot if it, so it's not like it was that big of an inconvenience.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I read up to “necessary”. Don’t be absurd. One person does something that 1) has always happend on Wikipedia 2) cannot ever be stopped, and you cut off 99% of editors that could maintain a page? That is absurd. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I undid the part of the change that placed the two search-boxes side-by-side (technically, in adjacent cells in the same row). The result of that formatting was that the box is fairly wide (2x60char input fields), which caused side-scrolling on small monitors. Having it as two separate rows prevents forcing the box to be wide. This problem (side-by-side too wide) and solution (above-and-below) has been discussed multiple times on various refdesk talkpages over the years (previous implementation was my work from 2010 pursuant to one of those discussions). DMacks (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Do you also have the ability to remove the redundant "After reading the above, you may ... ask a new question" section? 184.147.123.15 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/howtoask removed from Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! 184.147.123.15 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks. It looks awful up there now, but it always did; at least now the horizontal overflow is back to normal. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New template glitch / can we add suggestion people provide links?

I believe I am seeing two "ask a new question" buttons, one just below the other?

If that is indeed a glitch, I assume it can be fixed.

I am also wondering if it might not be helpful to add a line with or after "tell us what part of the world your question applies to" suggesting "give us a link to any web address or wikipedia articles you are asking about" or something similar. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Others are invited to improve the suggested prose--I am not so enamoured with "you are asking about". μηδείς (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Please include links or addresses for any relevant web sites or Wikipedia articles". StuRat (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

StuRat's version is good. That should go well as a stand alone comment under "tell us what part of the world your question applies to" μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but generally speaking people never read that stuff. I have been a sporadic ref desk user for years and I have never once read that blurb at the top. Instructions telling people how to ask questions are largely a waste of time because no one imagines they need to be instructed. 86.160.87.95 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's much shorter than it used to be, which is definite progress. For that reason, I'd vote against adding to it further. Of course the tone could be more direct/attention-getting, such as (instead of the "How can I get my question answered?" section): 184.147.123.15 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do this:	A few "don'ts":
* Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.	* Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
* Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end - this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.	* We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
* Post your question to only one desk.	* We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
(Optional but helpful: Tell us what part of the world your question applies to and link to the web sites or Wikipedia articles you mention.)	We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

Republicanism

We've got five (as of now) disruptive [1] or nonsense questions posed by this User within the last hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Republicanism I have warned him to stop on his talk page. [2] I hope an admin will take action should this continue. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what sock drawer he fits in? Is this Bowei Huang or someone else? --Jayron32 03:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Bowei Huang as I mentioned here [3]. Beyond the similarity in question type and style and occasional participation in RDE, there's also the fact that they came around not long after MX896 and an Australian IP was also asking similar questions. MX896 was blocked although not linked to BWH. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There's only one of those I'd call a nonsense Q. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of being contrary, StuRat? You are quite aware he's spamming us with vague invitations to give opinions and engage in debate, at best. There's little point in objecting to that observation with the comment that you think you can understand what he's talking about. The ref desks aren't about answering any question we can manage to find some sort of sense in. We have standards ever so slightly higher than that.

I also note your playing good cop at Republicanism's talk page. I suggest we do indeed look at this as a matter of self-policing. Because if this were to go to ANI I don't think the question raised by non-ref desk editors would be so much how to discipline Republicanism as it would be why do we need a ref desk at all if it can't be properly managed by those who volunteer there? μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On matters like this we have make a judgement between malicious trolling or incompetence on the part of the pestiferous editor. I lean towards the latter. Still a bloody nuisance. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have to make any judgement at all. WP:CIR. Bad output is bad output regardless of the intent behind it, and disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior even if it lacks outright malice. --Jayron32 06:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes as I noted above there was never strong evidence Bowei Huang. It didn't mean he wasn't eventually banned. Ditto with the other editor I mentioned above (who's also back again). Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Jayron, there's a big difference between "While you might mean well, you're inadvertently disrupting things - please refrain from contributing until you know how to do so constructively" and "You're being disruptive! You must be a sockpuppet of a banned user!". Your two comments in this thread taken together seem to indicate you've taken the latter approach here - I doubt that's the case, but that's the impression they give off. If you want to instigate a sock puppet investigation, it's best to support it beyond "he's displayed disruptive behavior - no judgement call required". (Again, I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying that's how this thread reads.) -- 71.35.98.191 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to offer to mentor the user Republicanism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand my point. I wasn't saying that Republicanism should be mentored. I wasn't saying that if he should have been, I would have been an appropriate person to do so. I wasn't even claiming that Republicanism wasn't a sockpuppet. My comment was regarding the tone of the discussion here. What I was trying to point out is that there is a big distinction between a user making incompetent edits and a user being a sockpuppet. The former isn't sufficient for conclusion of the latter - heck, it isn't even necessary. That's what I was trying to point out. The essay WP:CIR is simply pointing out that disruptive edits are disruptive, regardless of intent. It is overreaching to extend that to saying that disruptive edits are prima facie evidence that the user is a sockpuppet. If HiLo (at the time he posted his previous comment) was still undecided about the incompetence/malice distinction, he would have been unlikely to agree that the user needs to be "[fitted in a] sock drawer" because of it. The process by which incompetence and malice are treated are different, even if the eventual result for intractable cases may be the same. - Process matters. It's the difference between organized rule of law and cowboy justice. -- 71.35.98.191 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bowei and his endless sockpuppets have been a royal pain for a couple of years now, if not more, so the "tone" you're griping about is due to built-up annoyance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And let's be clear, as I've said several times it remains unclear whether there is any malice on the part of Bowei Huang. However his disruptive behaviour has led to being blocked and therefore sockpuppeting is forbidden, whether or not there is any malice. Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIR. Blocks are made for results, not intent. --Jayron32 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The odd thing is that he keeps asking the same questions over and over. Maybe any opinion-requesting post could be boxed up ASAP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Republicanism has now been blocked as a sock of Bowei Huang. [4] by a checkuser. Guess I was mistaken about Bowei Huang's last edits likely being too old for linkage via a checkuser. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good. Classic case of (at least currently) incurable incompetence. (I always try to retain some hope for improvement, at some time.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The worst thing is that had he just posted one of those questions he'd not have been blocked. This brings me back to the psychology question above. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"By their fruits ye shall know them". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Judith and StuRat both approached him sympathetically on his talk page, yet his response was two (now deleted) posts on my talk page. A shame. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are questions of moral value acceptable on RD?

Disclaimer: I think if people look at my small history of RD answers, they'll see that I'm willing to attempt at answering questions that many others would consider unworthy of the Reference Desk. So I may butt some heads with this question and any ensuing discussion, but also anyone checking my history will know that I don't mind rough discussion, so don't pull any punches if you do want disabuse me of my RD-inclusionist ways.

I don't want to debate the actions of User:Republicanism, but my question may have relevance to some aspects of that case. But just know that nothing I say should be construed as suggesting that Republicanism's questions themselves should have been treated any different from how they were.

When a user asks whether something is good or bad, I don't really see this as only a request for mere, unverifiable opinion. Maybe it is just an attempt at trolling, but I don't think it's necessary that it is. So on a charitable reading I just take it to be a question concerning the discipline of ethics. Now maybe some editors do believe that ethics is just mere opinion. That's fine, I don't want to try here and now to convince others that it's more than that. But holding the opinion that ethics itself is a matter of opinion is not enough to overrule the significant viewpoint that its not. That is to say, there are, I think, sources which lay out ethical theories and make ethical statements, and these sources are considered reliable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. To me, that seems like enough: If some work on ethics is published by a mainstream academic press or journal, and this work can offer an answer (even if not the right one) to a question as to whether something is good or bad, then such a question is acceptable on the Humanities Reference Desk. And it goes similarly for other questions and other reliable sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While I generally agree that if a non-trolling, non-advice question can be answered with reference, it should be, I don't know if I can support this. It's not that they don't deserve an answer, exactly, but I'm not sure our community is really in a position to do so. Ethics might be a well-studied field, but if I'm not mistaken, the details can vary a great deal between cultures. Better to avoid the minefield entirely. Mingmingla (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A question of "whether X is bad" is an unequivocal invitation to debate. A question as to "whether X is bad according to Y-ism" is a totally different thing, but one we rarely encounter. Even then it may be trolling, since I don't want people reading this to think that a whole spate of random "is X okay according to Z" questions will be tolerated. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You should know I respect all your answers Medeis,

Given that philosophy is the root of most modern science, and today plainly at the heart of the humanities, of course we can answer questions about morality. There are any number of sources both for general analysis, e.g. John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Sandel's Justice, or Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. And of course there are innumerable sources for the morality of specific actions or systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Questions about morality" is fatally vague. "Specific questions about morality" might be acceptable. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Explicit requests for sources on ethical questions are fine (which is rare though), and there may be some odd questions that just need to be left alone long enough for the more resourceful responders to have the time to provide interesting sources. Otherwise I'm ambivalent and do not mind whenever trolling nonsense gets shut down. -Modocc (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken everything you four have said to heart. I propose adding to the guideline here: "The reference desk is not for asking open-ended questions as to whether something is moral, immoral, good, bad, right, or wrong. Such questions should be made with regards to a specific ethical theory, philosophy, religion or worldview. For example: Questions like "Is lying wrong?" are unacceptable. Questions like "Is lying wrong according to Kant?" or "Is lying wrong in Islam?" are acceptable, assuming they also meet other policies and guidelines." So questioners asking the open-ended ones can be directed to this guideline and requested to re-ask the question with more specifics. This helps in avoiding pointless debate and trolling, but also rightly directs those questioners who are honestly trying to get references and answers for ethical issues. Obviously a whole spate of questions on this topic should not be tolerated, but I think that's true for any topic. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that in spirit, but I think the debate disclaimer already covers it. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One problem we have is the tunnel vision of some of our editors. We get a lot of questions about institutions or practices in the USA which don't say they are about the USA. The questioner is simply not thinking of the wider world. So a question of "Is lying wrong?" can really mean "Is lying wrong in mid-western American Christianity?" Is that OK? HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not okay. The OP can ask what sources do you have about the attitude of this Church toward lying. We can't speak on their behalf to say what they would find OK. The OP needs to reed the refs we give him, not our interpretation thereof. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

Should a link to Wikipedia:Teahouse be placed on the section "For help specific to the operation of Wikipedia:"?···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 09:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That article needs a better illustration. The teacup has been sitting there so long that leaves have fallen into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate of fire

[ref: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013_January_22#Sustained_rate_of_fire_on_all_cannons_of_the_Civil_War]

I did not try to offend anyone by my statement, but I asked a simple question and I was treated like a little child. I have served in the USN and traveled the world over. The first question was answered by either a lady or gentleman was very rude. I asked my question and really got no answer. The I did not read down far enough to find the answer that I wanted. The lady or gentleman that gave me the answer of about 12 rounds per hour, I do thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.166.195 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't responded to any of your questions, but I am sorry that your experience hasn't been the best. What my compatriots were trying to tell you, with varying degrees of success, is that Wikipedia is a global project and terms like "civil war" are vague because they've been used in so many times and so many places. See, if you and I were sitting in a bar together and I asked for directions to Springfield, you'd assume it was the one closest to us, but that doesn't work when we're in different countries; you don't know what Springfield I'm talking about. To be honest, some of the attitude you experienced is because, by and large, Americans seem to have a more difficult time understanding how "un-local" the rest of the world is. Yours is not the only president, yours is not the only senate, and yours is not the only Civil War. The relevant article is American exceptionalism (and, less euphemistically, Ugly American). Matt Deres (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the ridiculous overreaction from Alex, and Matt's typical response above ("americans are vain"; give me a break) and those that followed, you got some decent answers. You could have just googled the exact same question. Your follow up version was just plain silly. There's a lot of silly anti-americanism on here, and similarly, the anti-commonwealth mentality. Silly nationalism is par. Quit making such a big thing out of it, at least like this. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shadowjams, the "Americans do X" bullshit is not appropriate or necessary or true. The OP's threads have been closed by Americans and moved here by Americans, and an apology would not be out of order. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the questioner needs a slightly thicker skin if they are going to ask questions on the internet. As to the civil war lots of countries have had them, and as to the other businesses mentioned without context like a president and a senate Ireland for one can claim all three, if claim is the right word to apply to a short but bloody civil war which incidentally also involved field guns. I don't think there are any civil war buffs in Ireland who try and recreate it though! Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Give it time.... Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All the IP had to do was say, "American" Civil War, instead of going off on a rant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All everyone else had to do was ask for clarification in a non-confrontational way, or to simply avoid answering the question if they didn't know how to. Either would have solved the problem much better. --Jayron32 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience has been that even asking obvious clarification questions like "Which Civil War?" leads to some of the more sensitive(?) among us telling me that I should have been able to work it out. I think it's important to educate questioners that it's important to make their questions as clear as possible. The reality is that there is an awful lot of American editors and readers of Wikipedia. Even if it's the same proportion of them as from other countries who ask questions biased towards their own country without making it clear that they're doing so, that means a larger number of Americans will. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's even more pointed than that. Sometimes the message is like: "Not only should you have been able to work it out, but I know you in fact have worked it out, and you're just playing dumb in order to make the point that people should specify what they're talking about". We all learn from these sorts of interactions, but in saying that, I don't know that there's any easy or quick fix. There will always be a tension between:

those who believe a reference is self-explanatory
those who are genuinely in need of further information, and
those who can work it out but feel they shouldn't have had to.

Best we can do is minimise it. Maybe if some were more prepared to be a little more specific in their posts, and others were prepared to be a little less global in their perceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To me, the bottom line question for the original poster is, "How badly do you want to know? Are you here to learn, or are you here to hassle us because we're not mind-readers?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But Bugs, the real tunnel-visioned ones won't even understand that they're hassling us. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is that our problem? Is it our responsibility to de-dense the dense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem in this case is that no one gave the OP a chance to prove their lack of density before they were jumped on for not fully explaining themselves. Yes, we are not mind readers but neither is a question asker, and as such we should avoid assuming they'll react badly if we ask a simple clarifying question. If someone, the first to respond, had just asked. "Sorry to bother you, but there have been a lot of civil wars in history. Could you clarify which one you mean?" and then everyone just kept quiet until the OP responded to that sort of question, we could have proceeded from there. The main problem is that everyone started with the assumption that the OP was an idiot, and made pointed, obtuse, and borderline insulting responses which put the OP on the defensive; it isn't any wonder that they reacted badly when they came back to see what responses they got and ended up with the kind of silly hostility that was greeting them. Did the OP need to clarify which civil war so people here could answer intelligently. Yes, but they were never given that chance. --Jayron32 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view the thing to have done would have been to make the obvious assumption that the OP was asking about the American Civil War and answered the question on that basis. I don't agree that we should be educating questioners to make their questions country-specific. It's not a big deal. Just answer the question already! --Viennese Waltz 10:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted below, the OP still doesn't seem to realize that this is not a US-only website. As an American, I immediately assumed "USN" meant "US Navy", just as I figured he was probably asking about the American Civil War in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. Those are the obvious assumptions to make, so why bother asking the OP to clarify? I couldn't care less if someone doesn't specify their country and the country they're talking about is as obvious as this. --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The question could be whether the ones who started jumping on the questioner (who only posted the one time, by the way) was because they truly didn't understand, or if they were just being nitpicky in the style of Cuddlyable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, is USN the United States navy? I stuck USN into Google and it just came back with a whole page of returns about Ultimate Sports Nutrition. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Google?! There's an encyclopedia around here some place, with its own search function, and I'm reliably informed (by myself) that if you search for USN you get United States Navy. Try it some time. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry yes so it does. I normally use Google to resolve what a name refers to though - I don't rely on Wikipedia for that sort of thing. In fact by WP:COMMONNAME if we had an article of USN it looks like there would be a strong case for it to refer to that food supplement! Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The first reply was rude? The first reply politely asked if you would mind telling us which civil war you were asking about.(Since there have been an awful lot of them.) Apparently you did mind, but the reply was in no way rude. APL (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ikr... "Do you mind telling us which nation's Civil War you have in mind, please?". "Please"? What an attempt at talking down to someone... But in all seriousness, perhaps if the OP had taken part in the question's discussion prior to it being archived, they would have noticed that some things needed clarification, and it wouldn't have gone on this long. I would have guessed U.S Civil War though... despite being from Australia - that is, Australia, Earth, to clarify. HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was pretty easy to guess he wasn't asking about Australia's civil war, or not even this one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether we are trying to actually help people or are competing in some sort of game for attention, affirmation, cool-points, what have you. It's one thing to ask for a little clarification but it's another to be willfully dense to prove a point about someone else's allegedly narrow worldview. If you don't like a question, or a questioner, then ignore them, move on, let others deal with it — your contribution will not be missed (unless you are SteveBaker). And no, the fact that the OP got irritated at such pedantry and said silly things as a result does not validate the original jerk move in any way. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jayron's got it right here, folks. (Mr.98, too.)

To anyone who's insisting that it's vital to "educate" people on the proper way to ask questions: Yes, certainly, it would help if people asked better questions. But: breaking news: people as a whole are never ever going to learn this. (And then again, by about the same argument, it would help even more if they'd learn the answers to their questions such that they didn't have to ask them in the first place, and then where would we be? Where do you draw the line?)

Anyway, as this thread shows, if you insist on "educating" people in this way, you are going to end up annoying them, precisely as the original poster was annoyed here. You are, pure and simple, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You should also revisit this thread up the page, and read the linked-to essay. (It's about a slightly different issue, but the sentiment is exactly the same.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that OP's often don't return (as with this case), the most obvious approach to the question would have been to say, "If you mean the American Civil War, then the answer is..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

...which is what someone did, once someone with the answer came forward. I still think it's fair that the posters were (sort of) trying to clarify the country - even though the U.S Civil War is the most likely answer, no-one should have to go through every Civil War in an attempt to guess the correct one HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 07:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I saw so much over-reaction going on. Alex Tiefling's initial response was:

Do you mind telling us which nation's Civil War you have in mind, please? It makes a substantial difference to the answer to your question.

When Crisco said: American, most likely, Alex responded with:

Probably, but I didn't want to make the crass assumption that people who say 'the Civil War' and expect us to just know which one they mean are all Americans. There was a Civil War over here in England (indeed, a complicated bunch of them) in which the use of cannon was crucial - to take just the other really well-known English-speaking example.

What we had so far was a perfectly fine and pleasant and courteous request for clarification, followed by a perfectly fine and pleasant and courteous explanation of why that clarification was sought. If you read the 2nd post again, you'll see that the reference to Americans was not to have a swing at Americans (as some here seem to have read it), but to explain that he was NOT, repeat NOT, assuming the OP is an American, which is exactly why he needed the civil war to be identified.

Then jpgordon comes along and accuses people of being "snippy and unhelpful". That was where this all started going bad. There was nothing either snippy or unhelpful about anything AlexTiefling wrote. But jpgordon's characterisation may have put ideas into the OP's mind, because now he's accusing Alex of being rude and treating him like a little child, neither of which was ever the case as far as I can tell. If anyone's been treated rudely here, it's Alex (although I'm not accusing the OP of that).

Now Shadowjams is calling what Alex wrote "a ridiculous overreaction" – to which I remind him of pots and kettles etc. If a simple request for more information so that we can provide the OP with an accurate answer is a "ridiculous overreaction", then bring on the crystal balls by the truckload.

Jayron is asking that such clarification be sought "in a non-confrontational way" – please identify anything that was remotely confrontational about it.

APL can't see any rudeness in Alex's posts. Neither can I: quite the reverse.

On the other hand, Handsome Nick says it was an attempt to talk down to the OP; but he seems to now be backtracking with "no-one should have to go through every Civil War in an attempt to guess the correct one".

Alex hasn't back to defend himself, and I wouldn't wonder he's left WP for good if that's the way he's treated for doing exactly the right thing. If what he wrote was so bad, can someone please suggest a form of words that would have been more suitable as a request for clarification? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry Jack, I should have made my sarcasm a bit clearer, I thought I was going too far at first and scaled it down. I just found it funny that the first reply was considered rude, when Alex asked "please?". HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry for misconstruing your post. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Far from leaving WP, I hadn't even seen this thread! My life is quite busy at the moment. Thanks for stepping up to my defence, Jack. You've understood my intention perfectly: I'm really surprised at the accusations of rudeness. I certainly can be rude, and I've apologised to a few people recently for being snippy in various discussions around WP. But this wasn't one of those times. I genuinely wanted to help the OP clarify the question, because I have a pile of dead-tree reference books at home which might have been useful in the English Civil War was being discussed. I grew up in an environment where 'the Civil War' always meant the English Civil War, just as 'the Last War' always meant WW2, even after the Falklands War had come and gone. I really wouldn't want to assume that such uses, innocently meant, were the exclusive preserve of crudely-stereotyped lazy Americans. Whilst I certainly don't like American Exceptionalism, I also fiercely dislike the many unfounded accusations of exceptionalism that are hurled at American editors here. If anyone is able to explain how I've been rude in this case, please let me know; apologies, where due, are sure to be offered. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, if the OP had initially posted with his IP instead of a one-shot user ID, the question need not have arisen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't really affect the general point on how we should response to such questions.

But personally, I believed long before this blew up based both on the obvious similarities in names as well as the question type and wording that the editor involved is a sock of User:Wrk678, themselves almost definitely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kci357/Archive, User:Kj650 and the so many identities besides, both linked and unlinked. (Although the connection between Wrk678 and Kci357 was never firmly established mostly because I couldn't be bothered wasting my time finding the evidence. And I'm not sure whether anyone bothered to clearly establish the link between Kci357 and Kj650.) Their response (both wording and tone) to the which civil war issue only served to support my view (in the past they've usually dismissed reasonable criticism of their questions or assumptions). Of course with only these few contributions, it's difficult to be that certain. And I am a bit surprised by the geolocation data although it is an IP for a wireless connection so it may not be particularly accurate.

I actually opened a case on this before it blew up but it was rejected based on insufficient evidence/fishing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrk678/Archive. I don't blame the CU/clerk, in truth I somewhat suspected a response like as that's a fact of the way we operate on wikipedia and one of the reasons I often don't waste my time with SPIs. (E.g. I noticed Wrk678 long ago but didn't push for them to be blocked until that nonsense about a rape victim, similar with other identities both theirs and previous problematic editors.)

However if I am correct, it seems that after I pursued them more vigorously after the rape victim nonsense, our friend has now taken to changing identities even more frequently then in then in the past where they either waited to be blocked or to when they got a few warnings. Now using them for only one or two questions and also using apparently highly dynamic IPs. While the CU/clerk never responded to my question on a range block, if I'm correct this seems unlikely to be possible (and if I'm not then perhaps there's no need). Since they don't seem to be a troll per se, the only real option would be letting them be as we have in the past, and blocking when they do go overboard again whether it's to do with celebrity nipples, immunity to choking, how to speed in suburban streets or whatever. At the very least, since they came back as Wrk678 they seem to have toned down their behaviour on the encylopaedia proper. And if I am correct about all the recent identities, they are possibly defaulting to RDS slightly less.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone come up with a rate of fire btw? Ssscienccce (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As the OP mentions above, a figure of 12 rounds/hour, with a suitable source, was eventually provided. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article submit

I am trying to find any articles for the submission for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bone Eater if you can find any sources for the book I would hope there would be somthing usful.--Oh Goes the Waterholes (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical advice question removed at Science Desk

I removed a medical-advice question and its answers, (diff). Nimur (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

question about sickness removed at Science Desk

I agree with the above, but on the other hand, this edit was not justified. The edit contradicts the guideline at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines in two ways.

First, it uses a template that marks the collapse with "close request for medical advice". Not only is the section clearly not a request for medical advice, but the answer by StuRat says "I believe Jayron incorrectly removed this Q as a request for medical advice". This difference of opinion should have been discussed here. See WP:BRD.

Second, the edit summary ("The default position is not to give free medical advice, nor comments without links or references") misstates Wikipedia policy. W:RD/G says "General medical questions ('What treatments are used for diabetes?') are fine." and "it is still helpful to contribute from your areas of personal expertise." There isn't a "no comments without links or references" rule in the guideline, and the requirement in the edit summary is higher than the standard for Wikipedia articles (WP:V), which is that all material must be verifiable, and all material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Nothing that StuRat wrote is likely to be challenged, and if someone does challenge statements such as "Genetic variation causes individuals, even in a family, to have different immunity to each disease" or "young children tend to be far sloppier with hygiene" we can easily give citations supporting them.

I am all for following the guideline about medical and legal advice, and I am fine with erring on the side of caution in marginal cases, but I am against inventing new requirements that are not found in our guidelines and shutting down conversation based upon these made-up requirements. As W:RD/G says, "Many people have their first Wikipedia experience asking a question at the Reference Desk and it is a good opportunity for us to build goodwill with the readers which in turn can help the encyclopedia." It does nothing to build goodwill when we don't follow our own guidelines or when we label something as a request for medical advice when it clearly is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The OP is asking for an explanation of his sickness--as far as we know it might be cancer, worms in his drinking water, or mental illness, none of which can or should we be commenting on, and the "response" is StuRat's usual off the cuff baseless opinionating on ever single question regardless of expertise or links and refs. There's no question here we can answer and no answer has been given. I am closing it again. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

First, did you even bother to read the question? He asked why he doesn't get sick. If he was "asking for an explanation of his sickness" (which he isn't), I would have agreed with your actions, and no doubt so would StuRat.

Second, you are attempting to enforce your view on this by edit warring rather than discussing and seeking consensus. It's WP:BRD, nor WP:BRRD. -- you are at 2RR now and if I decided to edit war myself (which I refuse to do), I have no doubt that you would instantly revert, putting you at 3RR. Please self-revert your last edit and seek consensus through talk page discussion.

Third, you did not respond to my comments about you making up new rules that are at odds with the actual guidelines. Are you willing to make a commitment to stop doing that? If, instead, you believe that your "no comments without links or references" rule is in the guidelines, please explain the basis of this belief. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The OP in that case asked why his family gets sicker more often than he does. No one here is qualified to answer that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No one here is qualified to edit Health#Self-care_strategies either, but nonetheless it remain editable. The issue is not whether anyone here is qualified to answer this question. We can find sources that cover the legitimate scientific question of how much effect genetics vs. environment have on general health. The issue is whether telling the OP about some of the known contributors to poor health or good health which are behavioral instead of genetic is giving him medical advice. Why is it that I can advocate things such as washing hands with soap and brushing and flossing teeth if I am editing Health#Self-care_strategies, but not if I am answering a question that isn't even close to being a request for medical advice? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter was requested. I have given this deep thought. My official position on this matter is this: Meh. I hope that provides the additional input everyone needs to resolve this issue. --Jayron32 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Best. Answer. Ever. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an actionable request for medical advice, that's for sure.

StuRat gave a fine answer, which remains despite the unnecessary hatting.

(To avoid confusion, I'm splitting this discussion off from the thread above it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can only assume that those people who thought it was a request for medical advice were unable to decipher the bad English from the OP. I took it to mean "Why do I get sick less often than the rest of my family ?", which is certainly not something you go to the doctor to determine ("You want to get sick more often ? Well, what you need is an injection of HIV !"). StuRat (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about μηδείς/Medeis. I noticed that she sees herself as the Enforcer Of The Rules, collapsing whatever she sees as being not allowed. The problem is that she makes up her own rules and edit wars to enforce them. For example, look at the rule she enforces in [5] and [6]: μηδείς/Medeis made up a rule that says that all responses must have citations. (the actual rule is that comments which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need citations. See WP:V.) and the second edit was a re-revert without discussion, which violates WP:CONSENSUS.

After Jayron32 (Motto: "Meh.") collapsed a discussion and StuRat reverted her and gave a good reason[7] μηδείς/Medeis ignored StuRat's explanation and re-reverted[8] rather than discussing.

When I posted the comment that starts this section and reverted his edit while urging her to discuss it here,[9], and with a UPPER CASE comment saying "PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE"; μηδείς/Medeis made a comment here and re-collapsed the discussion three minutes later.[10] For those keeping score, at this point she has been reverted twice by two different editors, and she is still using reverts to push his version. So I am seeing a refusal to follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, and a definite case of WP:OWNERSHIP.

The only remaining question is one that only μηδείς/Medeis can answer. Will she stop violating Wikipedia policy voluntarily, or will I have to bring this up at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U so that she has the choice of following Wikipedia policy or being blocked from editing Wikipedia? μηδείς/Medeis, I strongly urge you to stove edit warring and to discuss these issues here. I realize that, like most people who violate Wikipedia policy, you probably think that you are right. And I also acknowledge that you may be right and I may be wrong. If you stop reverting and discuss your actions, you may very well convince everyone here that I am wrong (and of course in that case I will accept consensus) Please talk it over with us. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still a medical question about his family, and no one here is qualified to give him advice on that point - only a doctor can do so. It never ceases to amaze me, how so many editors here are so eager to violate the rules against giving medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You are begging the question. You have not yet established that the rules were violated or that the section in question is asking for medical advice. It appears to me that the consensus so far is one editor agreeing with you and three disagreeing (2 to 3 = no consensus). Please don't accuse other editors of being "eager to violate the rules". That is an insult, and a clear violation of WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that some people are -- perhaps accidentally -- attempting to enforce a slightly different rule than we actually have. The official policy is: medical information okay, advice about your specific medical condition bad. But questioners have a tendency to mention themselves in, and even personify, what ought to be a perfectly abstract, hypothetical question. ("I was wondering"; "Suppose I ingested", ...) And then some responders tend to latch on to the personal pronoun in the question. So instead of "requests for advice about your medical condition are prohibited", we end up with people enforcing the non-rule that "questions in which you mention a medical topic and yourself are prohibited." —Steve Summit (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah give it up, Baseball Bugs. StuRat was right, it was nothing more or less than a request for information as to why some people (e.g. some members of his family) get sick more than others. Nothing wrong with that so move on. --Viennese Waltz 17:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think there are no users here that are eager to violate the rules against giving medical advice, then you have not been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you aren't going to get out of the hole you have dug that easily. You didn't say that some random vandal is "eager to violate the rules". You said that I was. Again I tell you, before you make claims about why I violated the rules, you need to establish that I actually did violate the rules. Which I didn't, as four people have already told you. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (not 100%, but still pretty sure) Bugs isn't talking about you anymore. He's probably got someone else specifically in mind. There are some users who do have an idiosyncratic and non-consensus view that there should be absolutely no prohibitions against medical advice at all on the reference desks. Those users have been reminded that they should not act on that view, and have recently stopped doing so. I don't believe Bugs is accusing you of being one of those users, merely that he is noting the existance of those people. I agree that bringing such an issue up here in the context of this discussion is a bit of a non-sequiter, but the core of his argument is truthful. There are people who don't believe in the "no medical advice" prohibition, and until a few months ago, they used to violate that rule with glee. It has died down, but the memory of the conflicts this caused has perhaps left some scars that Bugs is somewhat imprudently reopening here. Of course, he can speak for himself, and I may have misread the situation entirely, but in my assessment here I don't think Bugs is referring to you specifically. --Jayron32 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies to Bugs for misunderstanding him. I would like to add that I am 100% with him on keeping medical and legal advice out of any Wikipedia page. It's a no-brainer: the wrong legal advice can ruin your life and the wrong medical advice can kill you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayron has it figured right on all counts, and I apologize also for being so aggressive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to answer a question we can imagine the OP might have asked, but didn't. It's not our place to give unreferenced answers like StuRat's to any questions, whether they make sense or not, and it's not our place to assume that every question is inherently valid unless a US Supreme Court case rules it valid. In case of doubt we refrain from giving medical opinions. We are not qualified to tell the OP why his family gets sick. If anybody wants to take this to an ANI again, feel free--although the last several times their opinion was that the RD should be shut down-they just didn't act on it. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think that every response must have a reference. We have no such policy. And you seem to be the one who misread the Q. As for ANI, they don't care about the Ref Desk, so anytime you waste their time discussing it, they are bound to just wish it would go away. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

μηδείς/Medeis, it is not your place to decide what the rules are. We have already established that your imaginary rules do not match Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and we have already established that you are willing to edit war to get your way. If I see you doing it again, I will take the appropriate steps to deal with your disruptive behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Medeis, ~~can you please just shut the f**k up about ANI.~~ you always do this, calling on this supposed higher authority to support your stance about how the Ref Desk should work. We exist because WE say so and as long as WE have a consensus that WE should continue. We are not here because of the lofty beneficence of administrators, and their collective opinion of the Ref Desk is as irrelevant as the Ref Desk's collective opinion of ANI. I know you have some history with ANI, and not usually on the right side of the fence, and that may have conditioned your attitude to them. Me, I've never had any sort of experience with ANI at all. Ever. So I wouldn't really know how they operate except in the broadest general terms. But I do know they don't have the power you constantly attribute to them. They just don't. Please get out of your head all ideas about "having us shut down" (your frequent threat) by ANI or any other organ of Wikipedia. Please refresh your knowledge of WP:Consensus. Someone who cares about the Ref Desk will be working to make its operations improve continuously from within, will not be looking to any external solutions, and will certainly not be hinting (or worse) at threats of closure. That sort of talk is for petty demagogues who don't realise how powerless they are. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The point about ANI is that it's there for emergencies. The quality of the administrator action that you get from an ANI post is variable. Still, I'm alarmed to hear that ANI suggested the refdesks be shut down. Perhaps the refdesks could benefit from an external peer review. I would value Guy's opinion on that. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt if there was a serious suggestion that it be shut down, more likely just an off-the-cuff comment: "If you're going to keep bothering us about minutia like this, rather than handle it yourself, I wish the Ref Desk would just shut down." StuRat (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be very interested in seeing where this alleged conversation took place, and what led up to it, and an explanation of why it was never drawn to the Ref Desk's attention (other than what Medeis has said about it). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ANI is a noticeboard for getting issues to administrators' attention. It would certainly not have the power to close the refdesks, although if there were frequent criticisms of the refdesks aired there, then some people in the community would pay close attention to them. This talkpage is the correct forum for meta-discussion about the desks' health. If there is something we can't resolve here, then we could take out an RfC, or go into dispute resolution, or initiate a wider community debate at the Village Pump. I do quite like the idea of a peer review, because we are, or should be, open to suggestions for improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There was some suggestion here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#Is the Reference Desk even necessary?, but bear in mind that only about 3 people suggested it. It probably didn't help that a long discussion had taken place on ANI before any non RD regular had butted in. It may have been mentioned or suggested one or two more times in recent ANI discussions, I can't recall for sure and perhaps I didn't see them anyway, and can't find any now. But anyway as Itsmejudith and others have said, it's quite unlikely an ANI thread will directly result in the RD being closed. That will need some sort of RFC or far wider discussion at a minimum first.

Perhaps more interestingly, if you check out the discussions, you'd find that will providing inappropriate advice is one concern and answering questions that shouldn't have been, as is providing unreferenced personal opinion answers rather then references; another big concern is allowing problematic editors free rein. (During my research, I found someone who said the RD is well known as a place where people seem to think AGF is a suicide pact.)

And however well meaning μηδείς may be, I'd think they'd find if someone actually puts together evidence for a case most people would view them as part of the problem rather then part of the solution i.e. an example of how we allow people way too much free rein. While my personal belief is a cross between BB and J32 for the question that started this thread (and therefore probably closer to μηδείς then a number of other people), it's clear that many of their closures and other actions are disputed.

Even if (and I think it's a big if), their more aggressive stance is closer to what people outside the RD would prefer, their lack of consensus, frequently unwillingness to discuss their actions and in particular inconsistency* is not likely to be viewed kindly. It also doesn't help they often see connections which just aren't there, e.g. the thread above (or perhaps recently archived) and I just came across this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Please block User:Ochson for forging my signature, and editing other's comments.

(*) As I've said before, in a number of areas albeit perhaps not medical advice ones, they seem quite willing to do the stuff they complain about or try to close.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to answer a question we can imagine the OP might have asked, but didn't.

On the contrary: OP's questions are often muddled, and we must often read between the lines.

It's not our place to give unreferenced answers like StuRat's to any questions, whether they make sense or not

It is our place to answer as many questions as we can. (Furthermore, not-making-sense is often in the eyes of the beholder; some of our regulars do a much better job of -- correctly -- teasing out the OP's intent than others.)

and it's not our place to assume that every question is inherently valid unless a US Supreme Court case rules it valid.

Your exaggeration concerning the Supreme Court does not advance the argument.

We are required to (and usually do) assume good faith of our questioners.

In case of doubt we refrain from giving medical opinions.

But we are reasonably free to dispense medical information.

We are not qualified to tell the OP why his family gets sick.

Indeed not, but some basic observations about why some people get sick more often than others are not going to hurt anybody.

If anybody wants to take this to an ANI again, feel free--although the last several times their opinion was that the RD should be shut down-they just didn't act on it.

If you don't let me get my way, I'm telling Mommy, and she's gonna spank you this time, I know she will!

The line between medical information and medical advice is a gray one, it's true, and one I'm sure we'll be dissecting forever, though hopefully in reasonable, non-dogmatic ways.

I'm also struck by the line between some contributors here who, it's true, go out of their way to answer any question no matter what, and others who, it seems, head to the RDs as part of their chores every day with the sole intent of finding problems with as many threads as they can. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like μηδείς/Medeis is still using reverts to push her POV against consensus and against Wikipedia policy.[11] I reverted the change[12] and gave the user a warning on her talk page.[13] If this continues, we may want to consider seeking a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, everyone. I have half a mind to close this thread down, as it has long past the optimal heat-to-light ratio. At this point its just a whole lot of back-and-forth sniping. I meant exactly what I said above; the amount of attention given to this by both sides of the dispute isn't worth it, and it may be best if both fighters just retreated to neutral corners and left it alone. I'm not endorsing OR condemning either side, just noting that the dispute at this point is simultaneously intractable and insignificant, and as such, it's probably best if all involved just let it go. --Jayron32 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stopping now per Jayron32's suggestion. This will be my last comment on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You'll have to forgive me, but I am not the one issuing threats here or elsewhere--I am the subject of them, to which my response is, go ahead. That in no way constitutes a threat by my requiring that I be told to "shut the fuck up" or anything else. (Frankly, I am shocked by that comment and its source.) In the meantime, there is obviously no consensus that we should be entertaining requests for medical diagnosis or answering them with vague unreferenced speculation. The fact stands that self-policing of our own policies remains necessary. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, despite the promise above of no more comments, this is continuing with Guy removing another editor's comment [14] from the thread, and placing yet another ANI warning on my talk page, not because I restored the hat, but because he didn't like the edit summary wording "no such consensus" on my talk page! Can someone perhaps suggest that he should refrain from continuing this?

Let's see. In my opinion:

you were wrong to re-close the discussion against consensus
Guy was wrong to construct this non-poll on your talk page attempting to demonstrate consensus, and
an anonymous IP editor was wrong to leave this unsigned comment, and Guy was right to remove it.

And, finally, Jayron was right to urge us all to drop this. Let's do. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have done so and tried to mend fences, but you will see here Macon is still,as of 4 1/2 hours after your post, trying to recruit against me, and I'd appreciate if some admin would ask him to stop it. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Predictions

RE: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate".

That ban on predictions seems a bit overly broad. We certainly can provide predictions of solar eclipses, for example. It should probably say something to the effect of "Rather than making predictions based on our own intuition, we will only reference predictions listed in reliable sources". Should we make this change ? StuRat (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You could consider making a change on the science desk only. It's always going to be difficult to predict future human events. But then that's also true for volcano eruptions and earthquakes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As Jack points out below, some human events, like US Presidential election schedules, are rather predictable. StuRat (talk)

There's a distinction to be made between (a) asking for "what is going to happen" and (b) asking for "what prominent commentators have said is going to happen". The former would just be us chewing the fat; the latter is referenceable, and is one step removed from a prediction per se.

As StuRat says, we provide data on future eclipses; not because we have personally worked out the details but because scientists and mathematicians have done so and have published them in reputable places that we know millions of people rely on and plan their eclipse watching activities accordingly. They have a perfect record of accuracy so far, which is cause for strong confidence. (Unlike predictions of the end of the world, for example.)

We also reveal when the next US presidential election etc will be - again, not because we say so but because the US Constitution says so, and while that can be changed and has been changed, there's no proposal to change this bit of it, so we can feel very safe in giving out the date of the next 25 elections. If it turns out some change happens in 50 years time and the latter dates turn out to be wrong, they can always come back here and slap our collective wrists. I'll be 6 feet under by then, so I'm not losing any sleep.

Things like countries leaving the Eurozone are somewhat more nebulous. But if there has in fact been any talk of this matter reported in reputable journals, there is nothing wrong with pointing our users to those commentaries. Such talk may include some commentator saying "I believe Country X will leave the Eurozone by 2020". That wouldn't have been reported unless the person has some general recognition or standing in the discussion, and is not just some anonymous blogger or talk back radio caller. It in no way is a case of us making our own prediction or us providing our own opinions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And does my proposed text capture that better than what we currently have ? StuRat (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does, imo, Stu. I was mainly responding to Itsmejudith, who feels scientifically-based predictions are OK but others apparently not. I don't see any need to restrict this to just the Science desk. All our desks have always been subject to the same rules and policies, so we have to devise the rules in such a way that they apply across the board. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any objection to the change, but I'm not sure you are solving a real problem. People violate these rules all the time anyway, and most other ones, so why tweak them so nicely? The real problem on the ref desk is immoderate behaviour on religion and politics, coupled with a pretentious attachment to one's own point of view. I am not naming names, and have no interest in personality disputes. Problems start when people get into continuing something that wasn't worth much time to start with. On the other hand, getting the rules right is a worthy aim. I admit it is a problem that the rules are unrealistic and unenforceable, and I see that you are trying to help fix this problem. But you are dealing with a smallish fragment of a wide-ranging problem. The most unrealistic rules are the big ones: NPOV, NOR. These only work in mainspace because people can talk things out, and eventually get to NPOV and NOR. You can't do it on a talk-style page (signed, personal posts). You can't agree beforehand on exactly what counts as NPOV. You have to aim for the same end point - slowly extracting the content as a thread continues, separating it from unreferenced opinion, or things you just heard on tv. You can't start a thread at this point - you just have to minimise POV and OR, defer to people with more experience, and work out where you can just agree to disagree with someone. This, I think, is where the rules are really unworkable, because they don't acknowledge this, and the result is inevitable. Longwinded post, I know. Just a thought. IBE (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Jack and IBE have the right idea. If you want to be pedantic and/or philosophical about, really nothing is perfectly predictable. For all we know there's an asteroid the size of Mexico aiming to render our prediction of tomorrow's sunrise purely academic. But we can talk about when things are scheduled to happen or have been calculated to happen like US presidential primaries, solar eclipses, and so on. Moreover, we can always (as Jack notes) provide references for when other people make predictions, regardless of how off the wall or inane they may be. Like IBE, I am also leery of trying to fine tune and enumerate a rule that needs to be interpreted "in the spirit" rather than "by the letter". Not because it's not good to have written rules, but because the end points would always be arbitrary and we'd argue about the fine points endlessly. Here's my short version: if you're not getting your answer from a reference or a calendar or a calculator, you're probably edging into crystal ball territory. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I seem to have violated this rule. I'll try not to in the future. Marco polo (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Weekend job excerpt

This conversation relocated from the Misc desk to a more suitable venue. — Lomn 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking whether Americans understand what the two words 'weekend and job mean when combined? And you want references? μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the Q again. They are asking if jobs are common in the US which only require work on the weekend. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Again"? Are you continuing some sort of grudge Stu? If so move it to the talk page. And what exactly do "But he's never heard of the concept" and "...in America" mean in regard to a thread on weekend jobs if not that Americans don't understand the notion? μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think his friend having not heard of it would indicate that nobody in the US has ? It might mean it's less common, though, which is what the Q is about. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

snip ends here

Re: "Again": yes. Medeis, you have a pattern of questioning the validity of transparently reasonable questions after others have been productively answering them. It's tiresome. Stop it. — Lomn 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would not add a "me too" comment, but given Medeis' rather unique interpretation of consensus when it applies to her actions, I must say that Lomn hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree II: with both Lomn and Guy Macon. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatted off-topic content on Humanities Desk

I have hatted a portion of the LA-Michigan bus question on the basis that the discussion was veering away from the subject. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

While I don't disagree in general, one problem is you hatted the response from Sturat (and the followups). Sturat's response was mostly ontopic and while the followup was starting to veer offtopic it may have been better to either leave it unhatted or split the hat and at least leave Sturat's response. Similarly I don't know if it was necessary to hat the response from Looie496 and the following discussion which even if technically offtopic is IMO useful information for the OP. If μηδείς would keep discussions together with decent indenting and replying practice, it wouldn't be necessary so much (the one under Sturat's response was a response to Sturat's response so was reasonable in that regard) unfortunately that ship seems to have long since sailed. While so many split hats so may lead to arguments of picking and choosing, in this case neither StuRat or Looie496's response (and the response to Looie496's response) related to the hatted section so it's more a case of only hatting the responses relating to that specific sub-discussion. Similarly while it looks messy, it's probably better to keep the okay stuff despite the mess. And yes I left a response after the hat. I did so because number one, the suggestion by μηδείς was just so bizarre and number two, claims had been made about what Kotjap has said which AFAIK are not supported (and if they are supported, do make me further wonder about the sincerity of Kotjap). Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Apologies to those who made valid comments that I hatted - I thought I had kept all the relevant answers, but I missed a few. I've adjusted the hat now - feel free to amend it again if necessary. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So, it's too late to invoke ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and declare LA to be the Lao People's Democratic Republic? (runs and hides as everyone throws rotten tomatoes...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the US, it could also mean Lower Alabama [15]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

^{Latvia? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)}

The core of the debate was what the OP meant by "LA". The OP has already moved onto his next question without bothering to address that issue. So maybe the entire section should be closed as trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the OP for clarification, and so far he's not cooperating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's from Detroit, sorry to cooperate too late. Kotjap (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And TO Los Angeles.[16] It took like 3 or 4 tries to finally get a factual answer from that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It took 5 separate statements by the user to arrive at an unambiguous question:[17][18][19][20][21] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk about angels on heads of pins. The default use of LA is Los Angeles (see the number plate here) and if people hadn't pretended not to know that, all this palaver wouldn't have happened. Whatever we may say about the OP, this side skirmish had nothing to do with them, and I don't blame them for not wanting to get involved. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Michigan is a state, a big one at that; and Los Angeles is a city. Asking how far it is from one to the other does not make logical sense. I assumed LA referred to Los Angeles, and I guessed he might have been thinking of Detroit; but we are not mind readers, and the other editors raised doubts, and it was "like pulling teeth" to get the OP to explain what his question actually was supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, I note that Google Maps has no problems offering a driving distance from "Michgan" to "Los Angeles, CA". Distances to large objects are, of necessity, approximations, but I might also note that "Los Angeles" isn't a point source, either -- does it mean downtown? The airport? Pasadena? Anaheim? What matters, for any approximation, is that you accept that some uncertainty will be present and move on. Alternately, if a question "does not make logical sense" to you, then just move on and answer something else that does. — Lomn 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And Bugs, all that needed to happen was for one editor to ask the OP what he meant, and for everyone else to shut up and wait for clarification. If it was forthcoming, fine. If not, that would mean the OP didn't really care. What we got instead was World War IV. Do people not have enough things to do with their time? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's "all" that needed to happen, and it took four freakin' times to finally get the matter clarified for those who raised the question. I had immediately assumed he meant Los Angeles, and then others started to nitpick. So don't yell at me! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Who's yelling? Some of your words are bolded, none of mine are; and you're the one resorting to exclamation marks, not me.

Look, we are not responsible for our OPs. If they are asked to clarify a question and they choose not to do so, they should be left alone and we should leave the question alone and move on to more productive activities. There's no requirement for an entire session of Congress to debate the matter in the meantime. There are over 4 million articles that need improving; none of our lives revolve around any particular question on the Ref Desk. That's all I'm saying. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In general, you're right. In this case, I provided a reasonable answer, and after others complained about the ambiguity, I took the initiative to drag the information out of the OP. If you've got complaints about anyone's behavior in this instance, I am the wrong target. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't targetting you. I was discussing the matter with you, but it wasn't about your personal involvement in the thread. It was a general comment about how we, as a group, operate; and that could extend to me, to you or to anyone, if the cap fits. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Meanwhile, I'm done interacting with that user. He's all yours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Weighing in generally: Mostly, I'm disappointed that several editors will always rush in to defend the preservation of the nonsense du jour. I'm increasingly in favor of quick, silent removal (with notification on the individual's talk page, perhaps) for rants that don't attempt answer the question. In this specific case, it's reasonable to note that LA could mean the city or the state, but there aren't many good ways to bring it up. Particularly, once LA-the-city has been answered, there's an acceptable branching reply of "did you instead mean Louisiana?", but the far better reply is to provide the information for Louisiana in the event that that's what the original poster wanted. As best I read it, none of the hand-wringing about postal abbreviations included the 15 seconds necessary to provide that reference. — Lomn 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And for the record, I'm from British Columbia, and I will freely admit to reading that as Michigan to Los Angeles, even knowing that one is a city and one is a state. kotjap doesn't appear to be American, and it's awfully rich to assume non-Americans of kotjap's apparent extraction to even know postal abbreviations. Cast a wide net with your answers, and the debate won't be needed. Mingmingla (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And here I'd always figured your user name was a shout-out to LA. Guess the egg's on my face now, eh? — Lomn 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Aggression on the ref desk

I recognize that I ask lot of questions, because I love the Wikipedia community. But I don't break any rule, yet I have received aggressions. My question is simply why. Kotjap (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the questions you ask, and the comments you make, do a good job of 'getting people's backs up'. You 'push people's buttons' - you annoy them. If I were being uncharitable, I would suggest that you do this knowingly, enjoying the kerfuffle you cause. However, I like to think you are acting in good faith, so I won't.

There is no single reason that can be put forward for other user's aggression towards you. Each will have their own reason for writing the things they do. I'm sure some of those reasons will be put forward here in due course.

Personally, I'm sorry if you feel that you have been the target of aggression on these desks. I volunteer here out of a desire to help improve the knowledge of others (as well as a sense of personal satisfaction in finding answers), and so I dislike hurtful comments being made. Nonetheless, there are certain things you can do to improve your interactions here - just as in face-to-face contact, there is a certain etiquette which, if followed, can help to make conversations at the ref desks more pleasant. (What follows is merely my own take on the matter, and not a guaranteed solution - though the advice is, I believe, sound.)

Firstly, try to reduce the amount of questions that you ask. Whilst there is no 'limit' on asking questions, it takes time for volunteers to read and answer each one properly. I would suggest that one question every 24 hours should be plenty. Secondly, especially when you are asking a large number of questions, it is polite to 'help out' by attempting to answer the questions of others. Of course, you should only provide answers where you are able to give a good, referenced source, but it would show us that you are willing to 'lend a hand'. Thirdly, think more carefully about factual basis of the questions you are asking. Think about whether or not we would be able to provide a reference to answer your question - basically 'can this be answered by looking in a book?' Questions that seek opinions generally cannot, and repeated opinion-seeking gets tiresome for us. Finally, consider the subjects that you ask about. Certain subjects, such as Nazism, can be quite emotive, and can lead to more heated discussion. It might be best to stay away from such controversial subjects.

I hope the above gives some useful advice. However, you should be warned that, in the past, users displaying similar lines of questioning to yourself have ended up serving a ban from Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you are not connected to them. Even if you are not, continuing to ask questions in the way that you do could lead to a similar ban. I'm saying this not because I wish to see such an outcome, more that I wish NOT to see you being banned. So, try to follow the advice above, keep your head down, and try not to take any hurtful remarks made towards you personally. Just ignore them. If you can do this I'm sure we'll all get along well.

Lastly, if I may be so bold as to address my fellow RD volunteers, please, if you can, try not to add to the disruption that is already going on. We often see a user dropping in, posting a large number of questions on diverse subjects, creating heated debates, and ending up with a ban. If we were able to recognise when a topic might cause us to post in haste, with ill-judged personal remarks, and so to avoid that topic, I'm sure it would make life easier for everyone.

Here endeth the lesson. Peace out. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question simply and honestly: the types of questions you ask aren't the sort of things that the Reference Desk are geared to handle. The majority of your questions deal with things that require people to give their opinions or are invitations to open discussion or debate rather than requests for information. The reference desk simply isn't designed for questions like "Is this provocative?" or "Why do China and North Korea hate us?", many of the questions, not just those two (I picked to random ones, there are many more problems) aren't the types of questions someone could point to a Wikipedia article and link you to a website and say "Here, read this..." Ideally, that's the sort of questions you should ask: questions which allow someone to direct you to more information, or to perhaps explain the meaning of something. Questions that simply ask people's opinions on a topic are wholly inappropriate for the reference desk. Now, the first 2-3 times you did this, no one much cared, because people who are new aren't expected to know the rules. The reason people are now becoming annoyed and peeved is that you've been informed of all of this, and continue to ask the same sorts of questions. Once you've been informed of the rules, it's expected that you'll work within them. That you haven't yet is why people are getting ticked off. --Jayron32 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, I understand now, and I promise to change my ways of asking questions and only when necessary. Thank you and I apologize. In my culture the honor is important, so I'd be honored with your accepting my apology. Thank.Kotjap (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As an old-time, although not too frequent contributor, I'm happy to say - hopefully on behalf of the rest of the crew - apology accepted, and thank you for your contributions up until now, and for your future contributions. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well said. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious rape humor on the Ref Desk

Yeah, I'm done for the day. As long as the Ref Desk tacitly or explicitly endorses and encourages this kind of behavior, it's going to keep on shrinking, and is going to continue to become more and more a playground and chatroom, and less and less any sort of credible, useful resource that might reflect well on Wikipedia.

An exchange from here

The UK abolished it in the 60s, because it's better to give them a lifetime of being careful not to drop the soap in the showers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, KageTora, for reminding us that forcible rape is funny, as long as it's directed at people who are often mentally ill, or members of undesirable minorities, or potentially wrongfully convicted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's all a matter of perspective. Mel Brooks once said, "Tragedy is if I have a hangnail. Comedy is if you get killed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, Bugs. Rape jokes are funny, and I'm glad there are people like you to stand up for the innocent people who spout them. God, this place disgusts me sometimes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there's a high-tech ball-and-chain keeping you here against your will. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to all the messages telling me to lighten up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not all jokes need to be inappropriate. Just the funny ones. --Jayron32 20:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please,people don't make jokes about rape. It isn't necessary. KageTora, you make great contributions; this one didn't add any useful info. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke "about rape", it was a joke about a hypothetical murderer who is lucky enough to live in a country which had abolished the death penalty, only to receive perhaps "a fate worse than death" in prison. This is called gallows humor. Vaguely similar to something Dennis Miller once said, about the murderer of fellow prisoner-lifer Jeffrey Dahmer, being made the grand marshall of the Thanksgiving parade. Or in Animal House, in which one of the snobbish frat boys is said to have been caught in the Watergate scandal later and then "raped in prison". And Kage didn't invent that joke about the prison shower - it is very, very old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't show Wikipedia at its best. Didn't help the OP. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What really bothers me is why some people feel it necessary to make jokes on the RD at all which do not answer the question. --Viennese Waltz 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Starting with Shadowjam's comment, conveniently omitted from the section quoted above, "Let's all use this as a jumping off point to discuss the wisdom and ethics of capital punishment." You want to yell at somebody, start with that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking at him, though. I'm looking at you. --Viennese Waltz 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No you're not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: I understand the general point you're making. I don't think anyone here condones rape in any circumstances, and that construction can't be put on KageTora's joke. As Bugs says, gallows humour has a long and venerable tradition.

That you're over-reacting a little can be seen in your reference to "potentially wrongfully convicted" people. Do you mean that we should consider all prisoners to be wrongfully convicted unless the rightness of their convictions can be incontrovertibly demonstrated? I thought that was what the justice system was supposed to do anyway, with its acceptance of conviction "beyond all reasonable doubt". Sure, people have been known to be wrongfully convicted, but you can't use that as a bargaining tool in a topic like this. Because, the corollary is that anyone who has been rightfully convicted deserves everything they get, whether that be a punishment decreed by statute or something rather less legal and rather more unsavoury. And I really don't think you mean us to understand that to be your position. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While I personally think that jokes about prison rape are barbaric, I also have to acknowledge that Jay Leno makes them several times per week, so obviously a lot of people accept them. Would you make jokes about women or children being raped? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, I think this has gone beyond its elastic limit. A lot of sexual activity goes on in prisons, often between men who would never in a million years consider themselves gay, and who never do it again on the outside where their options are wider. And yes, handsome young men in prison are at risk of being the target of unwanted sexual advances. And yes, rapes do go on there. But all of this detail is way beyond what KageTora ever said. People are allowed to sometimes say "Backs to the wall" in a jocular and humorous way without other people getting terribly bent out of shape about it. That would no more be a gratuitous or uncaring attitude to rape than what KageTora said. Because if it's that bad, then we have to now publicly burn every copy of every Carry-On movie, and every Benny Hill episode and every Two Ronnies episode and every Dave Allen episode and all manner of other things. Not to mention "Springtime for Hitler", which succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of The Producers (it was supposed to fall completely flat and the show was supposed to fold after one night, because of the offence it would undoubtedly cause, but it sort of went the other way. Humour is very unpredictable like that). The millions and millions of people who've laughed at these jokes for centuries cannot be accused of what KageTora's being accused of here, so why single him out? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I agree that the way I phrased that could be misinterpreted. To be clear, I don't condone rape of anyone, outside or inside prison, however rightful or wrongful their conviction. Call it a misguided attempt to prompt people who offer up this sort of 'humor' to spend at least a little bit of time thinking about the population they're joking about, instead of just dismissing them as a homogeneous, undifferentiated, vague blob of sub-humanity.

For your own part, I find it troubling that you're bringing up – in the context of this discussion – consensual sex between individuals who may be embarrassed after the fact; instead of just insinuating it, why don't you just come out and say that you think prison rape numbers are bogus and inflated (instead of vastly under-reported, as is more likely)? You also lost a bunch of credibility as soon as you declared that "handsome young men in prison are at risk of being the target of unwanted sexual advances". You're treading dangerously close to she's too ugly to be a rape victim, or possibly the 'pretty girls are asking for it' rationalization. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you're taking this WAY, WAY beyond what is reasonable. I insinuated nothing, and you have seriously misrepresented my views on these matters. The fact that you'd switch your sights to me and try to incriminate me because I dare to defend KageTora says a lot about your concern for people in prison who have been wrongfully convicted; because you're setting yourself up as my judge, my jury and my jailer. So much for your concern for the workings of the justice system. Not much point having a bleeding heart for people who might have been wrongfully convicted, if you leave your own innocent victims in the wake of your crusade. Beyond that, I have no further comments. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I apologize. I should not have jumped to a conclusion about your thinking. That was way out of line. I still don't understand why you would choose to include the comments that you made in this conversation, however. Even though my conclusions were overreaching, can you see how those remarks, in this context, could be (mis)taken as horribly, implicitly dismissive? I'll also openly cop to being outright pissed off at your own suggestions about my attitude; just saying "And I really don't think you mean us to understand that to be your position" carries more than a whiff of "I'm perfectly willing to suggest that that might be your position", no matter how you might have meant your remarks.

But damn it, this is turning from an apology to an explanation. I'm going to say that I had a rough day, I took more of it out on you than I had any right to (or than you deserved), I appreciate that you've tried to engage with this discussion, and I'm sorry both for biting your head off and for the inexcusably nasty way I went about it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that gracious apology. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to suggest a joke is in bad humour. It's another to conduct a lengthy inquisition and ask people to prove their innocence. I think we all get the point. And, frankly, if I can't be blamed for something it probably isn't worth blaming people for in the first place. Can I hat this now? μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about you, Medeis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, or no, can I hat this now? Or are there still guilty parties (besides myself) to flagellate? I have an Almodovar movie about gays, or rape, or prison, or gay rape, or rape in prison, or gays in prison, or gay rape in prison to watch. (Actually, I don't think he's made the last one yet--but there's the lesbian played by a gay transsexual who commits a crime to be reunited with her lover in Tacones lejanos) And I thought you had no further comments. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This still isn't about you, Medeis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, given the demonstrable fact that your hatting activities are controversial and divisive, I think you should get out of the hatting business. There are plenty of eyes on these reference desk pages, and if something needs to be hatted, someone else who has the trust of the community will hat it. Also, this isn't about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Among your many, many, many faults Guy, is that you have the sense of humor of a land mine. μηδείς (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, my aim was not to single KageTora or JackofOz or anyone else out. This is more of a straw-that-broke-the-camel's back situation. We've reached the point on the Reference Desks where telling jokes (ranging from bad puns to crude potty humor and attacks on the OPs' grammar), giving fast unresearched guesses, and bickering between regulars all consume more time and space than providing useful, courteous, welcoming, well-referenced responses to our visitors. The accepted standard of discourse has slid downward to "what could Jay Leno get away with?". I've been contributing to the Reference Desk since 2005, and I've seen a lot of good and bad behavior over the last eight years. I've defended this corner of the project many times as being a net benefit to Wikipedia, both in terms of the direct improvement our research can add to the encyclopedia, and the indirect but equally valuable accrual of goodwill we can generate. In recent months, though, I've come to wonder about that position. Providing a home for the Boys' Jokes Club – should that be in small type? – isn't what the Reference Desk is supposed to do, and until the last year or so, it hasn't been our primary focus.

People here, now, in this year probably won't believe this, but I'm not opposed to humor on the Reference Desk, and I never have been. I see a distinction between the happy, healthy workplace that gets the job done first and then tells jokes afterward, and the circling-the-drain nearing-bankrupt office where nobody cares about the work anymore, so everyone just chats around the water cooler and looks at lolcats online. I believe that there is a line between the type (and quantity) of jokes that are appropriate for the front-line, customer-facing side of a business that interacts with new 'clients' (many of whom may come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds from our own) and those appropriate for the staff in the break room—and I also believe that there are jokes that don't belong here at all. In the past we certainly bumped against those lines and occasionally danced across them; now it seems we spend more time than not far into that bankrupt-business, rude-to-visitors territory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Intentional rudeness is never acceptable; it never has been here, and I don't believe it's become so now. But communication is a tricky area. It's quite common for someone to feel offended by someone else's remark, even though there was never any intention to cause offence. This is an inherent feature of any environment that operates without visual cues and non-verbals, and the entire online world is that way, not just here. Fwiw, I think we do a damn sight better than most other places. We have clear (-ish) rules and guidelines and we all police each other. We keep it light-hearted with our jokey culture (not that that's unique to here, far from it). I don't think we'd get very far at all if we decreed that jokes may only be told after the question has been substantially answered. Jokes are part of the way we (as a group) do business here; they're not some irrelevant irrelevancies for our tea breaks. The actual level of rudeness and other inappropriatenesses rises and falls with the seasons, but I don't see any trend towards a general increase. I see lots of questions continuing to be asked here, and plenty of satisfied customers, many of whom are repeat visitors. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I have a trademark on the word "inherent" ! :-) StuRat (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ten. This was unfunny and not really a joke. We can do a lot better than that. KageTora's contributions are usually excellent. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I came here because I wanted to see why Andrew's overclocking question was deleted (he actually deleted it himself), but stumbled across this. Recently, I asked a question about why people tend to have unrealistically rosy memories of the past, and why they tend to believe "the world is going down the toilet" even when it's clearly improving. I think this thread is a good example of that psychological phenomenon. Out of curiosity, I checked out an actual record of the Humanities desk in late 2006. The responses then were clearly less informed, fewer in number, and lower in quality than those today. There were fewer jokes, to be sure, but that's because it had less traffic overall.

As for the actual subject of this thread, I've always had this to say to people who want to silence comedy. If you're offended at something, and actually care about the victims as much as your holier-than-thou attitude suggests, why do you not do something meaningful to help them? Why does TenOfAllGrades, for example, not try to raise public awareness of prison rape, set up support networks for its victims, or reform the prison system? Bickering at the Reference Desk will do 1 of 1 things: make people tired of your attitude, and therefore less likely to care about prison rape. Guy Macon asked "would you make jokes about women and children being raped?" My answer is no, but I won't try to silence people on the Reference Desks who do. This is coming from someone who believes in children's rights, to a far greater extent than just believing they shouldn't be raped. Again, if you actually care as much about women and children (and men outside of prison) being raped as you claim to, go donate to a support network. Said victims will thank you for it, and presumably won't thank you for bickering on the Reference Desk. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While we're talking about charities, Just Detention International seeks to end prison rape, and has the highest possible rating on Charity Navigator. I swear to whatever deity you believe in that I've donated to them before. Anyone else who wants to make a difference should, too. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you don't think anyone should try to "silence" people who make rape jokes, but you do think we should "silence" people who respond to rape jokes by asserting that they are unacceptable? If you're going to play the "free speech" card (which really doesn't apply to the reference desks), then it cuts both ways. People have exactly as much right to tell others off for hurting them as others have to make hateful jokes.

I do not want to see us return to the days when a teenage girl asking about periods and tampons was met with "jokes" from adult men about how disgusting periods are. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you picked a date in late 2006 to look at. To be clear, I don't have any personal illusion that the Ref Desk of late 2005 (when I started editing it) or 2006 (when I really started to get steeped in its culture) was experiencing some hackneyed Golden Age of wonder and perfection. The Reference Desk of that era was growing quickly and enthusiastically, but not always wisely. (To be honest, the Ref Desk of that era also didn't have nearly as good an encyclopedia behind it at the time, either. You couldn't just slap square brackets around any random term and assume that it would point to a useful article.) The Desk had been divided into six sub-desks in August of 2005 (the seventh desk, Entertainment, would come later), and with increasing traffic and increasing interest came increasingly clear problems.

In those days, many of the Ref Desk's regular editors recognized that there were serious user conduct – and Desk content – issues that needed to be addressed, and that led to vigorous debate and discussion. There were a few people who believed firmly that the Ref Desk should be an open chat forum, and that it should be difficult to the point of irrelevance to remove requests for medical advice or trolling. In December 2006, there were created at least three different competing proposed guidelines for the way the Ref Desk should be run (Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules, plus various userspace drafts). I'm going to shamelessly plug User:TenOfAllTrades/RD thoughts as one of the documents that guided the development of our current rules and which I still think is worthwhile reading for anyone who is a regular contributor to the Desks. Ultimately it took more than a month of heavy wrangling, and then three months more of tweaking, before the Ref Desk's conduct and medical advice guidelines were hammered into something very much like their present form. Looking back through the history, someone finally slapped a {guideline} tag on WP:RD/G in April or so of 2007.

It took a period of acclimatization before those principles really seeped into most of the Desk's editors, but (occasional trolls aside) there was steady improvement in attitude and culture. Unfortunately, Wikipedia - like many online communities - tends to have a pretty short institutional memory. Over the last couple of years, I've watched the number of questions, the number of regular participants, the expectations for appropriate conduct, and the willingness to self-police, decline. The ratio of boys-playing to adults-providing-references is shifting the wrong way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I choose late 2006 as a random date, because you didn't specify (and still haven't specified) a date by which the Reference Desk supposedly started getting worse. I see that you were already intimately involved in the reference desk in 2006. I was a child then, so forgive me for not knowing this history.

Since 2006 is too early, I decided to choose another random date for analysis: 2010. Here is a random revision, from a random date. 50 questions are on that page, whereas 51 questions are on today's Humanities reference desk. I don't think the number of questions has declined. As for regular participants, many of the regular participants in 2010 are still here today. Undoubtedly, there were regular participants in 2010 that I don't know about because they're no longer active today, so I'll leave it to you to analyze this metric. The expectations for appropriate conduct and willingness to self-police are, of course, much harder to measure objectively. As expected, the 2010 version definitely had more quality questions and quality responses than 2006, but I don't find it markedly different from today's version. In particular, I don't think the answers to meaningful questions are worse today, nor do I think the number of references has been shrinking. The biggest problem I see on today's reference desk is speculation and uninformed opinion, and I oppose this as much as you presumably do. (I haven't looked through enough of the 2010 version to judge whether speculation was a problem back then, too.) This problem has nothing to do with cracking jokes, and will not be fixed if they are banned. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The next time editors think someone has made a joke in bad taste that will offend an OP, they should please put a polite request on the presumed offender's talk page asking them to reconsider. Only after they have told the complainant to bugger off should it be brought here. Sound good? μηδείς (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So what's this page for then?Itsmejudith (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I would say, "Gossip". But ideally as a resort (in such cases) after you've politely asked someone on his talk page to consider retracting a comment or the like. i am reminded of the Christian mandate not to sue your brethren in court. μηδείς (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a distinction be made on the issue: that it is specifically male rape jokes that are being addressed here, and not female ones. I don't think anyone here would argue for the right to make female rape jokes as long as they were funny. I personally don't understand why such jokes are considered acceptable, whereas sexist and racist jokes aren't (especially not towards other editors).

I'd also like to mention that I can't see any other part of wikipedia (that I'm aware of) having a discussion about whether making rape jokes should be allowed. Maybe on a person's user talk between a few people, where it would be considered private, but not in a "public" place like the reference desk. Sazea (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone here would argue for the right to make female rape jokes as long as they were funny." If you read my post above, I argued precisely that. You presumably don't believe in sexism against men, and neither do I. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right, you have. Not that anything more will likely come of this, mind. Sazea (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think editors should have to explain or justify what they find funny - though humor of course is no excuse to intentionally harass another editor based on sex or sexuality. Jokes about prison rape at least are an acknowledgment of the problem, which is already the largest step forward. Wnt (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed medical advice

I removed this post which offered medical advice. We should not recommend or endorse any therapy or therapeutic choice made by a poster – including specific dietary changes – at the Reference Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dietary advice is not medical advice. StuRat (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"My daughter had that pink blush in her diaper. She was diagnosed with pervasive developmental delay then "grew out of it" At age 23, she now has terrible, crippling anxiety. My father had gout. So whatever this is, it's in the family line. I suspect that ultimately it's a mitochondrial defect." That's not dietary, it's medical. The OP is either trying to push a diagnosis or trying to push a point of view about milk. Either way, the question can't be allowed to stand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am only talking about my answer, which Ten chose to remove, while leaving his answer and the Q. My answer was not medical advice. StuRat (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the question had to go, and there's not much point in deleting the question but leaving an answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed everything except the heading, as the guy wants a diagnosis and we can't do tha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

this is not the place to discuss changing established policy. This should just be about whether said policy applies to this one case

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

Deleting the question and leaving the answer should be an option here. The question "What is hyperuricosuric autism and what dietary measures are being considered for its treatment?" would produce interesting and potentially beneficial results. Wnt (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what the mainspace is for. Mingmingla (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:JETFA. Oh, that's right, you can't. For that matter, even if you followed that suggestion the people at WP:MEDRS are being very clear that you shouldn't be allowed to edit an article summarizing new research developments in this or any other biomedical area. The patient is only supposed to learn what his doctor finds suitable for his little head, and if they don't afford the right one, well, their blood must flow on the altar of sacrifice as an object lesson. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your hatred of doctors disqualifies you from commenting on the subject of medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about my hatred of being dictated to about what chemicals I can buy, what questions I can answer, or what research results I can cover in Wikipedia? I'll reserve my right to hate anyone who says I have to bow down and pray to him as a god, and to stop the moment I have my freedom back. But we all have some factor or another motivating how we interpret any given Wikipedia policy, do we not? And mine is based simply what I think would best serve the goal of actually informing the reader! Wnt (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Get a room, you two. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you actually agree with Wnt's rejection of the rule, maybe you should get your own room. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I don't care one way or the other about this fight. In general, I agree with all or most of our rules (and I follow them whether I like them or not), but you deciding to tell someone that they are disqualified from commenting in a talk page discussion -- even if they are wrong -- is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Clearly my attempt to use humor to point out that you are both over the top in your comments above fell flat, so I will just be blunt; please stop, both of you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

After about the 20th time Wnt has raised the same issue before your eyese, you might catch on. Meanwhile, you've made various comments about various things in your short time here, and you've pretty much missed the mark every time. You'd best quit while you're behind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not really following this line of reasoning. Are you saying we could have some sort of header, followed by answers to a question that has been removed? How would anyone know what those "answers" related to? Without a question, what is the point of answers? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the theory is this: when faced with, say,

"Should I vaccinate my son? I heard it causes autism?"

"See our Vaccine controversies page"

instead of deleting question and answer you could make it

(Request for medical advice deleted. We cannot give medical advice; see your physician. Question replaced with general question "what is the relationship between vaccination and autism?")

"See our Vaccine controversies page"

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's enough. This discussion is not going to change established policy, this is about whether this particular post was a violation of said policy, not whether or not the policy is valid in the first place. If you want to have that discussion (for the umpteenth time) have it in a different thread). I'm hatting this tangent. --Jayron32 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Side note: just saw this post and was thinking It might be a good idea to add a note about this type of problem in the headers and perhaps a link to your guide that has more info.. something like what is below?

Note: legal or medical responses are prohibited. See Wikipedia's Legal disclaimer and Medical disclaimer. Reference desk guidelines is a page that contains advice for users who respond to questions posed by other users at the reference desks.

Moxy (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added some text to the Wikipedia:Reference desk about advice giving.Moxy (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See above. Same here

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

As Wnt states above, he does not believe in that rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dont think anyone cares about his rant - it's not our problem - we have a rule - if there is a behavior problem we can take that up at the appropriate venues.Moxy (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been here very long either. He used to gripe and moan every time medical advice was ripped away, especially if his own defiance of this rule was deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very glad to see you say " used to". No I do not come here often as its simply not of interest to me to reply to question of a general nature (glad its here though).

See above. Discussions to change or retain established policies should not occur under sections designed to discuss a single violation thereof. Hatting this too. --Jayron32 05:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Archive Issue

Links to the February 2013 archive subpages don't seem to be showing up on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives, despite there being questions from February that have fallen of the RefDesk. -- 67.40.213.4 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. As an example, here's User:scsbot taking questions off the Humanities desk last night: [22]. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And here is the archive (transcluded) page scabot created for the hunanities desk questions last night: [23]. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And here's the diff of scsbot adding last night's archived humanities questions to the humanities archive page for February 2013: [24]. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

All that hasn't happened is that nobody has manually edited Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives to add the column for February 2013 in the table, and link each one to the relevant archive pages that have already been created. You just need to follow the format of all the others: it's really quick and easy. I'm just going to check whether it's semi-protected, and if it's not I'll just do it.

It does surprise me, given how little work is required for archiving now compared to in the past, that ref desk regulars who seem to be here every day don't do this minimal editing to maintain the archives. You don't need permission, and it isn't complicated. There is no 'help' to do it for you: just other editors. (This is not directed at you, intrepid editor who posted this thread). 86.163.209.18 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think everyone must have assumed it was being done automatically. But Lua scripts are enabled now, and there might be a way to run one of those off currentdate to do it full auto. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest we add a line about searches and links to the RD template (RfC)

I suggested before that we add a line to the template asking people to tell us what links and articles they have already looked at. I suggest we implement that using StuRat's verbiage, with the addition that we suggest users try a search engine. That will help avoid people asking insanely simple questions about items we have articles on with obviously named articles, and give us clue what people are talking about when there questions and the items they have already read are obscure. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Should the reference desk template be modified to add the line:

Have you used an online search engine? Please include links or addresses for any relevant web sites or Wikipedia articles

after the line "Tell us what part of the world your question applies to" under the "How can I get my question answered?" header?

Comments

Support First, new users in good faith definitely will read this, and such links to what they have read and are commenting on are hugely helpful in our answering them. Second, it doesn't hurt to have a stated policy to point to when people ask incomprehensible questions about topics they should have linked us to, or questions about obvious topics they should have already researched themselves before coming here. Finally, the guidelines are sparse enough, adding this will be greatly more helpful than it will be a reading burden. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The claim that "users in good faith will definitely read this" is unfounded. One of the more commonly accepted interaction design principles is that readers actually don't read carefully. A (presumably human) good-faith Wikipedia reader is no exception to this. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe "it is to be hoped". I did when I was new. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that we also include a line that says that no user is compelled to answer any question if they feel that the question asker is too lazy to find the answer themselves, nor are they compelled to tell the question asker that, even if they really believe it to be true, and even if they couch their accusations of laziness in the sort of language that gives the "plausible deniability" as though people didn't really know that telling the OP they were lazy was the entire point of their post. --Jayron32 20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) On second thought, that's not very helpful. Support because I think it's a sensible idea; the instructions used to say it, and I'm not sure what it was removed. --Jayron32 05:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I sometimes ask users, "What have you found on Google so far?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose and, with respect, particularly oppose Jayron's proposed caveat. As to the original proposal, I just think it's one more item to clutter the header that really isn't going to make much difference; I assume people committed to finding an answer will tell us a reasonable amount about their current understanding of the matter they are presenting and give us some context for the question and those who are more slapdash in their approach aren't likely to be the ones scrutinizing our guidelines and requests in fine detail (nor are the most likely to have done previous research to disclose). In any event, except in extreme cases, I just really don't feel it's our place to evaluate their research work ethic, nor is it useful; whatever level of effort they put in before they felt it was an appropriate time to request our assistance, I'm not sure I really care and I know I don't care to investigate. If andeditor doesn't feel like answering a particular question because of perceived laziness in the OP (or for any other reason, for that matter), they simply shouldn't. As to Jayron's addition, it seems unnecessary (really, when was the last time you remember someone getting bent out of shape on Ref Desk because they felt people didn't put in enough effort? I find people are generally appreciative or, at worst, never respond to answers) and inconsistent with WP:Assume good faith. And honestly, a little catty/whiney (at least as currently phrased); most all activity on Wikipedia is assumed to be volunteer and people should always feel free to contribute or not where they like and this can always be explained in the rare instances where someone forgets this and, though I appreciate that Jayron's proposal is also as much about cutting down on accusations of laziness (which do accomplish nothing, I agree), on the balance I feel this point does not need to be belaboured on our already crowded headers. Snow (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for all the reasons above. The 'What have you found so far' question really helps us narrow down what the person is actually looking for. "All the results I see are for x, but I want to know z." so encouraging that sort of behavior is a win for everyone. Whether or not people abide by it is another story. Foofish (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This is "instruction creep" at its worst. The very sort of questioner who asks questions easily answered by a simple search is the same sort who will not have read (or cared about) the instructions at the top of the page. In this specific case, the question was fully answered -and then Medeis seemed to need to make a policy case out of it. If you don't want to answer it; don't. It is usually inappropriate to chide questioners (AGF and all that), directly or indirectly, but especially when the matter was already resolved. Bielle (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayron's comments above are pointy, as is apparently evident, but this RfC is in good faith about the issues nominated, not his pique at another issue. It's already been well supported at the link above that we ask users to let us know with a link what they have already looked at. Comments on that basis and on this question without regard to a hatted off topic discussion would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Undecided: But I'll just make the point that not having instructions displayed because we think most people won't read them anyway, and those who do won't abide by them anyway, is not useful. That is called "the line of least resistance" and it's a recipe for disaster. It could be used to justify getting rid of all our instructions, and all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and even the laws against murder, rape and robbery and what have you. Because it doesn't matter what rule is ever put in place in any context anywhere, some people will always ignore it. I'm not saying we have to have all our rules cluttering up the top. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Prior Support Here's the link again to prior support for the similar proposal. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That prior support appears to simply be Jack of Oz (already commented here) and Sturat (who, to be fair, hasn't commented yet). It also looks like it took place before the header was simplified to its current form. Which points in that discussion do you feel are especially useful in this discussion? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the header had already been simplified, there would have been no point in the prior question. And there were four supports out of five comments, with stu and the IP giving their suggested verbiage. Does providing a link to that somehow hurt this discussion? μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something: it looks like you, Stu, and Jack supported your proposal, and the ip opposed it, to me. It also looks like there aren't any arguments there that you didn't already put here, and Jack has changed from supporting the previous proposal to being undecided. My question was what it was about that discussion that you felt was most relevant, because I cannot see what light it sheds and you presumably can. You felt something in it was helpful, and because I (flawed as I am) cannot see it, I wonder if you could make it explicit? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose*. As mentioned in previous discussions on the header, the more instructions we add (and the wordier we make it), the less people will read it and act on it. We really have to choose a very few things to place in the header as clear, short instructions, so if we want to add this we would have to remove another instruction if we wanted the header to remain as effective. Which of the short instructions currently in the header is this more important than?

86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) *Since this is not really a vote, but rather an assembly of comments, I assume people are not disturbed by an ip.

Oppose: As Bielle points out, such an instruction would not have any practical effect. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: My experience on real life reference desks and in libraries have shown me that people generally don't read the large print let alone small print about anything, and frequently ask questions they could have answered themselves ("Where's the bathroom?" when they are literally standing in the doorway). This would just clutter things up more to no specific benefit. A further point: OPs are not required to do anything to ask a question. We could well be their first place to ask, and that's their business, not ours. We can recommend a google search, but we shouldn't get huffy about it. Mingmingla (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Inquiry For those who oppose because they believe it will be ignored, why do we have guidlelines in the first place? μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment was about a specific type of user and a specific type of question: The very sort of questioner who asks questions easily answered by a simple search is the same sort who will not have read (or cared about) the instructions at the top of the page. We have guidelines for the rest of the population of users and questions. If your question was rhetorical, then pretend I didn't write this response. Bielle (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For one, many of the advisory elements of the current header are not as obvious or easily presumed as the suggested addition; for example, not all would assume we have a policy against answering personal medical or legal inquiries if not for the fact that we explicitly state it, but I think it's self-evident that you'll be assisting in getting a quicker and more relevant answer if you provide more detail to your question. Second, the need for this new disclaimer just doesn't seem that high, comparably speaking -- we have the statements about legal and medical advice, for example, to protect users from potentially harmful answers and to eliminate a possible source of liability for the project; the worst that occurs if someone doesn't tell us their previous search history on an question is that it they get inferior assistance. Lastly, I don't think that anyone is saying no one reads the header. Clearly a portion of OPs do and others don't, but, as regards this particular proposed statement, the likelihood of overlap between people who need to be reminded of this fact and those who will read the header would seem likely be somewhat small, relatively speaking. I guess the broadest point I'm trying to make here is that additions to the boilerplate need to pass a certain cost-benefit analysis to make sure the header does not grow too congested and unwieldy (as it has in the past) and I just don't feel this addition meets that bar. Snow (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As there is no harm when the OP doesn't do a search, and we as editors are not required to answer any question we deem unworthy based on our personal standards, there is no need for such a rule or such wording. This is not the same as medical, legal or homework disclaimers where we point to the boilerplate to justify or removal of those questions. So adding extra text in this case is not worth the clutter. Mingmingla (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose.First, I'll note the obvious: search engines are ubiquitous and clicking on search engine gives a verbose wall of text thus it is not handing the OP a new tool, but asking the OP to do their homework first. Is this necessary? No, but even though it doesn't hurt to ask in the appropriate place if any, the question has nothing to to do with "how to get a answer". Can pointing to this guideline lead to conflict? Yes. As written, its a potent hammer to foist on unsuspecting OPs with possibly needless advice as happened yesterday here [25]. In addition, given that similar advice was given in the past, should it be put back in the hope that the questions will get better than they are now? Better than in the past when they were not great to begin with? I am very skeptical that this making such a request can be all that helpful to us, and much less so for the desk's customers, the OPs. Perhaps the OP is elderly or young and doesn't know what the links and addresses we are asking for are and thus leaves in frustration without asking their question. In short, what little supposed benefit is offset by simply asking an OP for clarification, yet this proposal entails substantial costs and clutter. Modocc (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment. We like to compare ourselves to the real library reference desks from which we get our name. Now, which can you more easily imagine a real reference desk librarian saying? "The card catalog is right over there, did you try it first?" Or, "The card catalog is right over there, let me show you how to use it." —Steve Summit (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

~~Neither. but I've struck my oppose for now and removed my initial reply to this because I need to reexamine my position, this issue and any new comments.~~ I'm taking a complete break because I've a really nasty bug that's "killing" me and keeping me from getting enough rest. --Modocc (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do teach people how to use catalogues in real libraries, but we just aren't supposed to be all snarky about it. Medeis is right aobut the "teach a man to fish" thing: we should show our search terms and methods, and it is totally fine to tell them that searching a search engine is a quick and easy way to find the answer. Tone is what's important, and making a rule on the boilerplate on something that isn't a serious breach isn't worth the time and space, since the users who most need to see it won't read it. Like I said before, this isn't the same as the medical, legal and homework stuff. These googleable questions don't hurt anyone. Mingmingla (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have been clearer (my sinus pain addled me). I agree that librarians are teachers, but they usually answer direct questions and do not request the patron to come with a prepared speech. I agree that there is practically nothing about this proposal that warrants its inclusion. --Modocc (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose because these kinds of demands are unfriendly to the OP. It makes no sense to have a page for answering questions and then tell people to answer their own questions. In addition, is it not necessary to know what the OP googled to answer their question. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Rework, then add. The link should not Wikilink to search engine - it should have a different text for each Refdesk, linking to a different essay, perhaps even an article, for each Refdesk, recommending sources for answering others' (and your own) questions. So for the Science Refdesk it should say "You might find a quick answer using our list of search engines for scientific questions. Any relevant results you can post will help us understand what you are interested in." And that list should be, like, Bing, Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubChem, Ensembl, OMIM, Flybase/Wormbase/Mouse Genome Informatics etc., KEGG, Tree of Life Web Project (and Wikispecies of course; likewise we should remind about Commons, Wikisource etc.), and point at the List of biological databases. This is only a partial list for biology and there must be equally long lists for other disciplines ... the point is, it should be quite a page! Wnt (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the boilerplate's current organization, list of search engines for scientific questions, once created (if ever), belongs under "Want a faster answer?". The suggestion: "Any relevant results you can post will help us understand what you are interested in." can be put there too, even now without any list, just before "How can I get my question answered?" These additions would be acceptable and there seems to be an excessive amount of white space which could be reduced to accommodate these additions, but I also agree with the comments above that it's just unnecessary clutter at this point. --Modocc (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose because I have a hard time believing that people will pay attention to it; and besides, Medeis is not compelled to answer every question (even if it is just to say "read the damn instructions"). Astronaut (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet Another Modest Proposal: Limit the number of questions any one person can ask

Withdrawing per WP:SNOW and WP:DEADHORSE

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

I have noticed over at the science reference desk that certain individuals ask a lot of questions, and that this appears to be inversely correlated with the quality of the questions. I would like to propose limiting the number of questions one person can ask to ten questions on a particular reference desk in any 90 day period. In other words, 9 questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and 9 questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science would be allowed.

I realize that a policy change like this requires more than a straw poll, but I would like to get a feel for whether this has a WP:SNOWBALLs chance before bothering with any attempt to change the policy. If you like the idea but would set the limit higher please say so. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This has come up before, but I couldn't tell you when. As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-starter. Least of all the problems is policing it. But even some of regulars would be shut out by such a rule. Mingmingla (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) How the hell would you police that? We already have guidelines WP:AGF and WP:BITE that I think are quite sufficient. Astronaut (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Good questions should be answered without regard for who asked them. Trolling should be ignored or blocked. There's no need to limit good faith questions to deal with trolling. --Jayron32 18:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe support if reworked. Many people who ask here don't know much about how the system works, so setting a quota would give them a sense of what we can handle. I think the 90-day period is too long for anybody to keep track of, though. I would suggest something more like a person should try not to start more than one new section on his own behalf (all desks combined) in a five-day period - but the first question asked counts as the end of a five-day period, questions exceeding this limit won't be removed if there is some agreement on the talk page that they are good ones, and the usual penalty for exceeding this limit is only the removal (delay) of the offending entry, unless someone very persistently violates it. Not sure if that works either, but just thinking out loud. :) Wnt (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but trying to pin down a numerical quota is going to invite gaming. (Someone who posted ten trolling queries would get past this policy, but someone who asked eleven well-researched, interesting queries would have to defend themselves.) Disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior, which – for this type of problem – is probably best handled on a case by case basis. I don't get the impression that we hit this type of thing more than a handful of times in any given year (please jump in, anyone who has some better numbers or can provide or generate a list of incidents), and that's a low enough level of traffic that we can handle it through a less rigid, less prescriptive response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Well-intentioned, but not practical; and it would be unfair to sincere questioners. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Hard limits will only hurt the honest people. Trolls will simply begin to sockpuppet, if they haven't already. Dncsky (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: TenOfAllTrades took the words right out of my mouth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose proposed policy would take more effort to police than it would save; we are always free to ignore any RD questions that we do not wish to answer. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WITHDRAW: Clearly this is one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" ideas that is never going to fly. I thank all of you who commented for doing such a good job clarifying this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about a brighter issue for a change

Hey guys, I've been bouncing an idea around that I'd like some input on. I've been thinking it might be nice for the Ref Desks to have an annual award, as some Wikiprojects do on occasion, just a little something to recognize those who volunteer an inordinate amount of energy to these pages and provide consistently valuable insight in their responses to inquiries. Any winners would be selected by vote (voting would almost certainly have to be limited to auto-confirmed users) on the basis of their time devoted, the clarity of the guidance they provide, their levity and good nature in responding, and, perhaps most importantly, how well they provide good citation and further resources concerning the concepts they present or deconstruct for the OP. And just how generally helpful they are. I was thinking perhaps one grand winner per year (my pick for the title: "Sage of the Card Catalog") and two junior recipients ("Master Elucidator"). There would be no cap on nominations and we'd give perhaps three votes to each voter, or some such. Perhaps in true Ref Desk fashion, we could have each vote accompanied by a link to an example of a good response. ;) To see how these things are managed in other project spaces, see, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Military_historian_of_the_year. Plenty more here. Thoughts, ladies and gents? Snow (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give other examples beyond the military history wikiproject? I couldn't actually find anything in the page you linked to from a quick search for year, annual and month. Most of those appear to be generic project related barnstars which can generally be awarded by anyone to anyone of which we already have Template:The Reference Desk Barnstar. They are therefore fairly different from a awarded only given to one or a few people every year as a result of a vote. From a search for 'vote', 'consensus', 'acclimation', 'contest', I did find Star of Sophia, WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves and Connecticut Photographer's Barnstar which are apparently award by vote or by consensus rather then by an individual but don't seem to be an annual thing. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I wrote hastily and inaccurately when I implied there are plenty of others of this nature; the vast majority of project awards are barnstars and are awarded on the fly, typically by whoever chooses to give them. There are other annual awards throughout various Wikipedias/Wikimedia spaces (such as the recently closed Picture of the Year), but they tend to be project wide and involve a lot more of the community. Though I believe there are a handful of others neither of us have turned up here, a vote-based award for a smaller project is a rarity for en.Wikipedia. However, I don't think we should necessarily allow this to discourage us from recognizing exceptional dedication amongst our volunteers in this way. While it's true that we have the Reference Desk barnstar, its use is extremely rare (I don't think I've seen it used but once), and understandably so; because of the typically brief and transitory nature of individual questions here, it's hard to get so jazzed about an editor's piecemeal contributions that it occurs to grant such an award -- I think that's the cause in any event. An annual award would give us all an occasional excuse to stop and consider a few editors whose dedication to these pages (based not just on how many posts they respond to but also on how well they provide quality useful answers) is exceptional. Afterall, what can a little goodwill hurt? Sure, I suppose perhaps it's a little inconsistent with the low-profile, casual way with which we typically conduct ourselves here, but I don't think it would necessarily stick out that much. It would probably boil down to a single posting and vote once a year (probably hosted on this page and not much larger than most proposals), maybe a notice on the main pages for a week to direct editors here to vote, and a title and graphic the recipients could stick on their user page. I think the minimal amount of disruption/ego stroking would be worth the goodwill. Snow (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to file this one under "lacking community interest." Oh well! Snow (talk)

Is this just trolling?

Sorry, but I feel like my troll-goggles might be misted. Is this diff just really obvious trolling, or is my radar broken? 86.129.248.199 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  [TROLL DETECTED] [HISTORY CHECK] [TARGET WARNED] [   FIRE!!!   ]
  .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
  |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/  |
  |     /( )\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *BLOCK* --|
  |______/_\_____| |      |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
  '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

lol. Snow (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I had removed this 'question' without too much thinking. Your troll-goggles are broken. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Osman's edit summary said rambling removed, nothing about trolling. I think that was entirely apt. This was not a suitable ref-desk question. Whether it was "trolling" is beside the point. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In the case of a user like Kotjap (talk · contribs), the illustration could be changed to show a whole series of characters toppling, like dominoes. Maybe hard to draw in ascii plain text, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for medical advice removed

I've removed a request for medical advice. The appropriate template has been placed on the user's talk page. Tevildo (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... This one is a bit of a b***h, though. Is there a specific guideline on requests for illegal information? I've not deleted it, although I feel that we ought to. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Illegal" is a localized issue - as I recall, WP is governed by the laws in the state where its servers are located (Florida?); thus, using that term is problematic. The issue of illegal drugs in particular is a controversial subject, and the RefDesk is explicitly not a place for discussion of such topics. My sense is that removal would be appropriate, with an edit summary stating that this is not the right place for that question. If you decide to remove, I would place a note here in a new section to that effect. -- Scray (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is, removal because illegal? No. Removal (or collapsing) because off-topic? yes. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Tourist Office

Hi there! I come in peace from Wikipedia's newest sister project Wikivoyage, a travel guide. We've recently launched our Tourist Office, an equivalent of your reference desk but for travel queries and we were wondering whether, in order to 'jump-start' it, we would be allowed to put a link to it on here. Thanks! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. We do get occasional Q's about "what to see when I'm in X city" or "what's the best way to get from X to Y". I'm not quite sure where we would post such a link, though, and honestly, 99% of the posters don't seem to have read the header info, anyway. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! A link anywhere would be great; do you think one on the Reference Desk Main Page called 'Travel' would be alright? We have issues with not reading the headers too, but it would be great to get some questions even from the few who do! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects has instructions on linking to sister projects.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal A: Add interwiki link on Reference Desk Main Page to Tourist Office per Nicholasjf21 above

I would support adding a ninth interwiki link on the main Ref Desk page, if it could be done in a way that it's not too cluttered. It's a good way to support a sister project. If we did this, would you link to ours by chance? People might go the other direction, and ask questions that could be more appropriate for us to handle ("Why do they speak three languages in Belgium?" or "How many Christians were persecuted in the Coliseum?"). Falconus^{p t c} 23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the community would be very happy to link back to the Reference Desk - I imagine we will get some questions of that nature! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia. Does it matter that we are providing a link to outside WP? Do we need to "warn" people that they are no longer within WP? Are the "rules" for responding the same on Wikivoyage as they are here? (Will they be dispensing medical or legal advice? I can well imagine queries about who needs what official papers to go where that WP's Ref Desk would likely consider legal advice. Or what about questions on what medications to take or inoculations to get?) Will WV be making recommendations to hotels or transportation companies, to travel guides, restaurants or shopping destinations? Would this concern us at the Ref Desk where we don't do such thing?

I don't have a point of view on this proposal, but I do think it needs a little more thought. Bielle (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Wikivoyage is now part of the Wikimedia Foundation, so should have the same basic standards as Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary, etc in terms of legal and medical advice? Or do I misunderstand? And I do not think that there is a policy restriction (as far as I know) on giving recommendations to hotels, transportation companies etc, although in principal I do have some concerns about doing so - I personally would put a caveat with them at the very minimum. Falconus^{p t c} 04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is indeed now under the auspices of the WMF, so we do strive for similar standards, including in terms of legal and medical advice. There isn't a policy restriction on giving recommendations, however, any advice of such a nature would fall under our existing policies of 'be fair' and 'don't tout'. I am more than happy to consult the community about what we could do to resolve your concerns. --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think recommending a specific hotel/business would be highly discouraged. Rather, we would link to the specific destination guide on Wikivoyage and advise the asker some of the options based on their price range, location preference, how many stars, etc. JamesA ^>talk 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support. StuRat (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Tentative Support Having perused Wikivoyage a bit and after investigating the as-yet nebulously defined function and limits of the Tourist's Office, I have some concerns about the overall role of neutrality in the project and whether our aims here (in presenting essentially fact-based arguments) will be truly consistent with the tone and function of the TO, which seems likely to be host to a good deal of subjective assessment. But ultimately the veracity of statements and standards for sourcing are issues which the editors of that project will have to resolve for themselves and I feel that, as a valid and authorized part of the overall Wikimedia community, they ought to be given a chance to find their footing and a tone that is both complimentary of their sister projects yet still unique to its role. And I think those of us working in other projects ought to do what we can to give it a little leg up here and there. To that end, I support the addition of a link, but the wording should be adjusted, as things on Wikivoyage progress, to reflect the tone we see the Tourists Office developing and the level of empirical value we see in the responses there. Snow (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal B: Add interwiki links to all Wikimedia (presumably English-language) reference desks to Main Reference Desk page per Moxy below

Opposes 1 - Support all - not internal help desk(s) - great to hear they finally have a ref desk but why/how is it different from the others ones from other sister projects that are older and not linked from here - are we to link them all? If one of the sister external links is here all should have the same consideration.Moxy (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I could only find similar ref desk pages on Wikiquote and Wiktionary. --Avenue (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Some just call it a help desk even though its for general knowledge questions like at Wikiversity Help Desk - most projects have a ref desk type page just may not be called the RefDesk.PS my so called proposal above was more of a ststment then a request to have other ref desk here. No a good idea in my opinion.Moxy (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: If we are to add them all, we probably should ask if they are willing and able to become main reference desks. The WikiQuote desk, for example, seems to have been little used over the past couple years, though Wiktionary has been more active. Falconus^{p t c} 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support linking to all Ref Desk pages that want to participate, unless there are substantially more than three. Falconus^{p t c} 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have left notes on the discussion pages of Wikiquote and Wiktionary alerting them to this discussion. Falconus^{p t c} 15:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Seems like there would be a lot of overlap between the Wiktionary ref desk and our own language ref desk. Does it even make sense to keep them separate if we're cross-linking them? Actually, what would make the most sense of all would be to have the reference desks from all of these places be swept together into a separate top-level "sister project" WikiReferenceDesk. Answering questions in the way that we do isn't really Wikipedia-specific anyway...or at least, it shouldn't be. SteveBaker (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I tend to agree with you that something like that could be an option, and maybe we should start to move towards that. However, forking to a new sister project would probably take quite a bit of time and coordination much beyond the English Language reference desk. Even if we were to move ahead towards that, I would still be for posting interwiki links in the meanwhile. Do you want to make "new sister project" Proposal C? Falconus^{p t c} 23:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoping this doesn't come across as uncivil, but the notion of forming an independent Wikimedia project is so far beyond the scope of the current discussion as to be a bit silly. The creation of of an entire new domain and all the practical, organizational and technical complications thereof (to say nothing of the process of justifying the new project's existence to the larger Wikimedia community and gaining Foundation endorsement) is not affected in a short span of time or without significant consensus-building and planning. Sure, of course such discussions have to start somewhere, but this is biting off more than we can chew for the current context and is certainly not a path likely to resolve the central issue of the above proposals any time soon. There is also to my mind a significant question as to whether such a consolidation is remotely desirable; the disparate subprojects named thus far all come from different working frameworks; they have different processes, different standards of proof, and just generally different aims. Personally I have doubts as to whether such a merger will ever be seen as practical, but in any event, I'm fairly certain it won't be attempted any time soon. Snow (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the questions above won't be resolved in short order by SteveBaker's suggestion, but RefDesk contributors should be aware of the fragile ground we stand on here. Many question the value of the RefDesk for the WP project. The level of strife surrounding the RefDesks often eclipses their value, and they ultimately contribute only indirectly to the overall content of WP. We should realize that in other venues, elimination of the RefDesks has been entertained many times (with compelling arguments). Reformulating as SteveBaker suggested could, at some point, become more attractive than dissolution. That said, we should focus here on the questions asked above. -- Scray (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would object to the characterization that "the level of strife surrounding the RefDesks often eclipses their value" and even indirect contribution to content makes our work here worthwhile to the project -- personally I often find myself inspired to expand articles whose subjects pass across the Ref Desk. Regardless, I think the spirit of the work we do here -- providing elucidation on a variety of topics for anyone who needs it (with the exclusion of some topics) -- is completely consistent with the general purpose of Wikipedia. All of that being said, your argument that a new project should not be discounted as it may provide future security isn't an insignificant one. If I could trouble you, would you mind linking to some of the other community discussions you referenced where closing the Ref Desks has been discussed? I'd certainly like to look into the matter further. Snow (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I see one oppose, one tentative support, and two supports for proposal A. Nobody else went one way or the other, and I got no feedback from any other Reference Desks for Proposal B. I will be bold go ahead and add the InterWiki Link to the main page. If this seems too premature, feel free to change it back, but leave a note on the talk page. Falconus^{p t c} 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added the link. If somebody thinks it would be better at a different spot on the page, or that the desks should be organized differently, please go ahead. I'm not the best at making things look good. Falconus^{p t c} 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The new link looks great! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that editors should still have the option of posting travel questions on Wikipedia, if they wish to avoid the additional complication of watching another Wikimedia project.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Any suggestions on how to make that clear without cluttering it? Falconus^{p t c} 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, do we have to make that clear? I would be fine with just answering travel questions if they are asked here, rather than trying to move them to the other desk. But since they have a travel desk, it makes sense not to actively encourage those questions here? Any thoughts? I could go either way on this. Falconus^{p t c} 02:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest re-ordering the last three links ("Travel", "Miscellaneous", "Archives") so that "Travel" is on the third line ("Miscellaneous", "Archives", "Travel"). The present version seems to imply that questions about travel are not for the "Miscellaneous" desk. (The "v" in "Wikivoyage" should be in lower case.)

Also, I suggest that "Travel" be in a separate box (along with links to the corresponding desks on Wikiquote and Wiktionary; in alphabetical order, Wikivoyage would be in the middle), with the heading "For information from other Wikimedia projects" or "Other options elsewhere on Wikimedia projects:" or "Elsewhere on Wikimedia projects:". I prefer that readers know that they have a choice about where to ask about (1) quotations, (2) travel, and (3) words.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC) and 03:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I left notes on Wikiquote and Wiktionary about this discussion, but got no feedback. We should only add those desks if they are 1. Actively supported and 2. Willing and able to handle going more mainstream. If so, I would be glad to make a separate box for all three, but until people from those projects weigh in, I personally am disinclined to add Wikiquote and Wiktionary. As I said, I'm not very good about aesthetics, so I understood when I did it that the order in which the different desks appear is probably going to be changed. I was thinking... What if we made a "You are about to leave the English Wikipedia page..." sort of deal, but better written? There one could leave a note saying that if the individual is unwilling to do that, they could go to the Miscellaneous desk, but advise them that they might get better answers at Wikitravel? I don't know how people would feel about that, but I'm throwing it out there. I'm not 100% convinced that it is necessary, but I certainly am not against it. Falconus^{p t c} 04:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If we do anything actually, my preferred choice would be to simply change the verbage underneath the pictures of wikivoyage or miscellaneous. In my thinking anyway, the action of putting a link to WikiTravel here means that we are encouraging people to take travel questions there. That doesn't mean that I oppose accomodating them here, but I'm not too worried about inviting people to ask them on the miscellaneous desk. This are however other aspects to this. I'll be good with whatever people decide about that. Falconus^{p t c} 04:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have studied again the instructions at WP:SISTER (especially under "Where to place links", and now I suggest that the second row of the box have "Mathematics", "Science", Miscellaneous", and "Archives", in that order. Below that row (and either inside or outside the same box), there can be a line of text that says: "You can also visit Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office to ask about travel, vacations, and tourism."

—Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC) and 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dont leave some out look at all the projects - most projects have a ref desk type page just may not be called the RefDesk because its all they do - like Wikiversity Help Desk. Also agree with above if we are going to have them listed (still not sure its a good idea) they should clearly be separated from the internal links in there own box and clearly indicate that they are external links - meaning our readers should understand they are leaving en.wikipedia Moxy (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage has versions in 11 languages: English, German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Romanian. Wikipedia:Reference Desk has versions in many languages, including all of those except Dutch and Portuguese. The navigation box has a link to one in Polish (pl:Wikipedia:Pytania merytoryczne), but I can not find it in the wikicode of the page. Maybe there can be reciprocal links for German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, French, Spanish, Polish, and Romanian.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)