Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Skip to the bottom 

transclusion

I wish the Ref Desk pages were entirely transcluded, so that writing on them could trigger Watching the appropriate archive page. —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There would be a number of nice advantages of transcluding all the per-day sections from the beginning. Unfortunately, there's also a huge disadvantage, which has torpedoed this idea every time it's been proposed (and implemented, at least once, somewhere): lots of readers like to look at the page history to see if there are new comments in threads they're interested in. If there's a page per day, there are then too many histories to watch to make this viable.

(Yes, of course, there are other ways of keeping tabs on the page than using page history in this way. But the point is that numerous people do do it this way. I can't say how many, other than that I'm one of them.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New reference desks

I feel it would be nice if there could be separate reference desks for physics, chemistry, biology with health and medicine, and "others". As all these are quite wide subjects in themselves.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a tradeoff involved in such splits, however. Knowledgeable readers may be reluctant to watch and read a large number of desks; narrower subject sections may receive less attention. As well, many questions in the sciences cross over even those rather broad subject headings you've suggested. Questions on biochemistry, biophysics, pharmacology, astrobiology, bioinformatics – to name a few areas – would not be neatly pigeonholed. I fear that most of the questions will just end up back at the Miscellaneous Science category anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could be right. What trend will be established could be difficult to tell. But that was just a suggestion. What if the edits in the individual reference sections are automatically transcluded to a main Science reference desk? Thanks for the reply. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wuzzup?

What's with the spate of trolly, childishly whimsical, phoney-baloney questions from red-link users all of a sudden? Many seem to be the work of a single personality, I'd say. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that it's the AT. See this diff from the AL desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So, is somebody going to take it to AN/I or involve an admin some other way? My last attempt at early intervention was less than successful, as some may know. --LarryMac | Talk 13:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several extremely reasonable admins who read this page too, I guess it's up to them. Larry, there is lots of inertia, administrative and other, when it comes to troll-fighting at the rd, mainly because the desks and the jesters, in different ways, both thrive on the assumption of good faith. I won't take it to the noticeboard either. I suggest ignoring these questions. If someone removes them the way Zain Ebrahim did, I won't be complaining either. The less attention, the better. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if you number me among the "several extremely reasonable admins" who read this page, but yes, it is the idea of "The less attention, the better" that often stays my hand and usually that seems to pay off. But if anyone ever feels the need for concrete action, please feel free to write to my talk page; I'm around Wikipedia fairly often. (And I assure you that whenever I see the AL nonsense, I block or ban the offender(s).)

Atlant (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do, the way you and Kurt handled it the other day was swift and extremely reasonable. I'm happy we have Übermenschen *cough cough* sysops who care about the refdesk. And I'll remember your offer. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Unless, of course, there is a way the accounts or IPs or range can be blocked. I don't really understand TOR and SHMOR and so forth, but from what I gathered this one is hard to eradicate, which is why I suggest starving him to oblivion by withholding attention.) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the Avril troll? But -- but that guy promised he was going to stop! How can this be?!

...more seriously, a lot of these questions are pretty much obvious nonsense. If we treat them like any other questions, we are essentially enabling this behavior behavior -- "oh, look, they're falling for it, I'm gonna keep this up!". I really think they should be just removed on sight, with appropriate bans to follow. It's not as if they're hard to spot. And yes, absolutely, we can and should assume good faith in that if some questions from redlinked users are generally reasonable and don't contain patently ridiculous elements, even if they look a little iffy, but these questions are blatant trolling. (For example, no one is going to be dumb enough to attempt to give mouth-to-mouth to a fish (and it's even less likely that someone is going to believe that a fish is actually a reincarnated Kenny Everett. In the same vein, it's obvious that no one is sepia-toned in real life, and no WWI veterans are going to be using the Ref Desk to find random people they happened to pose with in a photograph 90 years ago.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The best way to stop graffiti is to clean it up, rather than leaving it there and naively hoping that people will stop doing it. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it the troll gets so many debate answers – if they're not being removed, do we need someone to tag the questions with something like the tick box only a TROLL box? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Overfed.

Honestly? I think it's because a lot of people are a little naïve and assume good faith. (A lot of them probably also don't follow the talk page, so they aren't aware of the history -- they just see a question and try to answer it.) That's why we can't just agree here that we'll leave this guy without any attention, because there'll always be someone who comes along, sees an unanswered questions and decides to help. I like the AGF policy a lot, but it's worth noting that it really requires a bit of common sense and critical thinking to work -- it's one thing to assume good faith, and another to insist that there is good faith when there's evidence to the contrary.

On a closely related note, Avril's all over the Ref Desk again in picture form. I don't know where the headers are, so I can't fix it. This is a great example of why we should never discuss terms with people like this. It's all about manipulation and stringing other people along, getting them to agree to things or to tolerate you or give you one more chance -- to assume good faith, as it were. They're not constructive, they're not contributing anything, and as long as their games work, i.e., as long as they aren't denied access to the thing and people they're playing with, they'll keep it up. (Which is not to say that they can't grow the hell up, because they can and often do, but it's not going to happen by letting them off the hook time and time again.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the header: Wikipedia:Reference desk/header. This time he was going after the recent archives - see this revision history. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm online through a very slow GPRS connection right now, which makes going through various pages in search of specific information like that a real pain. Getting that Avril hit didn't help things any... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you pay for data? Maybe you could try persuing the troll for your costs? Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I pay a bulk fee, and that's it. (I doubt it would work anyway -- it's pretty much the standard to open web pages without knowing their content.)-- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Avril Lavigne troll is indeed back, see [2] (the Base64 is Avril Lavigne). I gave an immediate test4 to the user and will ask for a block if this editor persists Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Idle aside: How do you figure that "the Base64 is Avril Lavigne"? When I decode it I get binary garbage. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I was writing a response to the questionp linking to Base64 and used the first link [3] as an example except that when I tried it, the text Avril Lavigne was staring at me... Testing more [4] does the same thing. Further analysis reveals that [5] and [6] do not, but the binary data is a BMP and the BMP is just text saying Avril Lavigne. I presume the first two decoders recognised it as a BMP and so display it accordingly (didn't notice it was acutally an image although I was wondering why it seemed so long) the other two just show the binary output. If you're using a standalone tool save the output to a file and open it with an image viewing tool capable of seeing BMPs and you'll see the output, but I suggest don't bother, I already know more about this particular instance of trolling then I would care to Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why bother with test4? It's obvious malicious disruption, just block straight away. There's no good faith left to assume here. On a related note, a Bugzilla request has been filed to close the hole he's exploiting entirely. — Lomn 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Given his incredibly disingenuous responses to Nil Einne, I've blocked indef—as can be done on sight to any further such throwaway accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the overfed box. Very nice. 10ofAll, will you do this or do you mean any other admins, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make such blocks where I see the need, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that most other admins would be ready and willing to do so as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate questions?

While others are free to respond, personally I will not respond to any questions from a known troll other then to point out it's the troll even if the question could be legitimate, particularly when the question sounds at least slightly odd/trollish. Why? Well I'l copy my response to the cumming but didn't orgasm question "..... Now that there's evidence this person is the Avril troll, I personally don't see any point responding to this question since this users repeated bad faith questions make me suspect he or she does not really have a genuine question and so there's a good chance no benefit will come from my answer so I don't see any point wasting my time further on someone who's already wasted enough of my time. Of course, others are free to respond how they see fit, but I think it's worth letting them know who that this comes from a known troll." Note just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we assume bad faith for every single question that comes along that sounds slightly 'funny' just that if there is conclusive evidence the question asker is a troll, e.g. they were later blocked for trolling I will probably not respond any further unless other people have an interest in the conversation. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed "medical" question

Diff here. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The question provided a symptom and was asking for treatment advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is not possible to provide an answer without attempting to diagnose the problem. It is obvious that the person needs to read about TMJ, but we'll let a doctor point that out. -- kainaw™ 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting so I'm glad the whole question is removed without polite restatements of policy. Then I'm not tempted to answer in any form whatever. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The OP has answered on the project page, which answer I've moved here:

How is that considered a medical question?? If I am unable to do the splits and I want to find out how to increase the flexibility of my legs are you going to shoot down that question too for being "medical"?? 222.158.118.23 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You described a condition that was causing a person distress and then asked what to do about it. The answer to the second question is that it depends on the actual question you ask. For myself, I would never answer any such question no matter how it was phrased, as I know how easy it is to hurt oneself with exercise and stretching, and I wouldn't want to give bad advice. I used to be able to drop into a full split, so I know what I'm talking about when I say I don't know what I'm talking about. This is all assuming that the original question was serious, which I don't believe for a second it was considering that you call it a "sexual" question later on. We are required to assume good faith here at Wikipedia, and although that would seem to ensure open season for trolls, it actually works very well in the long run, and saves everybody here ulcers. Sometimes those who come here to make trouble find out that this is one place where the internet doesn't suck, and they stay to help. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a ridiculous question, though. I mean, I've had sex with a woman whose jaw just wouldn't open very much, which made kissing, never mind other activities, problematic. It wasn't a show-stopper by any means, but, y'know, it certainly was inconvenient enough to make me now think of the question as non-ridiculous. (But, frankly, it is a little stupid -- I mean, if stretching is going to help, you can see the results by stretching, and if it hurts to stretch, it's probably not a good idea.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dialate your mind. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel better about it, she had trouble taking bites out of apples, too. And flossing. Point is, it strikes me as a fairly legitimate condition (but I absolutely agree that it isn't going to be solved by the Ref Desk). -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I intentionally avoided saying right out that it was a "sex" question because I figured people like Milkbreath wouldn't take the question seriously. The reason why I didn't just "try" stretching is because I thought that the muscles in the jaw were arranged differently than other bones, and that it wasn't the length of the muscles that determined how much aperture? you could get, and rather the arrangement of the bones. But I don't know anything about that, so I just thought somebody else might know. 222.158.118.23 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is me closing the picnic basket and heading for the car. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes someone else will know. Specifically a doctor probably would, and can also advise you/her on what, if any, is the best course of action to increase the 'flexibility' of the jaw Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm gonna go ask my doctor if he can help her. I'm not bitter, I used to participate on the refdesks a lot a while back, and I know how it works. I just think you guys are acting way over the top this time. It's a personal opinion; I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. 222.158.118.23 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can claim your question didn't ask anyone to diagnose the problem and provide a prescription to treat the diagnosis. In my opinion, you could have used the RD properly by simply asking what the medical term for "jaw popping" is. You would have been told that it is a common disorder of the TMJ - and our article discusses it. It is all in what you ask for. Ask for a reference and you get a reference. Ask for a diagnosis and you get your question deleted. -- kainaw™ 21:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the existance of a medical term for "jaw popping". My neck pops when I stretch it, and the popping itself was never uncomfortable nor did I ever feel it was ever related to any medical condition. In my ignorance I was unable to imagine a more serious origin for the jaw popping. Thank you for the link; I consider myself informed. 218.229.72.184 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed another question seeking medical advice

Diff here. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The person is not asking for advice to treat or deal with the phobia. He or she is asking for the medical term (in the first question) and an explanation of the phobia (in the second question). The problem with this question is that an answerer must diagnose the problem first to give a true answer. However, no diagnosis is required if there is a term for "fear of things being on the other side of the door." No diagnosis or advice is required to answer that question. -- kainaw™ 12:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the guidelines, "The Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request...any kind of medical diagnosis...." The OP asked " Can someone explain this phenomenon?" The "phenomenon" was his own behavior that he found puzzling and disturbing. He was asking what was causing his bizzarre behavior, for a diagnosis. By calling it a "phobia" you provide a diagnosis. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that I cannot answer the question without providing a diagnosis. However, if there is a specific scientific term for "fear of things being on the other side of the door," it would not be a diagnosis to provide that term. The person clearly stated the symptom. Providing the proper name for the symptom is not a diagnosis of what is causing the symptom. As far as I now, there is no term for that symptom, so none can be given. -- kainaw™ 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When the original poster asks "Can someone explain this phenomenon?" he's asking us for an explanation for his (purportedly irrational) fear—we'd be offering a diagnosis for his symptom. There are a lot of potential causes for such a presentation, and we'd be doing a disservice to the poster to offer any comment beyond referral to his physician (who can, in turn, refer him to an appropriate specialist). As an aside, volunteers here should be very cautious about referrals to psychiatrists and therapists—some superficially 'psychological' problems stem from serious underlying disease.

Incidentally, Milkbreath, please try to remember to sign when you leave the {rd-deleted} template. A user may want to follow up with you if they don't understand why you removed his question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I always forget to do that, but I do notify the user on their talk page. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"What kind of phobia would this be considered to be? I am not afraid of aliens. Or at least, I don't think I am. Can someone explain this phenomenon?" I can see how you could decide that this is a request for a diagnosis, but I don't think it was one (which is why I answered it) -- I think it was a request for information about the subject.

This kind of illustrates something that strikes me as a pretty disingenuous practice -- if the original poster would have omitted the fact that he himself has these sensations and phrased it somewhat differently, and perhaps even stressed that he's interested in the subject and not looking for medical advice, you probably wouldn't have removed the question. But if he had still used the information as advice anyway, what's the practical difference?

And I'm not saying that we should start diagnosing people here, obviously! But if we're honestly this concerned about whether people are going to take what we say as advice, we might as well ban all medical and legal questions altogether and remove articles about these subjects from Wikipedia, because not only are people going to use them as advice, we can't really guarantee their accuracy, what with the whole "anyone can edit Wikipedia" thing. (Which is not to say that intelligent and careful users aren't going to make sure that they only use referenced information etc., but you know what I mean.) What's the point? It's not as if the rule is going to protect anyone from a lawsuit; if someone decides to sue, they'll sue. They might as well sue Wikipedia because someone gave bad science advice or whatever.

(And I'm not trying to be a pest here, I should probably stress; I'm asking because I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious. I certainly know that the United States is an extremely litigation-happy country, and that's undoubtedly a factor in this... but still, it seems that there's a degree of overreaction here.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this essay? --Milkbreath (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and it's reasonable. "We don't want to hurt anyone," "Overdiagnosis is bad too," "You're not a doctor," "People lie," "Think of the children" and "We don't want to hurt Wikipedia's reputation" are full of good points. But none of it really addresses the question -- to wit, I don't see what real difference any of it makes. We provide plenty of information -- medical, legal and otherwise -- that can be construed and used as advice, and if someone wants to sue Wikipedia or us personally, they will. I mean, if I have an ear ache, read the article and, like an idiot, conclude that I must have mastoiditis and decide to attempt a myringotomy all by myself, I may sue Wikipedia just as well as I could if I had asked a question on the Reference Desk -- and I could easily word that question in a way that wouldn't look as if I was asking for medical advice.

And I should stress again that I don't think we should diagnose people here; I'm just saying that if the concern really is for Wikipedia users' well-being and for avoiding lawsuits, all this seems disingenuous. In this instance, the original poster wasn't really asking for medical advice, he was asking for information. We (well, technically, you, but that's irrelevant in that I might just as well have read the question the way you did) interpreted that as a request for actual advice, even though taken literally, he was asking someone to explain the phenomenon -- he wasn't asking what to do about it. My point is, if he had omitted the part that he himself had these feelings and had taken a little more abstract approach, it would have been purely a discussion about strange feelings of fear and what causes them, and we would most likely have let it be. And yet he might still have used it as medical advice. Or another reader with a similar condition might have. So what are we really saying here? That it's okay to ask for this information and use it as advice, as long as you misrepresent the situation? I mean, clearly -- unless I'm missing something here -- we're not keeping anyone safe here on any practical level, we're just pretending to do so.

And just to be clear: I really, honestly don't mean this as criticism of your actions; like I said, I might just as well have read the question the way you did and done the same. You acted well within policy, and not at all unreasonably. It's just that now that I think about it, I can't understand what difference it makes. It's just lip service that doesn't really have anything to do with actually keeping people safe. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to use an actual question as an example, because that takes us into the place we are trying not to go. But hypotheticals never work, either. So we're stuck with generalities. It's not disingenuous to read a question and see what it says. This is a typewritten medium, and all we have to go on is words in a row. Not a facial expression, not a tone of voice, no set to the shoulders or unconscious gesture. Words. And written words, that often fail to say what the writer thought they would. We form a mental picture of the questioner based on those words, but our mental picture is almost certainly wrong. So we have to read and interpret the words as they appear on our computer screens and deal with the question accordingly.

I see what you're driving at, but I'm inclined to demolish your position, I'm afraid. It matters who says what when. If something that happens here ever goes to trial, it will matter who said what when. It will matter whether we can reasonably have been expected to keep our bonehead opinions about a questioner's medical condition to ourselves. It will matter if we can be shown to have been simply acting in good faith and trying to provide information. It will matter if we can be shown to have been willing to sacrifice a human being on the altar of freedom. People get all muzzy when legal matters come up. The law is indeed arcane and rococo, but judges and juries are human beings with a degree of common sense and ordinary understanding. The things we legal layman can easily understand do matter within the legal system too. So I would twist your position to suit my own; we must avoid actually being disingenuous.

Speaking for myself, the whole matter is crystal clear, and all this dancing around the issue kind of pisses me off. But I'm a good Wikipedian, I hope, and I will always start by debating in good faith. The guidelines say not to supply medical advice on the reference desks. Couldn't be clearer. I know what medical advice is, and I know what the word "not" means, so, understood, let's move on. What I don't understand is why so many people try so hard to game the rules so they can provide medical advice. Have you ever tried to advise a mother on how to raise her children? Or advise a biker on concepts in personal hygeine? I hate to give advice, so why do so many love to? --Milkbreath (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do demolish my position! I'd honestly love to have someone convince me that this makes sense. But you haven't done that yet. If your position is that the guideline says that there's no medical advice, that is straightforward. That's also completely ignoring the actual point I'm making. I know what the guideline says; I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning the intention and logic behind the guideline, because it seems obvious to me that many of the questions we answer can be used as medical advice, even if they don't explicitly ask for it -- so clearly, the concern for someone's safety is kind of dubious. The legal reasons seem pointless to me as well; if someone wants to sue us, they'll sue us.

I mean, why is it that someone can ask about possibly insane electrical projects or virus programming without problems, but asking about an ear ache is a no-no? Isn't there, logically, a far greater chance of injury or damages (and lawsuit) there? And, again, I want to stress that I'm not saying we should provide diagnoses or medical advice; I just don't think the rationale that just about all answers to medical questions are medical advice makes much sense, when answers to medical questions that are explicitly worded in a way that makes it clear that they are not asking for medical advice can still be interpreted as medical advice and used as a basis for a lawsuit -- when, in the end, it's a question of somebody asking something from some guy on the internet and that lawsuit isn't gonna fly anyway.

As for hating giving advice, well, I'm not sure dunno how that fits together with working the Reference Desk, but that's your thing, I guess. (I mean, if a biker comes along and asks what to do about these armpits, where's the problem?) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. To answer your question, I don't know. I've refused to answer many questions because I thought somebody might come to harm if I did. I don't feel in the slightest disingenuous about it. Human beings wrote the guidelines and are still writing them. If you have some wording you'd like to put in there, or some you'd like to take out, let us see it. I've always imagined that the proscription against giving medical advice had an at least twofold origin: some vague association with the laws against practicing medicine without a license (same for law) and the idea that people are frail animals subject to all manner of maladies from which they seek relief, desperate or confused, not to be toyed with. When Wikipedia gets asked whether nothing is sacred, we can say "Yes, the sick." It's a matter of mercy. I don't see how you can make immediate human suffering an abstract phenomenon and draw a parallel between that and anything else. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this removal. If the OP had left out the bit at the end ("Can someone explain this phenomenon?") then this would IMHO have been an acceptable question (perhaps for the Language desk). Is there a word to describe the fear of something on the other side of the door even though you know nothing's there? Nothing wrong with that.

The fact that he added the request for an explanation doesn't change things as I see it. The purpose of removing "medical" questions is to protect the OP. I propose we change this to only allow for protection of reasonable OPs. For example, a "misguided soul" may respond to the question on expensive cognacs with "One only enjoys an expensive cognac after drinking 600 bottles over 3 years." An unreasonable OP would proceed to liquidate his retirement provisions for the enjoyment but no-one would remove that question. If we had responded to this question with "the fear of something on the other side of the door even though you know nothing's there is known as XXX-phobia" (with the usual IANAD etc) then I can't see how a reasonable OP would be harmed.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Zain on this one. People coming to the refdesk are not qualified-certificated-trained-supervised question posters (who should know how to depersonalise a question for a start so there's no legal recourse *ironical wince*). While I sympathise with Milkbreath being the activist here, imo there's a difference between asking What is...? and What should I do? (especially My friend/daughter/wife/'s like this so how to fix it?) People are responsible for their own further actions (such as looking it up on the internet or wikipedia) surely. To give someone a term for a thing like a Phobia is only describing it in Greek after all. I'd like to give'em a break while not being played – a balancing act, but worth it sometimes. Strangely though masturbation and sexual dysfunction stay put and invite big threads in reply... Julia Rossi (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who asked the question. I did not intend to ask for medical advice. If you look at my contribs you can see that I've been at the ref desk long enough to know better.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Goon Noot, I did see that, but rather than get into labels, phobias and other aversions, see your gp about anxiety and unexplained signs of stress. (also posted to user's talk page) Julia Rossi (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you object to removing the question and then send the guy to a doctor? For this metadiscussion to be made into a revisiting of the original post defeats the purpose of the removal and undermines the process. Do not give advice. What's hard? Do not give a diagnosis. "Phobia" is from the Greek, to be sure, and "dunderhead" is German. How do you know it's a phobia? How you know it's a sign of stress? How do you know the problem is not physical? How do you know it is not dietary? How do you know it's not something you don't know a goddamned thing about, Dr. Fizzleputts? Do not give medical advice. Jeeze. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Dunderhead is not German! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath, I object to this particular question's removal but I would also suggest that User:Goon Noot speak to a professional for a diagnosis or advice. We can provide information (i.e. the fear of something on the other side of the door even though you know nothing's there is known as XXX-phobia) without advising or diagnosing. We only remove questions when we feel that someone else may come along and provide advice/diagnoses. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal. Surely we can answer whether or not there is a name for such a phobia without actually telling the OP that we diagnose that they have that condition. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Medical Question

Here's the diff. Answering could result in possible life-threatening drug interactions. Fribbler (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, completely agree, I was going to remove it myself but got distracted. You don't get more blatant requests for medical advice than that! ~ mazca ^talk 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a question for a pharmacist. While any dexbrompheniramine/pseudoephedrine med will likely work, the person probably wants a different brand with similar dose to Drixoral. -- kainaw™ 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye. I left a message on the questioners talk page suggesting they speak to their doctor or phrarmacist. (pseudoephedrine and hypertension caused alarm bells to go off in my head anyway; they should see a professional to at least review this combination) Fribbler (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to my comments above, I should probably stress that this is an entirely reasonable removal, in my opinion. A wholly different situation. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It looked like the op thought they were in touch with the distributor or manufacturer. They were confused but well removed. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, parts of it we could have answered safely, like telling them whether or not that med was actually pulled off the market. But, of course, we shouldn't give them an alternative medication recommendation. StuRat (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But leaving the question on the desk leaves it open to anyone to say anything. Proposals to edit the dangerous parts out of the question or use a standardised method of dealing with general requests for advice were met with some resistance (see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 47#New approach to legal/medical advice). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

T-watch

This one 71.100.8.192, keeps removing my posts. From their dubious questions about Abraham Lincoln no less. I had three here under "aside"[7]. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored two of the posts because it irked me that a bad-faith contributor should be allowed to remove a good-faith volunteer's comments which also served as a warning to other good-faith volunteers. Once again, I recommend ignoring posts by 71.100 completely (i.e. no intellectual fisticuffs either). This is exactly what he feeds on. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin, agreed. Some are quirky but this one's very different. Sorry about the box (though it's a fun idea), I'll rely on a verbal flag instead. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A different one - diff with implicit admission. For those who like to be aware. --LarryMac | Talk 20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that particular account (English translation: "wipeable") also appeared in the string of new users asking off-questions at the miscellaneous desk a couple of days ago, visible here. Another account present in that array got blocked a few minutes ago for vandalizing countless user talk pages. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The user has 2 megabytes of crap commented into their talk page. Should it be blanked? Fribbler (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Larrymac I missed that one. Disgur-stin'. There were so many thoughtful replies, but I think parc-sters are not the way to demonstrate the tender capacities of refdeskers. Blank'em I say. Anyone else getting leery of Dr Ruth type questions and their hooks (such as can-only-turn-to-you-guys kind of thing)? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify (and this may be a help desk question), this particular t***l's talk page has nearly two megabytes of commented out (and hence invisible) rubbish on their talk page. I'd imagine this is normally removed, but I'm loathed to remove anything from anyones own talk page. Any ideas? Fribbler (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd only remove it if you're wearing a mask. Hey! At least that was an effortless meme. This guy is trying to hard. I'd focus on the I in WP:RBI and on all three letters when the account becomes disruptive. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'd say that's the way to go, Sluzzelin. Fribbler (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into the past

<moved to sci desk here[8]> Julia Rossi (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

rm'd trolling

Removed some trolling, [9], mentioning here because there was a good faith response.—eric 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Check it out. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a "Reference desk/Medicine", and Athaenara has already deleted it. (Presumably [[Reference desk/Legal advice]] will be next. :-\ ) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vacation Suggestion

I intend to take a vacation from the RD for a week or so (if not more). I have two full-time jobs, I'm taking a full semester of Calc III in a four week course, and my son is almost 18-months - so he is at the "mine, mine, mine" and "no, no, no" stage. I figure that all of that has caused my patience for the idiocy of some questioners on the RD to decline drastically. Knowing that I need to take leave for a bit, I thought that there are times when I've seen responses from other well-known RDers turn to frustration. Then, I thought, is there a polite way to suggest to a RDer that they probably need a break? I'm rather surprised nobody told me to take a vacation - or, have I always been so rude to questioners? What are some suggestions for telling someone, "You deserve a vacation. Go away, relax, and come back when you feel better." -- kainaw™ 12:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"You seem to be a wee bit bitey at the moment. Time, perhaps, for a short & stress relieving wikibreak?" --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we make a template out of that, {{RD wee bit bitey}}?  --Lambiam 05:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a wee bit bitey at the moment. Time, perhaps, for a short & stress relieving dip in the cool and murky waters of real life.

Heehee. I like that. I think it should begin with "What happened?" to indicate that being bitey is not the person's normal state. -- kainaw™ 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

People answering a question that has already been answered

See here, for example. This annoys me a little, I have to confess. If I know the answer to a question, but someone else has already answered it, I would never add anything to the thread. Once a clear and unambiguous answer has been given, there is no need for further responses giving the same answer. Unless people feel that further identical responses somehow give weight to, or corroborate, the first answer? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if you have a problem with someone's post (which is unrelated to the content of the question), it's best to leave a note on their talk page (unless they don't have a talk page). You may find that they did have a good reason after all. In this case, I would guess that User:Hotclaws simply missed User:84user's comment and User:AndyJones answered Hotclaws' question. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In my 'umble opinion I don't mind people concurring on answers ("yup, user:xxxxxx is just right"). And I can forgive people who only read the title of the question and chime in with the answer even though it has already been given. What irks me is kind of the opposite: when people skim over questions that have recieved an incorrect reply. I'd prefer see a hundred identical responses to a question than one misleading/incorrect response that nobody chose to expand upon or correct. Fribbler (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I took it the poster was putting the original suggestion into a context, even though personal and chatty. I didn't mind. I answered a post with stuff from the pedia and then in the history came across someone delcining to answer because they couldn't add more than the articles which i just did. I like to give some leeway (even to myself!). Also stuff happens I feel, and sometimes people don't get it right all the time. If it was a case of someone always adding the obvious like a chiming in, that might be a problem habit best avoided or challenged. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see several good reasons for giving the same answer:

1) As stated, it lends weight to that answer, which is especially important in case others give an incorrect answer.

2) There can be an edit conflict, in which case the person doesn't realize the other editor gave the same answer.

3) The second person may feel they can explain the answer better and/or add more detail.

4) For questions with a very long discussion, especially on off-topic items, it would take too long to read through the whole thing to see if the answer was ever given. Thus, it's better to risk repeating it than not give the answer at all. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

[10] Seems very strange for a person to ask about such a specific software that gets 879 Ghits and the response sound like it's coming from a sales person. Should it be removed? --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess my good faith supplies are depleted, because I'm finding the sight of two new users created within 15 minutes of each other whose only contribs are to ask and answer a leading question suspicious. Advertising doesn't seem to be mentioned specifically in the guidelines; should it be? Algebraist 08:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When it becomes a problem – afaik this is the only instance spotted yet on the desk. With or without such mention, it is disallowed per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. This applies to all content hosted in Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 15:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep it out of the guidelines unless it becomes common, to avoid the risk of WP:BEANS. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, and left polite notes on the talk pages of the accounts involved. Also filed an RFCU, just in case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Homework Accusations

Its getting a bit tedius that almost every other question at the Science desk gets accused of being homework. Although some instances are obviously homework questions, many are legitimate questions. I urge people to please assume good faith or else users may get discouraged to post legitimate questions in the future. Thanks for listening. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I basically concur and am not fond of drive-by "Do your own homework" messages offering absolutely no help whatsoever. I recommend reading SteveBaker's "Modest Proposal" which had a number of supporters at the time. (See also preceding thread, "Homework Questions" for context). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith isn't such a good idea - we'll end up doing people's homework for them far too often. I think the harm from a false negative is worse than the harm from a false positive - too many false negatives and we're going to get schools blocking Wikipedia altogether, which would be a very bad thing. The solution, which many people do, is to try and point people in the right direction without actually giving them the answer. The problem is that with some questions it's very difficult to do that without giving too much away, and "Do your own homework." is the only valid response. --Tango (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tango, can you give an example of a question where "Do your own homework." (and nothing else) is the only valid response? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good example, in fact! Questions starting "Give an example of..." - it's often very difficult to point someone in the right direction without actually giving them an example (not in all cases, certainly). --Tango (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do your own homework is never a helpful response, so it's never a valid response for a reference desk. We're here to help with answers; if you don't want to help, no one can force you to. We don't need an explanation of why you don't want to answer a question. Just move on. - Nunh-huh 01:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fwiw, I found it helpful to be warned by that kind of answer when starting at the ref desks. The wording can be softened probably, though takes more effort. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how "being warned" is helpful. But I agree that being polite may require some effort . That doesn't relieve us of our duty to be polite. A librarian staffing a reference desk who answered a questioner with "do your own homework" would be - justifiably - fired. - Nunh-huh 03:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If a person is not going to receive much or any response because it is a homework question then yes, it may be helpful to know why Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One can respond to a question like this one with "See Addition". I'm not sure though that – given the question – it is an actually helpful response.  --Lambiam 08:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think the template is an excellent idea when used properly but I fully agree that we should not simply point out that the question is homework or use the {{dyoh}} template without attempting to nudge the OP in the right direction. Also, I'm not convinced that we should not link to articles just because it contains the answer in the first line (assuming this is what Tango was referring to). Teachers should be cognisant of the fact that their students have access to WP when setting homework.

The issue is when it isn't obvious which article to read. If someone is asking about addition, pointing them to addition is fine. If someone is asking about how bubbles work, pointing them to surface tension might be giving too much away (of course, this is Wikipedia and we have an article on everything, so we could just point them to soap bubble - I can't think of an example we don't have a perfect article for!!). --Tango (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't have the time/energy to add some courtesy to your response (or, at the very least, remove the sanctimonious arrogance from it) you should probably wait for someone who does to come along and answer. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pointing people in the right direction is a good idea and will nudge the OP to have a think and then maybe follow on with a further discussion about what part of the question/answer they may or may not understand. However, I feel that this can and should be done without actually accussing the OP of submitting a homework question (which is where the good faith assumption comes in), unless it is a really obvious case. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to explain why I'm not giving a full answer. It allows the OP to correct me if it isn't actually homework and explain why they want to know (you can usually tell if they're being honest or not). --Tango (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, there are cases where maybe you could ask for the OP to at least attempt the question themselves first. Could this be done without mentioning the word homework though only it suggests that the OP is breaking the rules, when maybe all they need is a bit of encouragement to push themselves. I do understand your point though. Jdrewitt (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many questions are accused of being homework unfairly. This is not good either for our credibility or the experience of the user. It is also rather uncivil to baldly state do your own homework. There is no reason at all not to at least give a helpful link as well. If one is not reasonably sure that it is homework, then just give the helpful link without the accusation - if it was homework you have done no harm and if it wasn't you have at least helped the questioner. On the other hand, I think it is right to tag blatant homework questions in order to warn naive refdesk helpers. Certainly I was trapped into answering several homework questions when I started answering questions before I learnt better. SpinningSpark 13:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems rather patronising to assume that anyone who wants to ask a question is some schoolchild trying to cheat at their homework. There are plenty of people over the age of 18 who use the Reference Desks, you know!

Homework questions that are clearly cut-and-paste jobs are easy to identify, and should certainly be discouraged. But so should this ageist assumption that we're all a bunch of lazy adolescents. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with directing the OP to the appropriate article and also would add "redirecting the question". If they ask "What are the factors of 24", show them how to find the factors of 15, then say "now you try that method with 24". StuRat (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Around the block

Is Taxa someone who's been around the block a couple of times?[11] Julia Rossi (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Another 71.100 sock. See how this diff was signed, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not seeing things -- ironic that the font face is "rage italic". Sluzz, you're acute. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Humanities desk vandalism and protection

I see that User:AndonicO semi-protected the Humanities desk for some hours this evening. I don't know about anyone else, but I think this is a poor idea, which I hope won't be seen as a precedent. We've got plenty of people ready and willing to revert anonymous-IP vandalism. (We've certainly dealt with much worse in the past.) I really don't think we should accept the collateral damage that results when good-faith anonymous-IP editors (of which we obviously have lots) are locked out. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I left AndonicO a note. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw AndonicO was responding to a request for protection here. Not a lot of harm done, but I agree with Steve: There are plenty of good-faith querents and helpful volunteers editing without a registered account, and the desks should always be open to them. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that most IP edits to the page are here to ask questions, but then again you had been being spammed recently. I'll try to rangeblock 71.100, which should fix the problem. Unless I screw up... · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, indefinitely? That would be Christmas in June. But aren't range-blocks problematic because of the potential collateral damage to innocent editors within the blocked range? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've applied a rangeblock to User:71.100.8.0/21. If that worked, you should have at least a week of peace; if it didn't, you'll probably hear of my desysopping soon. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not indefinitely, only for a week; rangeblocks can be problematic, yes, but I don't think there were any other alternatives other than protecting. I'll leave a note at WP:AN, though, in case anyone has a better idea. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No other alternatives? Personally, I'd rather waste my time reverting the troll than risk having "protection" against IP contributors. There are several GF questioners and valuable answerers who contribute via IP. I don't think that protection of the desk was a good idea. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant rangeblocks were our only option (not protection, as you seem to have understood—I probably didn't phrase it very well). · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I was the user who requested a short period of protection. It seemed like a good idea at the time, since people were spending all their time reverting 71's edits, and "desk jockeys" watchlists were becoming blind to new questions. If consensus is to keep reverting in the future, then that's what I'll do. Mea culpa :-) Fribbler (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Related protection

The semi-protection of the desk(s) I've been enacting is unrelated to the reason above. The ref desks keep getting hit by spam bots. There is a discussion taking place at AN/I. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See also the related technical discussion also at AN/I. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion I've already commented on...Seraphim♥Whipp 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Another admin has protected the Miscellaneous desk again. Clearly the anontalk spammer is persistent, but I still think I'd rather deal with it by hand. Let's have a quick straw poll, to demonstrate consensus:

no semiprotection for RD pages, or anything else which would lock out good-faith anon contributors

• Steve Summit (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• D0762 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think it's a little soon to be having a poll, but nevertheless, I think allowing anon's to ask questions is extremely important. I'm more than happy to clean up after vandals manually if it means people can actually use the desk. Killing the patient in order to stop the tumor growing is not a good approach. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• As a very strong preference, I will put my name here (reasons given above too). That being said, my name probably belongs under other, because I recognize that there may be situations where a bot is working so fast that fighting it manually could actually be Sisyphean and result in more confusion and chaos than a short semi-protection of no more than a few minutes. I just don't understand enough about these spambots in order to judge whether it's really necessary or not, but I'm willing to consider the possibility. As long as it remains the complete exception and only a last resort, I guess I can live with very occasional page protection. If protection exceeds periods of fifteen minutes and/or happens more frequently than once a day, then we need to look for other solutions. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  There's an IP querent asking for help below, and just to provide an example of a regular, learned, and helpful volunteer who couldn't edit, see this post. The actual (not theoretical) occasional necessity of semi-protection hasn't been established to my satisfaction yet (maybe we need to let the spambots run amok once, just for demonstration's sake, if I'm around I'll be busily reverting), but if it turns out to be inevitable, I propose trying to keep the duration as short as possible (i.e. trying out one to three minute protections too, maybe that's enough). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• What happens when the trolls [[The AT|create accounts]]? Are we then going to fully protect the desks? Semi-protection amounts to the same thing: we're denying use of the desks to GF contributors. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• We block them... Seraphim♥Whipp 15:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, a troll with a large number of "sleeper accounts" is, for all practical purposes, the same as the 71.100-type troll. In any event, that didn't form the basis of my vote. The way I see it, the collateral damage from any protection of the desks far outweighs any potential gain. Don't do this. If you don't want to revert by hand then someone else will. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A range block was enacted, so that situation is hopefully dealt with. I've already made this point at my talk page (which I invite people to read for further context) but not yet here. The reason semi-protection will sometimes be needed, is that spam bots act too quickly for the human hand to beat. In an attack that happened yesterday, 4 different IP's were used in the space of 2 minutes. If protection hadn't have been instituted, it would have gone further. However, don't think us admins are lazy. I have taken different actions to try and beat this, namely adding the link to xlink bot's revert list, reporting the IP addresses at the open proxy project (of which a number have been blocked for the period of 2 years) and reported it at AN/I for further discussion. Another admin, East718 said he would also try and stop this. Sometimes though, quick semi-protection is the most useful tool. I don't really understand how bots work, but I imagine that short protects would interrupt the algorithm (if I've even got that right...) Seraphim♥Whipp 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Attack just happened. Would you want new users to stumble upon a page that looks like this? I urge you to look at the history of that page when the attack began and when others began; they move too fast. I was trying to see if the short protect would be effective...guess we'll find out another time. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing fast is not a problem, it's only a problem if they change IP addresses (and not just within a small range) quickly. Protection was unnecessary there, just blocking the single IP address that was vandalising would have been plenty. (Yes, it changed IP addresses later, but still to just one address which could be easily blocked.) --Tango (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But bear in mind, there were IP edits that occurred in the edit history right before the attack, which I didn't have time to verify. I was trying to see if a really short protect could be effective against a spam bot (whoever is running it normally changes IPs very fast.) Seraphim♥Whipp 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, of course I wouldn't want a new user to stumble across that kind of vandalism -- but at the same time, I'd wouldn't want for them to be told they have to wait four days before they can ask their question, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is advocating that we semi for 4 days, and if they are, I'm firmly against that. The protections so far have not exceeded past a few hours, and now I'm testing the effectiveness of very short protections (5 minutes). Seraphim♥Whipp 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know we're not suggesting 4-day protection, but if a new, anon user discovers they can't edit and researches why, that's the impression they're liable to get (since 4 days is, of course, how long it takes before a newly-registered editor can edit a semiprotected page). —Steve Summit (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Steve Summit, Tango, and Sluzzelin--don't risk locking out good-faith quesioners.--Eriastrum (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

yes: semiprotection for RD pages, or other extreme measures even if they lock out good-faith anon contributors

• Semi-protection only for 15 minute periods when spambots are editing (I think that's enough time). Rangeblocks only when a certain IP range (such as 71.100.xxx.xxx yesterday) is being extremely disruptive. Anything else, revert by hand. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-protection is a useful tool that has to be used in some instances, for example when vandalism or other bad faith edits gets out of hand. Yes it is sometimes used in talk pages and it should also be used in the RD if and when necessary. Generally it shouldn't last long, but we shouldn't block out a useful tool completely Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Protection for a few minutes to an hour. I think the title of this voting option; including the words "extreme measures" is POV-tastic. I think that sometimes (and it is rarely) it is needed to semi-protect and we shouldn't rule this action out. Fribbler (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

• Semi-protection is a viable tool to use against open proxy spam bots and enables good faith editors to continue editing, without the either the annoyance of being repeatedly edit conflicted or having to revert. It also prevents IP and new editors from being confused and frustrated when they see a ref desk that no longer has their question on. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Occasional semiprotection may be necessary to deal with serious and recurring vandalism or spam. The duration of semiprotection usually won't need to exceed a few hours at most. If vandalism comes from a single ISP, rangeblocks should be considered as an alternative; this may not be a viable option if such a rangeblock is likely to cause signficant collateral damage to the rest of the project, or if the vandal/spammer is using open proxies on multiple ISPs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-protect -- I don't have stats but questions on the desks seem (to me) to drop in quality when vandalism/spam is taking over. Anyone else see this? so I'm with astute use of the semi protect option here. And I'm wondering if only full-on manual reverts might impact like a "game" to them and become a kind of challenge. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm

Responding to Fribbler's last comment. I agree that "Yes: semiprotection for RD pages, or other extreme measures even if they lock out good-faith anon contributors" is not a very fair or helpful title, hence there are several "others". This is part of the problem with strawpoll dichotomy. What prompted this poll was a comment by one of the protecting administrators that there was no "set in stone" consensus against protection. What seems clear now is that everyone who is familiar with the desk wishes for as little protection as possible. The question is whether occasional protection is necessary or not. There is currently no consensus on this one way or the other. Two reasons I'm (still) opposed to any protection:

• I haven't seen why manual reversion can't actually be done, (in practice, yet)
• I want every spambot-hunter to use page-protection as the ultimate resort here. I don't want protection to be explicitly allowed by consensus (just like I understand those who don't want it explicitly prohibited by consensus, which brings us back to the problem of strawpolls...)

Responding to Julia Rossi's remark, yes I've thought about the gaming too, and was reminded of hours wasted as a ten-year old when battling it out with one of our usual suspects recently. Encouragement is not desirable, but WP:RBI still looks like the best solution to me. Eventually they'll get bored. What really encourages some of them, is when we respond to trolling directly, in the thread or on their talk pages (or in edit summaries, something I'm guilty of doing), which is why I will continue to revert and ignore (and leave the blocks to the administrators). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin has deduced my motives in starting the straw poll perfectly. (Thanks!) I don't particularly like !votes either, but I thought we had consensus and I wanted to demonstrate it unambiguously to passing admins in order that they not "helpfully" impose protection we didn't actually want.

But it's clear from the poll that the consensus is not, in fact, as unanimous as I imagined, and I accept that.

As to the POV-ness of the poll titles: yes, I guess they were, but it was deliberate. It *is* a stark choice, and I wanted to present it as such. If we have to report to semiprotection, we're saying that the health of the desks (protecting them from vandals we can't keep away any other way) is more important than the questions and contributions we receive from anon-IP users. Me, I don't wanna say that; my opinion (sorry if I sound defeatist) is that if we have to do that, the spammers have won, and we might as well shut down the desks and go home.

At any rate, I join Sluzzelin in hoping fervently that if we have to resort to protection, it can be held to an absolute bare minimum, and I further hope that it doesn't become a slippery slope we slide down. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A compromise

Assuming the following:

• it is impossible to stop disruptive bots by hand
• very short (i.e. up to 15 min) semi-protections do stop disruptive bots,

I would be prepared to live with the following:

If it can reasonably be deduced that the disruption is coming from a bot using dynamic IPs then semi-protection for "very short periods" may be used.

If the disruption is not from a bot (it's usually easy to tell) then I don't think we should semi-protect. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add a third assumption:

• there are no other technical means available

—Steve Summit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are? Then my vote was only partly informed. Didn't want them taking over willy-nilly and ignore seems hard to achieve in all. Apols, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very informed about botic matters either, which is why asked Steve. He mentioned some alternatives in this thread. I would very much like to see an autorevert-bot being tested. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Sluzz. Do I see our Steve preparing to step up to the plate there? : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen autorevert bots at work here before. Of course, our bot isn't necessarily any quicker than those doing the vandalism, so, if we still can't keep up, a short semi-protection would be OK. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You see me making making encouraging noises, but no, not quite preparing. (I'd love to write an autorevert bot, but it would be a fair amount of work, couldn't easily be built on the existing bot architecture I use, and would really be a wheel reinvention.)

I think the first thing we should do is list the desks on User:ClueBot/Optin, to see how well ClueBot does at stamping out vandalism. (I asked its maintainer here if he thought this would be a good idea, but unfortunately never received a reply.) What do other people think about this idea?

In my experience, anti-vandalism bots can revert vandalism very quickly, usually in less than a minute, and, yes, oftentimes faster than it takes the vandals to vandalize in the first place. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a compelling reason not to, I think we should go ahead and list the desks there. Note that my understanding of these issues is quite minimal. Some questions, then:

• Would ClueBot misconstrue legitimate posts for vandalism?
• Would ClueBot register the AnonTalk spam as disruption?
• I see from User:ClueBot that it is 1RR compliant, is there a way to avoid this? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to a new thread below. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

I had the following question to ask on the Miscellaneous reference desk, right after I reverted another anon's vandalism:

[question moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Zelda DX]

However the page was semi-protected, and I could not post it. It would take a significant amount of time to become "established" even if I became a registered user. So I can't ask my question there; I have to ask it here and/or hope someone moves it there. 71.220.217.201 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the page is now unprotected. 71.220.217.201 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that, the page is still protected.

Sorry about the semiprotection.

I've moved your question, but to the Computing desk, not Miscellaneous.

For future reference, the amount of time it takes to become an "established" registered user is 4 days. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

External willpower

Hey hey. As I'm finding it hard to leave a particular discussion alone, I'm staying off the desks for 24 hours. I'm posting this as a way of forcing myself to stick to this plan. :-) 79.66.45.237 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the fun of it

Just for the fun of it and inspired by Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Silent Deskers I've started this (controversial I'm sure) page. Please add youself (to make my job easier) or not. I'll not get all of you I'm sure so feel free to help out with your own sig or other omissions. --hydnjo talk 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it would be more helpful if the list contained the person's area of expertise (assuming each person has one). Of course, this would be purely a good faith assumption. I could claim to have a PhD in Olde English Poetry. Of course, anyone here would assume that is not true since my answers show that I really have two areas of expertise: computers and hedgehogs. -- kainaw™ 12:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm touched to be on the D list. I could say for sure what my areas are not: hard sciences, sports, games, soap operas, astronomy, mathematics, programming. Maybe the desks of choice would be a guide.  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a jack of all trades, master of none. But my Google-fu is strong. --LarryMac | Talk 14:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Coriolis effect and cyclones

Question moved to The Science Desk. Fribbler (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Create a Technology reference desk

Thank you for moving the above question. In my opinion, there should be a reference desk for (non-computer) technology. Right now, technology lies under the Science desk, but the desk is overcrowded, and I believe that technology (at least everyday technology such as cars, bicycles, home appliances, cameras and similar stuff) does not attract the same audience as science. /Yvwv (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean a sort of Engineering Desk as such? Would it have the traffic, do you think? Fribbler (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it will - howstuffworks.com is really popular. /Yvwv (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The desks are fine as they are. Science and technology are closely related disciplines and it would make no sense to separate them. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Science desk is rather crowded with a very wide range of topics being discussed. It might be helpful to split it. I'm not sure splitting between science and tech is the best option, though. Splitting Biology off to its own section might be best - I think it's the largest single group (based purely on my own perceptions, I haven't actually counted), and it would concentrate all the medical advice questions on a smaller board where they are easier to deal with consistently. We can then keep Physics, Tech and Chemistry together. --Tango (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an interested party could go through last week's archives and sort out exactly what types of questions are being asked on the Science desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A week is a bit much, but I've done the 12th and 13th. If a couple of other people want to do the rest, that would be great. Dividing up the topics is a little difficult, but this is what I got:

Biology	10
Biotech	1
Physics	6
Aerospace	1
Astronomy	1
Geology	1
Chemistry	1
Philosophy of Science	1
Maths	1
Technology	2

Clearly, some of those can be grouped together. Astronomy falls under physics, Aerospace can either be physics or tech, biotech can be biology or tech, geology could be physics. However you group it, though, it seems my assertion that biology is a major component was accurate, at least over those 2 days. --Tango (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only split off more desks if there is a need traffic-wise, or if the topics are completely unrelated and non-overlapping.

As for traffic, for June 12-18 the Science desk currently features 79 questions (11.3/day), less than 98 (14/day) for the Computing desk, and 82 (11.7/day) for the Miscellaneous desk. In terms of size, the Science desk currently has 116 kB, a bit more than the Computing desk (112 kB) and less than the Miscellaneous desk (145 kB)

Though Tango is probably right about Biology being the bulk discipline within the Sciences, some Biology questions overlap with Chemistry and other fields, and it is helpful having generalists and specialists of related disciplines read and answer them as well. I'm not convinced we need another split. Each fork-off adds complexity and also confusion, and makes the desks more difficult to monitor. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose for the reasons stated by Sluzzelin. --Anonymous, 22:25 UTC, June 18, 2008.

I also oppose as others, but note that it's not the fault of the desks when questions turn up in the wrong places and there's been more of that lately (that I've noticed). I did think it might be a cool idea having a mechanics desk, but then we'd need a bot wearing a white coat and pen in pocket to send questions down chutes to their best destination and that isn't going to happen. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. The RD is fragmented enough. Also, if you want to get into "this falls under this" game, first see http://xkcd.com/435/ (yes, it is one of those stick-people XKCD comics). -- kainaw™ 12:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

>bookmarked< Julia Rossi (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose. However, I'd like the Computer Desk renamed to Computers and Technology. This might convince some people who post on the Misc Desk to post tech question there. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone bold! Computers & Technology I thought was a good suggestion, StuRat. Mac Davis (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose that as well. Technology is more closely linked to science than it is to computing. And we now have the word "technology" in two headings, which looks silly and confusing. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Richardrj, I don't think it's a practical title. If anything, I always thought "Science and Technology" might sort of work. But I'm happy with the way it was too. Not that I mind the ambiguity of having "Technology" at two desks that much (see below), but I think Technology questions generally fit better with the Science crowd. If "Computing & Technology" is to stay, I would like an explanation why people who know about mechanical or electrical engineering, bio- and medical technology, etc. are more likely to hang around at the Computing desk. It already had "Information technology" as a subcategory, I think that is sufficient. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that the words "electronics" and "engineering" (which I think are two of the main topics people might have in mind under "technology") appear nowhere in any of the capsule summaries at the main RD page. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose 'Computers and IT' as the title on the main RD page. 'Computers' sounds better than 'Computing' to me. 'Computing' sounds like something that computer geeks do, whereas 'computers' sounds more like what the lay person would look for. And we already have "information technology" in the capsule summary, so it makes sense to have IT in the title as well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Computers and IT" works for me. Re:Steve: We could replace "technology" with "engineering and technology" among Science's subcategories, and maybe add "electronics" to the subcategories under "Computers and IT"? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also been bold and, in the absence of any dissenting voices to my suggestion above, have changed the title to Computers and IT. Any objections? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a helpful improvement in terms of question triage. I added "electronics" as subcat of "Computers and IT", and added "engineering" as subcat of "Science". The final serial commas were intentionally removed, because I saw last two subcats as a unit in both instances now ("software and hardware", "engineering and technology"). My punctuation is notoriously horrible, however, and I hope someone double-checks. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How disappointing...

(I've been wondering whether to post this since I didn't want to give the troll the attention but decided to go ahead, hope no one minds). I removed some new trolling [12] from the Avril troll (and also asked for the account to be blocked). However I was a bit disappointed to find the troll is still here when he/she promised to stop... Okay I jest I'm not since I didn't expect him/her to actually stop. But what is 'disappointing' is that after reading one of the responses I've realised this troll isn't even apparently original, he/she just seems to be copying questions from Yahoo [13]. I mean I knew the troll was lame, but I didn't realise he/she was that lame! N.B. I don't think the Yahoo user questioner is the same person as from the question history, the Yahoo user doesn't have the same 'fascination' with Avril that the apparently troll does. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right Nil, there's nothing too lame or too low to have maximum impact for minimum effort. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit annoying, yes. But, still, if the most serious problem we had was too many questions about Avril, I'd be quite happy with that. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's questions

I see that the Help Desk has a link at the top of the page to skip directly to "today's questions". Seems like a good idea to me. Of course, doing that here would require the cooperation of Scsbot. --Anonymous, 22:21:20 UTC, 19^H^H^H June 18, 2008.

No bottity required! The Help Desk does it with something like

[[#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|Skip to Today's Questions]]

—Steve Summit (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly to me, when the END key on the keyboard (usually right above the UP arrow) will likely do the same thing. But, I suppose it's no big deal, it just makes an already way-too-busy header just a bit busier. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Very useful. Thanks! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cannot undo edits

Due to the rate of vandal edits, I couldn't undo the edits in Miscellaneous. Protect the page? --Ouzo (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Thanks! --Ouzo (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving threads about

User: 68.148.164.166 keeps moving the questions he asks around after repeated requests not to do so. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Pubews. I think this is quite disruptive. Should we WP:RBI? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He is not the only one. I told Interactive Fiction Expert that he shouldn't do that (as well as telling him it was uncivil to threaten and abuse people who try to help). He responded to me with his stock "How dare you..." and threatened to report me to WP:AIV. Then, he decided it was necessary to remove my posts from the RD. -- kainaw™ 12:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's blatantly abusive behavior, which nobody should have to put up with. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to form a consensus first. Should a person be allowed copy/paste or bump posts to keep them as the newest post? Please keep in mind that this includes copying responses from other people into new sections of the RD for the selfish purpose of keeping the questioner's post in the "new" area of the RD - as well as pushing other threads out of the new area. -- kainaw™ 12:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with not allowing people to punt their posts into the newest position whatever. But do we still copy and paste questions to actually relevant desks when they turn up in the wrong place? (I might be confusing two things here.) Also is there recourse when people punish a proper action by removing posts in retaliation? or is restoring enough. Just asking, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reposting to the correct Ref Desk is fine. As for people who remove posts out of spite, that is a definite violation of the rules. I'd suggest the first time someone does this you just post an edit comment on the restore that says something like "It's never appropriate to remove a post just because you disagree with it." The next time that person does so I'd post a message on their talk page saying essentially the same thing. If they persist after that, I'd report it to an Admin, via ANI, who can block them if they continue to delete the posts of others. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that Kant's moral philosophy should apply. If every OP who receives an unsatisfactory answer (in their opinion) tries to move their question to the bottom, the result would be chaos. I understand that one's questions may be missed by an expert during high-traffic periods but moving your threads to the bottom to try and get more attention is selfish and unfair. If this happens to be consensus then I think we should go to the Guidelines' talk page to try and get something to this effect in there. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule against making a new post that says, "If you see my post [[here]], you can see that my question was not answered. Does anyone know...." -- kainaw™ 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a new guideline could be added if this continues to be a problem, something like: Do not move questions - If you feel your question received an unsatisfactory answer you can repost it with a link to your orignal question. JessicaN10248 18:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't really want them reposting the exact same question again either (or posting a link to the original question), unless there is some new aspect to the question (like if they first asked "Which nation has the greatest number of elephants ?", and then ask the follow-up: "Where can I get a breakdown of elephant populations by country ?"). If they didn't get an answer the first time they posted, they likley won't get it just by posting the same question again. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical question discussion

Moved (mostly) from the Science desk by Zain Ebrahim. Here's what was pasted in.

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to you and your symptoms. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting the appropriate health professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for medical advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided). Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My 25 year old cousin has Asperger yet she seems normal (normal meaning she doesn't appear to have Aspergers). Maybe just slightly a little too shy and sometimes she fumbles her words when she speaks. She has a lot of trouble explaining to people that she has this condition because they simply don't believe her. She was diagnosed a long time ago with this. How could this be? --Anthonygiroux (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the question, as I see no sign of a request for medical advice here. As for Asperger's Syndrome, I suggest you read up on it by following that link. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like medical advice to me - I get the feeling we're being asked to confirm or deny the diagnosis. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is asking for medical advice. I don't appreciate overly harsh messages being left on my talk page either, especially when this could be seen from either viewpoint. Perhaps I was a little hasty in removing the question but this sort of thing SHOULD be left in the hands of physicians. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is handled a lot better when the person who removed the question reports it at the RD talk page so that it stays removed until consensus deems it should be reposted. Definitely prevents harsh messages on the remover's talk page. In this particular case, I would ask whether we should bend our backs to protect someone who would take the diagnosis of random people on the internet over a professional (note that I'm not accusing the OP of requesting a second opinion). This question appears to be of the form: "Is X necessarily a symptom of disease Y?", which I don't think is a request for advice. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with taking it to the Ref Desk Talk Page, but not with deleting the post first. The deletion should only occur AFTER a consensus to do so has been reached. Otherwise, deletions without any consensus behind them may very well be reverted, by myself and others. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to delete first - consensus may take a while to reach and potentially harmful advice/information could be provided in the interim. Here's an except from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting:

Please do not restore a question that was removed by another editor acting in good faith using a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just because you disagree with the reasoning, and also do not discuss this on the Reference desk pages themselves. Instead, discuss the issue on the Reference desk talk page, so that, hopefully, consensus may be reached.

If you want to change the guidelines, you'll have to go to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a question is like a slap in the face to the OP, so should only be done when we are certain there is a request for a medical diagnosis or advice. This can best be done by FIRST gathering a consensus on the talk page. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but I don't think we should go against the guidelines. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy; there's no obligation to follow them. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I will report it in future. As for whether we should 'bend our backs' to help, I think so. As I've said on StuRat's talk page, it's better to be safe than sorry. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'sorry'? Even if this were a request for medical advice, it doesn't seem like the type of question that would create any immediate danger, and as shown can be answered in a way that doesn't involve giving medical advice. So I do think you were a bit hasty to delete.Fletcher (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there was absolutely no danger here under any possible interpretation of the question. Therefore, there was no reason to remove the question. StuRat (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the question in a way if there is Asperger in females. As the article states that cause of Asperger is not fully understood and no specific gene has yet been identified, it is not limited to male, so a female dignosed with Asperger is possible.--Stone (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also read the question as asking about Asperger's in females, not a request for medical advice. According to this link males with Asperger's outnumber females 9 to 1, which could explain why the OP's cousin has trouble getting people to believe her. Fletcher (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the question was that the "how could this be ?" was asking why people don't believe her when she says she has Asperger's Syndrome. That question deals with the perception of the disease in the public mind, and is in no way a request for a medical diagnosis or medical advice. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Whereas, I read the question as "She was diagnosed a long time ago with this. How could this be?". Difference in opinion, I think. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "She was diagnosed a long time ago with this" sentence appears to be misplaced between the thing she was questioing and the actual question. The OP opened by stating "My 25 year old cousin has Asperger", a rather definitive statement, not that the OP questions the diagnosis. If you take the question to be "How could this be that she was diagnosed a long time ago with this ?" that doesn't make much sense. We would have to answer "Well, if she went to a doctor a long time ago, that would be how it could be that she was diagnosed with this a long time ago". Many OPs here post questions in confusing manners, many because English isn't their first language. Clearly the bulk of the post was about other's not believing she had it, and there's no mention that the poster doesn't believe it or wants our diagnosis. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with CN here. From my POV, it seems to me that the OP is asking 'how could it be she was diagnosed with Aspergers when she shows no signs of having it (and everyone agrees that she has no signs of having it)'. The fact that the statement "My 25 year old cousin has Asperger" seems a definitive statement to you appears to reflect your POV which I don't share. It could resonably interpreted to mean, 'she is considered to have Aspergers because she was diagnosed with it'. As you yourself agree, the question appears at least somewhat confusingly worded. Bear in mind as well that I suspect quite a number of people (more so in some cultures then others) have difficulty actually disagreeing with a doctor's diagnosis so if the doctor says you have condition X then many people may treat it as fact they have condition X even if they have difficulty accepting the premise. So they may question the diagnosis without actually saying or implying 'I think the doctor was wrong' Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess we won't really know how the OP intended the question unless they come back and respond. All I know is that I removed a question since I thought it best interest to the OP if they went to see a physician to get those sorts of answers. I had the OP's best interests at heart here, I don't at all see it as slapping them in the face. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 08:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the policy of deleting all questions that request advice. I can imagine many reasons why someone, including myself, would adamantly refuse to consult a professional and instead ask for help on the reference desk. For medical questions, there's almost always much more harm in resorting to self-diagnosis via the Internet and suffering medical student syndrome than in receiving possibly-incorrect advice from likely-knowledgable people. For example, if a user is absolutely convinced that he or she has a serious disease even though the symptoms suggest the flu, removing the user's question would not be a responsible choice.

I'm not taking the extreme view that absolutely all requests for advice should be retained, even though I noticed the French Wikipedia is following such a policy. I'm only arguing that the other extreme--forbidding every single question related to advice--is illogical and not beneficial. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding your note above that guidelines are not policy and we therefore are under no obligation to follow them. While they're not policy, they do represent consensus and I think that we are under an obligation to follow consensus. The guidelines are very useful and they would become totally pointless if we allowed people to randomly contravene them. Of course, consensus may be changed and I urge you to take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines.

Regarding your other view, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 47#New approach to legal/medical advice and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. People have done a lot of hard work to set up these guidelines and I think that we should treat them as policy. The current practice works as follows: people report any questions they removed and then have to defend their removal (to people like me) unless it was a good removal. I think that this is a good system. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to each of your comments separately, Bowlhover. "I disagree with the policy of deleting all questions that request advice." — As Zain has said, it's a guideline not a policy. Feel free to not follow it but it's not encouraged. "I can imagine many reasons why someone, including myself, would adamantly refuse to consult a professional and instead ask for help on the reference desk." — No one is denying that one may be very nervous to visit a professional or feel uncomfortably doing so, but that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the ethicacy of answering these questions as unqualified people. "For medical questions, there's almost always much more harm in resorting to self-diagnosis via the Internet and suffering medical student syndrome than in receiving possibly-incorrect advice from likely-knowledgable people." — I couldn't disagree more with your logic, i'm afraid. I could self-diagnose myself with influenza fairly easily but if I state my symptoms on here and get told i've just got a common cold and i'm an elderly citizen who the flu could actually kill, then it's very dangerous to accept the medical views of an unqualified person because I as an elderly citizen may require medical treatment rather than bedrest. "For example, if a user is absolutely convinced that he or she has a serious disease even though the symptoms suggest the flu, removing the user's question would not be a responsible choice." — What?! Again, I couldn't disagree more, sorry! If a user is absolutely convinced they have a serious disease then it is our duty to emplore them to seak medical attention. If they require urgent medical treatment, knowledge is not a replacement for drug or physical therapy. For example, if someone presents here with the symptoms of tension pneumothorax then me telling that person my OPINION of their condition is far more dangerous than them seeking proper emergency advice from a physician. "I'm not taking the extreme view that absolutely all requests for advice should be retained" — Good! "I'm only arguing that the other extreme--forbidding every single question related to advice--is illogical and not beneficial." — Well, I hope i've explained my reasons why it is not at all illogical in my answers above. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take issue with one point that Bowlhover raises; the others seem to have been fairly thoroughly addressed. I'm very concerned about statements along the lines of

"...there's almost always much more harm in resorting to self-diagnosis via the Internet and suffering medical student syndrome than in receiving possibly-incorrect advice from likely-knowledgable people."

On its face, that statement is pure speculation; it also doesn't account for human nature or established history on the Ref Desk. While I have no doubt that many editors on the Ref Desk are 'knowledgable people', very few of them have formal medical training. (The few Deskers who do have medical training have tended to stay well away from offering advice.) What I have observed is a tendency to fall into what I've seen described as 'Engineer's Syndrome'—the mistaken assumption that great skill and expertise in one area automatically translates into expertise in another area. (I know it's a trap I've fallen into from time to time.) Give a smart – but untrained – person a fast internet connection, a web browser, and Google, and in five minutes you're well into 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' territory. While the results of this Syndrome applied to most questions range from amusing to frustrating, they very easily slide into 'genuinely dangerous' when applied to medical questions. Frankly, our egos get in the way.

I'm sure I'm also not the only person to notice a certain collegial competitiveness on the Desks. Many editors want to be the first to answer a question, and collectively we pride ourselves on our speedy responses. There's the old handyman's saying—"I can give you any two of fast, cheap, and good." The culture at the Ref Desk leans towards the first two options, I'm afraid. Just a little while ago, I added an answer to a question about what makes different materials at the same temperature 'feel' colder or warmer. The question had received its first answer in just five minutes; that answer talked about the relative specific heat capacities of the materials. Now, that's not totally incorrect, but it omits the most important issues to the question—heat conduction and (since fluids were also involved) convective heat transfer. Those answers arrived about twelve hours later; I don't know if the original poster will actually ever read them. I assume it's unecessary to spell out the risks associated with offering rapid-fire, incomplete, partially incorrect diagnoses to our readers.

Finally, the Ref Desk has its share of editors with axes to grind, just as much as any other part of Wikipedia. They will range from the obviously-kooky "You can cure your cancer with crystals and herbal tea" to the subtle-but-insidious "You shouldn't trust your doctor; he's paid to overdiagnose. Just ignore the symptom unless it gets worse." While a hurly-burly free-for-all might be intellectual fun for us, it's unhelpful at best for the poor sod who asked the question. It also does a disservice to readers with a confirmation bias—depending on what they are looking for, they might go away happy as long as one of our answers says that their symptom is probably harmless. Honestly, if someone is sufficiently concerned about their symptom that they're seeking outside advice on it, they should be encouraged to seek trained, competent advice. We are not a good substitute, and those of us who think that we are are dangerously unaware of our limitations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I shouldn't forget this opportunity to plug my essay on Why we shouldn't give medical advice on the Reference Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Those arguments are completely valid, but they're far from being absolute truths. Some answers will harm the questioner, some editors are overly competitive, some self-diagnoses are more accurate than the reference desk, and some would agree to see a medical professional if refused an answer, but those generalizations are not always applicable. --Bowlhover (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was only objecting to your near-absolute statement that there is "almost always much more harm" in not answering as compared to trying to diagnose or prescribe here. I certainly wouldn't deny that – sometimes – Ref Deskers would give an answer that is potentially correct. On rare occasions, we might even come up with an answer that is complete. But we're not trained to give those answers, and we're not qualified to evaluate them. There are many, many, many examples every week of responses from people who don't know when they don't know something. Given that those people reply to questions on every topic from Avril Lavigne to cosmology, I see little hope that they would hold their fire when giving medical advice.

While only some editors are competitive to an unhealthy extent, it only takes one to give a fast, dangerous answer. While only some answers will be harmful, we don't want to harm even one reader. While only some readers will see a doctor when told to, that's better than our not telling them to do so. The absolute best, safest advice we can give is to tell a reader to speak to someone who is genuinely qualified to answer their request for medical advice. If they are unwilling to take that sound advice, then we shouldn't expect them to critically evaluate any of the suspect, untrained, dodgy, snap-answer, best-guess, off-the-cuff responses we might offer instead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Page in need of some translation

In the past I could swear I've seen a tag along the lines of "This page is in need of attention from someone who speaks such-and-such a language" - I have a page in need of having some lyrics translated and was wondering

1) how do i make the tag?

2) is there a page to post the page on that translators check for work to be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunt king (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For translations from German to English you can post your specific request at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/de. For other translation requests or more general information see WP:TRANSL. I couldn't find the right template immediately, if no one else responds here, you might wish to post your first question at the Wikipedia:Help desk where it belongs (this page is for discussing the reference desks. To find a collection of where to ask for what, see Wikipedia:Requests (though the listed items could do with some explanation). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I found Template:Notenglish and Template:Proofreader needed. See also Category:Wikipedia_translation_templates. For an introduction to templates, see Help:A quick guide to templates. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it's not entirely clear to me whether there is any real need for the entire lyrics in the article or whether it might be something better for e.g. wikisource and more importantly perhaps for something like this which requires an accurate representation of the specific meaning a sourced translation is far better. (For translating articles it doesn't matter much since the main issue is that we get the general idea across, if the editor writes something differently it usually doesn't matter a great deal) Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving questions to the "proper" desk

kainaw's stickman cartoon on pigeonholing and Julia Rossi's question on whether we should paste "questions to actually relevant desks when they turn up in the wrong place" reverberated. This is something I have been meaning to put here for a while:

Possible advantages of moving a question to the right desk

• Question is more likely to be read and answered by experts or people who understand what they are talking about. In other words, question is more likely to get better answers. (A very strong reason. The principal one.)
• A certain refdeskian aesthetic sense of order is satisfied, and no one needs to point out that "you might receive a better answer at the foo desk".

Possible disadvantages of moving a question to the right desk

• Original posters won't find their questions. They might be looking for it by searching their signature or wording in question. Not everyone remembers their heading (often people use the "new section" function, hit edit without filling out the "subject/headline"-box, the system patiently reminds and insists, and the querents hastily enter "question" or something else they won't remember.
• Occasionally the question isn't even misplaced, in the sense that the querent intentionally put it there, knowing full well that there is a more specific desk. (The most striking example, perhaps, is when questions at the Miscellaneous desk (where anything goes) get moved to the Entertainment desk (which is frequented by far less people). Maybe I want my question on Vincent Gallo answered by that more diverse and larger crew at the Miscellaneous desk).

I know I've seen moves where I would have preferred they hadn't been made, but I have no concrete criticism to offer. Just food for thought. Most of the moves are good in my opinion (and all are done in good faith) and I thank those who take the time do perform this tedious gruntwork.---Sluzzelin talk 07:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be compulsory to post a direct link to the thread on a different desk if you move it, so that the OP can find it straight away. They can there post if they disagree with the move? Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd move questions but leave an easy-to-find link. The question askers get nothing out of posting a question in the wrong place and the question answers get nothing out of telling the user they're in the wrong place. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do always move questions when I feel they are more relevant on a different desk, unless they have already been answered and concluded. I move it to the correct desk, with a header of :''Moved from [[Wikipedia:Help_desk]]'', and put a "moved to" message in the section where it previously was. That way anybody coming back could find it, and it also finds its proper home. I believe this solves all the problems. Mac Davis (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having just been a victim of it myself, I can tell you that it can be very annoying to have your question moved, no matter how carefully or well-intentionedly the move is performed.

In particular, it is not necessarily easy to notice that the movement has been done. In my case, a day after asking a question on the Science desk, I first searched that desk for my own name, and then for a word I knew was in the question, and found neither, and then started searching back through the history to discover when my question had been vandalized or accidentally deleted, and only very belatedly discovered that it had been "helpfully" moved.

You might say that this was the wrong way for me to look for my question and its answers, you might think that "obviously" "everyone" would search for the question's title (perhaps in the TOC), but you'd be wrong. I'm the counterexample, and there may well be others.

Furthermore, even if it's "clear" that the question "belongs" on another desk, the questioner might have had good reasons -- perhaps not obvious to you -- for posting it where it was.

Except in extreme circumstances, I think it would be far better to suggest to the original questioner that "you might get better answers over at the Whatever desk" than to peremptorily (er, preemptively) move it yourself. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cyclone, x42bn6, and Mac Davis, I actually wrote all this under the presumption that links to the questions' new home would be provided, but Steve now confirms two of my concerns. How is one to remember someone else's generic heading to a question one has answered? Okay, you can check via diffs and page history, but it is confusing and obviously annoying. I don't think Computing or Math questions necessarily need to be moved from the Science desk, for example. I did originally think that a pure Physics question could be moved from the Language or Humanities desk, while I always preferred leaving questions posted at the Miscellaneous desk alone, no matter what the topic. We have generalists and specialists from every field pitching in there.

I guess one option would be to draw attention to a misplaced question, by posting a new heading with a link at the specialized desk. That way the question will get read by the right people, and no one is confused. Thoughts? ---Sluzzelin talk 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to ask the questioner if they would like their question to be moved and explain that they may get a better answer. In general, presuming they respond at all, they will say "yes, please!" and they will know where the question is being moved to. (While also leaving the header and adding a "moved to the foo desk" message). Fribbler (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

After I caused all of this havoc, I decided to never move questions again. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Zain Ebrahim, I think WP:3RR applies. Mac Davis (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Zain, you didn't cause it. I move on the inspirations of my whim (as when in tinkering mood) – things get pretty elastic (even Steve Um, didnt you ask a question on your user page one time?) though I do like to leave a trail and keep it light. Otherwise, from the eyeball test, I notice people can be advised but veryrarelyhardlyeversometimesnever bother to act on good advice adn the desks start to look like no-one differentiates seriously. Hopefully a little shuffle with signposts can turn the tide back soometimes. Coffee anyone?  ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When moving a question always leave the heading with a hypertext link to the new position - that way it's easy to find, and solves the problem. DONT just cut the whole thing..87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot minister to the refdesks?

Up above I wrote:

I think the first thing we should do is list the desks on User:ClueBot/Optin, to see how well ClueBot does at stamping out vandalism. (I asked its maintainer here if he thought this would be a good idea, but unfortunately never received a reply.) What do other people think about this idea?

Zain Ebrahim replied:

Unless there's a compelling reason not to, I think we should go ahead and list the desks there. Note that my understanding of these issues is quite minimal. Some questions, then:

1. Would ClueBot misconstrue legitimate posts for vandalism?
2. Would ClueBot register the AnonTalk spam as disruption?
3. I see from User:ClueBot that it is 1RR compliant, is there a way to avoid this? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To which I can answer:

1. It might. But probably not.
2. Maybe. And the forthcoming rewrite of ClueBot definitely could, because it can be trained with new examples of vandalism. (In fact, its authors are soliciting our contributions in that regard.)
3. I don't know. I kinda doubt it.

—Steve Summit (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 3, um you guys should RTFM? :-P ;-) *grins* I did and "There is one exception: This bot will revert today's featured article or any page listed in the opt-in list for angry mode as many times as it finds vandalism." Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 1. Looking at User:ClueBot/Source particularly the score list, the only thing I can see that might be a problem is all caps and no caps often aren't vandalism. But since they only score 10, shouldn't be a great problem. Perhaps there might be legimate questions regarding 'fuck you' (etc) or 'you suck' (etc) which will be considered vandalism although provided the person says something identified as a proper sentence and no other negatives it should be fine. On the other hand, if I ask "is it acceptable for a 10:30 p.m. television news network to broadcast someone saying 'fuck you' uncensored in new zealand? what about cunt? bitch? pussy? asshole? cock?" I'm guessing I'll be reverted. Nil Einne (talk)

There is a User:ClueBot/Sandbox. Sure enough... [14] or even [15] or even [16]... I was blocked for using a Tor node after that (I was using a Relakks account since I decided I didn't want to reveal my IP but it wasn't a Tor node since I'm not running Tor but I guess it has similar issues, i.e. you can easily change IP and it in theory is supposed to be difficult to track a person down if all you have is the IP) which highlights the point if we want to run tests like this it may be wise to mention it somewhere first Nil Einne (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The line

Can I ask what purpose does the format ---- unbroken line have in threads? For me it breaks so that I don't know whether to post above it or below it. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to an example? Oh, do you mean a line like this:

---

Ah! Right. One of those. I forgot that wikimarkup even existed. I hardly ever see it used in articles, let alone discussion threads. If there's a purpose, it's an ad hoc one used by an individual poster. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It was used to break up different discussions and topics. For example see the reference desk as it looked years ago JessicaN10248 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye Olde Referinge Deske is quite ugly. Fribbler (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the OPs expressed their questions a lot more clearly in Jessica's snippet than they do now? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That must be why MoS recommends minimal use of it then. Thanks for your help everyone, pretty it is...  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment for Zain, fwiw, there seems to be more unsupported speculation going on at the moment – don't know if that's a passing thing or am being too harsh... maybe just my late nights. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

May have something to do with the "certain collegial competitiveness" (coined by, AFAIK, TOAT above) eh? Hopefully it goes away. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I crush a Tramadol Pill and drink it in water instead of swallowing the pill whole?

I think we handled that medical advice question pretty well, over on the Science desk. What do you think? Mac Davis (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the replies should have stopped after the anon IP; we especially shouldn't be talking about dosage availability and saying that pill-cutters are available, even if the latter was finally followed up with a disclaimer. As far as Cyclone's statement about not removing the question since there had already been replies ... we all need to just get over that. If your reply gets cut along with a professional advice or troll removal, those are the breaks (and maybe you shouldn't have been making that reply in the first place, eh?). It's collateral damage and we're not here to count the number of posts anybody made on the reference desk. --LarryMac | Talk 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thread, by the way. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we did pretty well, but that's really just because the correct answer happened to coincide with our standard answer ("Ask your doctor.") The explanation of the reasons behind not crushing pills was good in this case, but we need to be careful in other cases that we only explain why *not* to do something against medical advice and never the opposite. ("You should do what your doctor says, but..." would be a bad start to a sentence!) The comment about getting pill crushers from a pharmacy, etc. was borderline, although pharmacists do qualify as medical professionals, so it could be taken as advice to ask your pharmacist, which is a perfectly acceptable response. --Tango (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to rush in with alternatives for getting pills down a horse's neck, but I restrained myself to maintain the standards of this noble thread. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thread bumping

For anyone who doesn't use this terminology... Bumping a thread means that you move it from an older part of the Reference Desk to the new part of the Reference Desk so people will see it as a new thread in the hopes that more people will see it.

Just a few days ago, we discussed thread bumping and the consensus was that it is wrong. You should not bump threads to the "new" section of the reference desk. Related to this, there is a user to continues to bump his threads, pretty much every time he replies to one of his threads. This can be seen here. I warned in his thread and on his talk page. He responded by submitting me to WP:AIV and then WP:ANI. Is there a consensus about what to do when a person insists on bumping threads? -- kainaw™ 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm squarely in your camp, and recently reverted an anonymous user who did this repeatedly (despite having been warned). -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If a thread gets archived before getting an adequate answer, then it might be worth bumping it, other than that, leave it where it is. If someone insists on behaving disruptively despite being warned not to, block 'em. --Tango (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, consensus is against bumping. We might expand the Be patient. injunction to read:

Be patient. Your question probably will not be answered right away, so come back later and check for a response. Questions are normally answered at the same page on which they were asked. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to four days. Questions, once posed, should not be moved down the page.

In the case of the poster in question he/she exhibits signs of incontinence - bumping, forum shopping, misplaced appeals to admins, and worst of all, swearing at people who are trying to help him/her. I suggest we continue to revert and remind the poster that he/she is acting against consensus, but anticipate that he/she will probably commit other infractions leading to sterner action being taken. If the bumping continues, we can review the question with a view to recommending disciplinary action. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've left a note for the individual in question, noting that bumps will be reverted on sight, that further action will be taken if he/she persists; and that swearing at respondents is always inexcusable. I live in hope that he or she will join us here to discuss the situation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will note that, in the particular diff Kainaw linked, we're talking about a thread over three weeks old. Replying at the original location isn't likely to garner a response. That said, the bumping is, if nothing else, confusing. I don't think "revert on sight" is directly appropriate in a case like this; it seems it would be better served with a replacement by a link to the original discussion. As for the specific user's associated behavior... it speaks for itself. — Lomn 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the past IntFictExpert has bumped more recent posts. He moved this post down on a single page. (And also added a line where he swears at someone who was trying to help.) [17] [18] (Admittedly, in that second link, the discussion had gotten rather sidetracked.)

Besides the confusingness, arrogance, and "What if everyone did this?" arguments, I would like to point out that this sort of thing involves messing with other user's signed posts. He hasn't, to my knowledge, modified the content of anyone's posts, just their placement, but unless I'm mistaken, this is sort of a touchy subject around these parts. It's disconcerting to see my own signature at the bottom of a RefDesk I haven't looked at all day.APL (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It makes sense to bump posts if no-one has answered them or no-one has given a good enough answer. And posts are easier to see if they are at the bottom of the page. 2. To Kainaw, don't act innocent. You deserved to be reported for thinking you could get away with that comment. 3. About the swearing one...I apologised immediately after I swore. Did you not see my "sorry about the language"? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not make sense to go against community consensus. You have been warned of this; please do not be so arrogant as to think that you can remake the way in which these desks work. It's called courtesy.

And anyway, that's not the situation, is it? People were answering: you merely wish to grandstand your question over all others ... what are we to make of the fact that even your explanation is a lie? --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It "makes sense" to? "A good enough answer"? Hmm. "Easier to see" (to who and how long are they there before being taken up by the next round anyway?) 3. I saw your apology. Are you EUI in these situations? Wait a minute, *sweeping the desks clean to accommodate you*, IFE. There, have your way, why not? I am able to follow sequential threads, what's the problem? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To see how he honestly feels about the consensus, the following is he real reply on my talk page:

I have responded in your stupid little discussion about me on the RD talk page. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that he has absolutely no intention of listening to anything that anybody here has to say. -- kainaw™ 12:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like he's all mouth and no trousers, to me. One of the good thing about wikipedia is that chumps tend to be self-identifying. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that not all wikipedia users are immensly old, wise, and knowledgable; carrying the weight of many aeons of considered thought and judgement on their shoulders - like me! Also please be very civil...87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to get total consensus from all on posting etiquet; including bumping before making demands for apologies.87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An apology doesn't really carry much weight if it's in the same edit as the insult you're apologizing for. If it worked like that we could all just put "(Sorry!)" in our signatures and never worry about being civil again. APL (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that they think that if a question gets a response on a given day then the whole question should be moved to that day? Nowhere is that explicilty stated - though everyone else seems to understand it. Maybe someone should point that out ie that

"a question is filed under the day it was asked, not the most recent response"

adding

"If a question is still active/unanswered, and is about to be archived ie removed from the current desk then it is accetable to move it to the current date, with a message explaining eg "moved from dd/mm to current date to prevent archiving since topic is still active/unanswered" Don't forget to leave links at the original date forward and the new date pointing backwards as well - otherwise people might get confused if they come to look for it.."

Not that I've ever seen this happen.
It could all be a misunderstanding.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Annoyingly we seem to have lost the 'splash' page that explains

"an answer to a question may develope over several days, please be patient"

To 'Interactive Fiction Expert' - please accept that we don't move questions up.. this is the way it has been for many moons, we also have a section for 'unanswered questions' somewhere.

Also if a question has not received any sort of proper answer and is about to be archived (1week) then I guess it's ok to repost - though usually I'd expect the original poster to do this, not the reference desk volunteers. Don't assume that questions from 2 or 3 days ago have become inactive or are ignored.. Is that ok?87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think it's good but I don't think it needs to go at the header of each desk - we already have quite a bit there already. It should work as follows: the first time someone moves their post to the bottom, we assume that they don't know how the desks work (for example, they think that new edits make the thread new), we revert and simply point them to the guidelines were it will be explicitly explained that threads stay at the date in which they were created. If they continue then we call it disruption and WP:RBI. I like it.

Regarding the other issue of unanswered questions. This is an ongoing problem which doesn't IMHO have a workable solution. Currently, we store them at Wikipedia:Reference Desk archive unanswered but that list is by no means complete (it was only posted to twice this year) and noone goes there. But I'm not sure about allowing OPs to repost unanswered questions. Who decides if a question is unanswered? If we leave this up to the OPs to decide then the bottom of the desks may become clogged with very difficult and impossible questions. Also, trolls may use this as another avenue to cause disruption.

So we would then have to find a way to determine which questions are acceptable for reposting and this would result in much more arguing. Theoretically, if a question is good enough for the RD then it's good enough to be reposted (if unanswered) but we all know that a LOT of frivolous questions slip under the radar and receive GF responses before anyone can say anything. This is a tough one. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In general I don't think the re-posting of old questions will prove to be an issue, as it hasn't been in the past as far as I'm aware (ignoring any 'trolls') - so I guess it won't be a problem in the future...

Also, actually I wasn't suggesting any additions to headers, so I agree, but the ref desk guidlines etc do seem to have dissapeared (they used to be here Wikipedia:Reference desk and included such gems as 'be patient','start each new question with a title',, etc. see below section for my question about that..87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) found that with a little help.. see below..87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Which still leaves us with the problem of deciding which questions are worthy of reposting. This exercise would beg the question: "But why was that question allowed in the first place?". For example, an OP may decide that the answers to the question: "How many roads does the average person walk on?" are not good and wants to try and repost. I don't think that this question should be reposted.

I do however concede that unanswered questions is a problem and if reposting turns out to be consensus then I'll shut up and comply. Having any solution is better than no solution. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If they don't get an answer they find good enough I imagine it would be up to them to re-ask the question, hopefully with additional clarification; so that they get a better answer , and we can refer them to the original answers as well. But as I said - I don't expect any big problems. I would expect it to be normal proceedure to leave it to the poster to monitor their own questions, and if necessary re-ask in a different way, or just try again.

If a question genuinly goes totally unanswered for a week and the poster re-asks I'd imagine that one of the regulars would spot that, and apologise for the lack of answer, and wish them good luck in getting one this time. In general unanswered questions are rare, and more often than not a poster will get indication if their question is just too obscure..87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus 'dumb' questions usually attract their fair share of 'dumb' answers, so I doubt that the silly question askers will have much cause for complaint.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also in the case of obscure questions I see no issue with leaving a message on the most closely related wiki-project page requesting help. If a question has been totally unanswered for several days I would consider that, and maybe leave a message on the ref desk noting that.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's important not to second guess the poster's questions since some are ignored for whatever reason and pass into the ether, or to nurse it for them too much. Then when it's important enough to that poster, they pick it up and repost it, sometimes to get the answer that it's not a good question. I feel that if it doesn't happen, it doesn't, so either byebye question or it may reappear much later. That's different from someone sticking it in your face every couple of days. Suggest the infox box reads (I've also shortened its wording for tl:dr readers): Be patient and leave your question where you posted it. Questions are not always answered right away, so check again later because answers to your question can develop in up to four days. Prioritising the stay put factor and eliminating too much repetition, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tough but fair - that's how they learn - I like it. I'd leave the message as it is, though, which is: (copied here)

"Be patient. Your question probably will not be answered right away, so come back later and check for a response. Questions are normally answered at the same page on which they were asked. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to four days."

it's subtly politer (i think), and so far almost no people have had problems.. 'One leaf does not make a winter' or something.. I see no need for change because of one incident.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if it bordered on verbiage/rigmarole though, and discourages people from actually reading it and that that could be why people seem to ignore it so much. The current one is softer but does bury it's point -- could it be brief and soft? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that nobody ever reads it - but that they pick up the rules through 'osmosis' or 'energy waves'... It's a bit like queuing - people just queue without being shown the queuing laws.. changing the laws won't do much - they'll just queue anyway, even if you tell them not to. {ref A}

?Could the text be improved? - I guess it is as good as it can be.{ref B}

see Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

ref A."Pre-established harmony. The appropriate nature of each substance brings it about that what happens to one corresponds to what happens to all the others, without, however, their acting upon one another directly."

ref B."if God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, do we account for the suffering and injustice that exists in the world? ... For Leibniz, also of central concern is the matter of reconciling human freedom ... Leibniz' solution casts God as a kind of "optimizer" of the collection of all original possibilities: Since He is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of all possibilities, this world must be good--in fact, this world is the best of all possible worlds." emphasis mine, from wikipedia.87.102.86.73 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am personally against bumping questions due to lack of answers or bad answers. If we allow it, we'll have nothing but a bunch of bumped questions every day that nobody wants to answer. There are many questions that go unanswered simply because they are either impossible to answer or nobody wants to answer them. If the policy is "bump it", then we get the same dumb question for another week. Then, we bump it and it hangs around for another week. Soon, there are two bumped idiotic questions, then four, then eight.... then the Reference Desk is nothing but a collection of idiotic questions (like "How many roads does a person walk?") -- kainaw™ 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know everyone agrees with this (ie you, above)- bumping will be stopped when it occurs, and probably reverted - the discussion did drift onto what to do with questions that haven't been answered at all etc . but that really is a different subject. Note if the question is a stupid one - say so. that can be an answer, in exactly the same way we respond to questions that are gibberish, or don't even ask a proper question. Asking for clarification is the tool to deal with 'dumb' questions. And I wouldn't expect anyone sane to re-post a stupid question that hasn't been answered.. so fingers crossed there is no problem?87.102.86.73 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way I believe it is possible to attempt to answer all questions, even if the answer is a no. For instance the question "How many roads does a person walk?" could be answered "It unlikely that anyone will be able to properly answer your question, but as a guess - around 1000"..87.102.86.73 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly a like question about walking received far more informative replies than yours. Why is it you're engaging with our propositions as if they are a debate, and with a sense of authoritah that overbears the rest of us. I've made a fair suggestion about condensing and clarifying the terminology in the info intro. Besides, you seem to be bumping? or inserting your replies out of time sequence among our posts. Who are you, 87.102.86? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for annoying you. As for bumping - I have no idea what you mean - can you point to an example? It's normal to indent replies in a section, meaning that replies do not necessarily follow in linear order from top to bottom - was that it.?87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex: you've answered me ahead of Kainaw's contrib instead of after and seem to be peppering this thread with remarks that read like lessons in question answering which wasn't helpful. You could have posted after Kainaw and still answered us both in the same post. We're not the wise old heads people might say, but we didn't come down in the last thread, no? I just hope you're not diluting or trivialising the original topic for some reason. Have a good day, 87.102 – as for me Zzzz Julia Rossi (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you just point to exactly where I've made a mistake because all I can find is this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&diff=221978857&oldid=221975930 in which I answer before 'kainaw' becasue I posted before 'kainaw'??

?87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

splash page

following on from the above discussion - what happened to the splash page - ie shouldn't we have a quick guide to using the ref desks somewhere - for posters and answerers..? You know - the one that used to say 'Be patient... the wiki ref desk people are volunteers etc' - is it still around?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That verbiage is right at the top of the page (at least it is for Misc, which is what I just checked). Right above where it also says "after reading the above, click here to ask a question". --LarryMac | Talk 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely right - couldn't see it for the trees..

Resolved

87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reposting

If your wondering why I'm reposting again, it's because I needed to include what other people said for exchange of ideas. (Someone could come along and read something and get an idea they otherwise would not of if the replies to my question was not included.)68.148.164.166 (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about this, which I removed as a request for medical advice. The only new material he added was description of his own symptoms. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that if someone answers your question then that answer would make others better able to answer your question? If so, I disagree. The main point here is that your question should have been clear enough in the first place so that if anyone knew the answer, they would answer it. At its best, the Refdesk provides references: the OP asks for a reference and the answerer provides the reference. Exchanging ideas isn't a function of the desk.

If your question had been wrongly interpreted (and archived), I would consider it acceptable to start a new post with a new question if you feel that the original question wasn't answered. You should link to the original question and clearly explain what it is you are looking for. But all of this would have been avoided if you had asked the question clearly the first time. If, on the other hand, your question had been interpreted the way you wanted it but you weren't looking for an answer but a discussion, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP OP is another "bumper", who has repeatedly been asked and/or told not to do so. --LarryMac | Talk 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)