Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

How many questions are too many?

I'm a little bit troubled by the amount of traffic that we're seeing from Whoop whoop pull up (talk · contribs) of late. I count fourteen new threads created in the last week, and five just in the last day.

the last week's questions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bacteria ID50 Nukeproof armor Ships flying out of water Sleep deprivation Horses in roller skates Folding spacetime T-shaped versus trigonal planar Exploding ions BHeF3 Nerveagentase Dyeing one's brain Fusor weapon Chunks of ions Helium hydride ions

To be absolutely clear, it's not my intent to discourage people from making regular use of the Ref Desk's services, nor am I unaware that the editors offering their services here are volunteers, able to choose for themselves which questions deserve their attention. Generally speaking, any one of those questions would be reasonable to ask here. Nevertheless, we have in the past sometimes had to reign in the occasional editor who overwhelms a Desk with stump-the-Ref-Desk-type questions and activity. (As of a few minutes ago, half of the questions under today's date on the Science desk were from Whoop whoop, including four of the last five.) Looking at the last few weeks' contributions, I am concerned that Whoop whoop is using the Ref Desk as a source of social interaction and entertainment when he gets bored on the weekends.

I would be inclined to be more flexible if the editor had a demonstrated history of giving back to this part of the project through his own work at the Desk. Unfortunately, his only other contributions to the Desk this weekend were the addition of unhelpful jokes [1] and gag images [2] to one thread (encouraged by Baseball Bugs), and a – somewhat ironic – lecture about courtesy [3] to another editor who had made a formatting error.

I suppose I'm putting a few questions forward, then. First, is this recent pattern reflective of Whoop whoop's history with the desk, or are we seeing a temporary departure for an otherwise-helpful and -constructive volunteer? Second, is Whoop whoop's current approach to the Desks appropriate and sustainable, or should he be asked (or if necessary, compelled) to employ a little more restraint? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to be getting out of hand now, and maybe turning slightly trollish.--92.28.79.174 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the above IP is from LC's neighborhood. In any case, of the 14 items submitted by Whoop, only the one about dying a brain seemed absurd. Several of the others look like they could easily be self-answered with a little googling, but unlike LC's usual idiocies, the Whoopie questions appear mundane, if a bit obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Who or what is "LC"? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A long-standing, banned troll named "Light current", who operates from that same Liverpool ISP. If this one actually is LC, so far its comments all seem harmless. As regards this complaint about your questions, be aware that every so often the denizens of this page (me included, sometimes) feel the need to find someone to complain about, and this time it's you that's the target. Next week it will be someone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think five in one day is a bit too much. An average of two per day, on the other hand, seems reasonable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe after previous complaints, Whoop whoop pull up seemed to reduce the amount of questions. (Either that or real life got in the way.) Hopefully they will do this again. I wouldn't say they're trolling, but as BB said, they seem to ask a large number of questions, some of which could probably be answered by Googling. Even many of the questions which couldn't be answered by Googling that may be because they're rather weird or even inane and difficult to actually answer with references. IMO APL put it well last time Wwpu came up when they said 'Perhaps it could be politely explained to him that the reference desk isn't really for asking a large number of questions that just happened to pop into your head, and that he shouldn't overuse the resource' Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nerveagentase" was a very good question. "Dyeing one's brain", not so much. He'll probably run out of ideas before we run out of patience. Remember, one purpose of the Refdesks should be to accumulate a huge archive of questions and answers which, someday, natural language processing software will be able to call upon to give curious people all over the world answers based (in part) on what we were able to come up with. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that if questions are asked out of mere curiosity, a self-imposed limit of one question per day is reasonable. If questions are asked because the editor needs the information for some purpose, I don't think there should be any specific limit. Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Someone using Wikipedia as "a source of social interaction and entertainment when he gets bored" ! Something that has hardly ever happened before. Edison (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor clearly needs to be given specific directives about what or what isn't allowed on the reference desk. Uhlan (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

More medical advice

I have closed this thread as it is clearly asking for medical advice. I have also removed a response giving a diagnosis. Falconus^{p t c} 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected your link

Yes, we don't give medical advice but I do think you left in the less than helpful comment that psychiatrists are not good doctors. D'oh! never mind - you've since remove that too. Astronaut (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I originally just took out the diagnosis, then decided that I should probably remove the whole comment. You probably caught it in between those two edits. Falconus^{p t c} 18:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That guy's story sounds like an elaborate variation on the earwig legend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard the exact same story with spiders before. Obviously fake. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, even Snopes has a similar one. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So, should it stay closed as per "no medical advice", or should it be zapped altogether, or should the OP be confronted as pushing an urban legend? I would favor the latter, just in case the question comes up again and someone wants to look for it in the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it should either remain closed or deleted. Reopening it would do no good. There are two possibilities that I see; first, the OP was asking a sincere medical question, in which case we have no business telling the OP what we think the situation really is, or second the OP was screwing around. If that is the case, it will become clear because there will be more questions like that, and further action should be taken as necessary. Falconus^{p t c} 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All that reopening the conversation did, Bugs, was get a response from the OP reiterating that he feels he seriously needs medical help. Please don't reopen it without at least some concensus that it should be reopnened. The OP has however asked this type of question before, so I'm not sure what to do about that, other than to leave a message on his talk page. It is not for us to tell him whether or not 1) he needs medical help and 2) what the problem is. And, I might point out that just because there are urban legends out there doesn't mean the OP is making this up. Whether or not the OP is, or if there is a health problem (spider related or otherwise) is for health care professionals - NOT us - to determine. Falconus^{p t c} 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So you deleted my comment, yet you let stand a comment that specifically recommended seeing a psychiatrist? Did you let it stand because Seb az86556 is an admin and I'm not? Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "double standard" I didn't "reopen" it, I called him on it. So he brought this up 5 years ago, eh? Well, if he still thinks he needs medical help after all this time, then tell him to see a doctor. Again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I closed the conversation to prevent people from commenting on it further. Had you made that comment before I closed it, I would have likely left it stay, or else removed all three. The reason I removed your comment this time is because you commented on it further. If I had let that stay, I might as well have removed the hat/hab, and said "have at it", because the conversation would have surely restarted as if I hadn't closed it. Also, for the little that it is worth, I had no clue that az86446 is an admin, and that doesn't make a difference. Had he or she done what you did, I would have deleted it too, regardless of admin status. If you feel that it is not a request for medical advice, feel free to bring it up here, and we can discuss it here. If y'all think that I am wrong, by all means reopen it, but that requires a discussion and at least some sort of concensus. Falconus^{p t c} 00:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you are right to imply that I should have removed at least part of the az86446 response; I thought about it at the time, but I was more concerned about the response below it. Looking at what was written, there's no way that I should have left it. Thanks for removing the part of it that you did. Falconus^{p t c} 00:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger. I think it's trolling. In any case, the guy was told 5 years ago that we don't give medical advice. I don't know what he thought might have changed in the interim. I would also have to give a strictly non-medical opinion that if the guy has had critters hatching from inside him for 10 years or more, and is still here to talk about it, it doesn't seem to have done him much physical harm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I googled [body hatching spiders] and as with snopes, it is abundantly clear from various refereances that it is impossible for spiders to hatch from inside the body. I think the question should be reopened and the OP told once again that it is not possible, and that whatever issues he has can only be resolved by a doctor, and that if he's not satisfied with the advice he's gotten so far, then he should find a different doctor. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think anyone who has had spiders hatching inside him for 10 years is obviously an alien, and therefore the laws of the human world do not apply to him. But neither do its protections. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, good point. Does wikipedia have any policies at all, regarding extraterrestrial editors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP has already been informed that they need to take this elsewhere. I still think that reopening it is not a good idea. Falconus^{p t c} 12:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He was informed of that, FIVE YEARS AGO, and you can see how much good it did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the internet, no-one can tell you're a Venusian Canoid. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.42 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he should have been directed to get professional help from an exterminator, not just a shrink. Because a skilled exterminator can tell him, for sure, whether there are bugs that can feed on him in his sleep in this way with these effects, and can take resolute action to preclude the possibility. Knowing something is a delusion - or not - does much to calm the imagination. And what kind of delusional parasitosis leaves marks a dermatologist can see on your back?

"Is this real?" possible promotional link removed

I removed a question just asking "Is this real?" which linked to a photo of a sexual device with the promoter's phone number prominently displayed, which was added by a new IP editor. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a promotional site, and promotion seemed a likely purpose of the "question." I have notified the IP editor. Edison (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Assume Good Faith means we don't delete things which are "possible" promotional links, only things we are sure are. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It didn't seem promotional to me, either. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a similar posting a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First post by an anon - hmmm... hydnjo (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If others here feel it is an appropriate "question" then I have no objection to restoring it, if anyone sees fit, so referenced answers as to whether or not "it is real" can be provided. Edison (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Endmysteries (talk · contribs)

Does this user's contributions [4][5] look like vandalism to me only? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:AGF would apply here. A new user isn't going to automatically know that it's not considered OK to remove a thread that the user started. They may view it as just withdrawing the question, sort of like saying "thanks, but never mind" to a real reference librarian who has done some of the work needed to answer a question. Red Act (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wound inductor = Light current?

I'm fairly certain that the the OP for the Wound inductor question is Light current. The location and ISP are correct, and LC has an interest in electronics. LC has in the past trolled with electronics questions, followed up by making fun of the respondents if he perceives them to have given an incorrect answer. So far I'm only 99% sure this is LC, so I'm not deleting the question immediately, but be advised that any response risks being made fun of. Red Act (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, it's a perfectly legitimate question. The fact that it's about electronics and is from someone that uses the same ISP as a known troll is not remotely enough evidence to make that kind of accusation. Can we please stop this ridiculous McCarthy-style LC-hunt? --Tango (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your comment (and the facetious response to it) from the desk. It is completely unfair to OP to makes that kind of accusation like that. I'll report anyone reverting me to WP:ANI. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem Tango - I'll rely on your call. BTW, "facetious" was an excellent characterization, I meant no harm and thought I was expressing the obvious. It was imprudent to do so. hydnjo (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If it had only been the ISP and an interest in electronics that matched, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But what you have neglected to address in my post above is that the location (Liverpool) also matched. Furthermore, if you do a whois on the OP's IP address[6], you'll see that the post's origin is listed as AS13285, which almost certainly means that it is indeed LC.[7]

Yes, it was a perfectly legitimate electronics question. But this was also just a perfectly legitimate electronics question[8], until he returned to take a crap on the thread.[9] We've probably fed the troll enough from his post by now that he won't bother taking a crap on the current thread. And there's a chance that he actually asked the question because he genuinely wanted to know the answer. But there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the OP is anyone other than LC. Red Act (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained many times before, that location is just the location of the ISP and bares no relation to the location of the user. You can't use geolocation to narrow someone down to more than that they are in the UK. There is absolutely no way you can be that certain that it's LC based on just the ISP and the fact that it's about electronics. That is just plain ridiculous and borders on libel. Stop it. --Tango (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "libel" figures into it. He's not being accused of committing a crime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The definition of libel doesn't include anything about the false statements being accusations of crimes. Any false, damaging statement can be libellous. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How could an anonymous, unknown user be "damaged" financially by being falsely accused of sockpuppetry on a website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual tipoff is that ISP plus the nature of the question. If it's from that IP and acts like LC, it probably is LC. If it's a reasonable question, it could come from any ISP. And there's always the narrow possibility that LC decided to ask a reasonable question. If he had behaved in a normal civilized way from the get-go, he wouldn't be banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that if you do a geolocation on any set of LC's ISP's IP addresses in the UK, they will all geolocate to the same location, namely the ISP's national headquarters or something. But that isn't the case. The IP of the OP in question was 92.28.91.245, which is part of the block of IPs owned by LC's ISP consisting of the range 92.24.0.0 - 92.29.255.255 [10]. I just now did a geolocate on 10 random IPs in that range. Four of the 10 IPs geolocated to London, which isn't too surprising, but the remaining 6 IPs geolocated to 6 different cities spread all over England. If the IP had just geolocated to London, that wouldn't be particularly strong evidence, but the Liverpool area has a population about 16 times smaller than the London area. Red Act (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AS13285. That is the service aggregator, whatever "geolocation" address shows up for the owner of the particulat range is irrelevant. Inspection of RD interactions from all addresses managed from AS13285 (from when Opal bought those ranges) will show that they are overwhelmingly from the same editor. There is a user preference to enable IP range searching on the usercontribs special page, anyone is free to give it a shot and find contrary evidence. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP's follow-up comment to this question seemed perfectly reasonable to me... --Tango (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Metadiscussion regarding appropriateness of advising people on their legal situation regarding parking tickets.

I have moved the metadiscussion to this page, where it is more appropriate, since it is about reference desk policy, and not about answering the OP's question. --Jayron32 19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to answer the question due to legal advice that's fine, but you shouldn't remove the previous answers, especially when those answers also said "we can't give legal advice." RudolfRed (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#nodiagnosis, and I quote "Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message..." (bold mine) and from the box at the top of this page "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters." (bold mine). If you wish to change this practice, please start a discussion at WT:RD to seek consensus to change the practice. Unless and until the rule is changed, the proper thing to do is to remove the question, NOT to answer it with qualifiers. In summation, don't complain about people enforcing the rules as written, you must first instead change the rules. --Jayron32 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem was that someone tried to actually give legal advice. Had they left it at "see a lawyer" or "contact your local government office", it might have been OK. Unless a given respondent is actually from Lansing and can give definitive, solid evidence (such as pointing to an official website with the answer clearly stated), they ought not be trying to "help" the OP. There is also another bit of safe advice I might have given: "Don't be a scofflaw - pay the fine." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to park there anyway? It doesn't seem to have much going for it, unless you are particularly keen on observing drug-intoxicated students - at least, that is the impression our article gives. The only example amongst the 'notable people' mentioned that I recognise (as an ignorant Brit, admittedly) is Malcolm X - who seems to have lived "a short distance west of East Lansing", which may very well have been a sensible choice ;-). Wikipedia at its least inspiring... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly Wikipedia's fault if this particular notable subject has so far failed to inspire the rest of the world. Let us assume that it's not actually the case that it's the Centre of the Universe and Wikipedia has somehow omitted to record that fact. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not only not the center of the known universe, it's not even the center of its own county. It's also a little known fact that the city was named for an Irish settler named Lansing A. Boyle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Or was he Lancing A Boil? Astronaut (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a city of 45,000 residents but with a college student population of 48,000. It is a town of 35 km² in area with a university taking up 21 km². Rmhermen (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that, it's possible that the rules are different on-campus and off-campus. The OP needs to do his own, direct research on this... OR, pay his overdue parking ticket(s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Banned topics

Banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If we cannot give any professional advice on the reference desks, then (from pour article on Professions) the following subjects are al taboo: Accountants Actuaries Advocates Architects Archivists Pilots Chefs (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above) Dentists Diplomats (career diplomats only) Engineers Financial analysts Journalists Lawyers Optometrists Nurses Pharmacists Philosophers (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above) Physicians Professors (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above) Psychologists Scientists (does not fulfill criteria 5-7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above) Social Workers Surgeons Veterinarians Doesnt leave a lot does it? We might as well close the reference desks now92.25.101.91 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC) The guidelines don't say "professional advice." They say, "professional advice on medical and legal matters." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC) There's a big difference between giving "professional advice" and just finding references about those subjects, which is what the reference desk is actually supposed to be doing. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC) So whats the difference between those professions and the ones I listed. Why are those not off limits also?--92.25.101.91 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) It isn't that questions are about certain professions. Its that we don't answer questions that one should go to a doctor or a lawyer to get advice about. "What are the speed limits on Mexican Autopistas?" is a valid question. "I got a speeding ticket today. What should I do about it?" is NOT a valid question. "What does the spleen do?" is a valid question. "I have a pain in my side. Is it my spleen causing it?" is not a valid question. The reasons we don't answer such questions are a bit complex, but it boils down to the fact that the consequences of getting such answers wrong is much worse than for other types of questions. --Jayron32 15:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So advice on how to make your own bombs is ok? (science)