Please post general questions on the relevant reference desk. This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved.
For guideline issues and policy proposals, use the relevant subpage
Like this one for instance. People should know better; either that or it’s very subtle trolling. Tagishsimons was admirably patient, but it would probably be okay just to say “Sorry there’s nothing we can do about that.” --S.dedalus (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are acceptable approaches. We usually know nothing about the "people" asking the question (age, experience, cultural background, ...), and one thing I like about the reference desk is that it celebrates the assumption of good faith by attempting to give useful answers to almost every type of question, including the unanswerable and unthinkable ones. I don't know whether people should or could know better, and I also applaud Tagishsimon for giving patient and potentially educative replies. ---Sluzzelintalk10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree Tagishsimon's patience was admirable but I think we must keep in mind that, what once would constitute an acceptable question, such as asking for the height of the K2, nowadays can be answered with a simple Google query. Consequently the only questions that can be asked here are, at least, hard. I frankly believe those people aren't trolling (or at least, most of them). My opinion is that we should tolerate the existence of those almost unanswerable questions in the RD, but if we can't help, we should just leave them unanswered, which I think would be the most effective way to convince the questioner that we cannot offer any help and, additionally, protects us from troll-intended questions. --Taraborn (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a question on the desk now under the title Is this illegal?. Should we take it down? I’ve informed the OP that we can’t help him, however Anonymous feels this is a hypothetical question. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me to treat it as a hypothetical. I think there is a distinction between legal or medical advice, and legal or medical questions. I'm happy that this falls into the latter category, in that we can see that the situation involves a conspiracy to murder illegality, but also an interesting contract law issue (and, were we to put real effort into it, a discussion of whether fraud was involved, and if not, why not). What little I remember of being taught contract law was that hypothetical scenarios were described, and our job was to work out the statute law and common law cases which would guide us to a likely resolution were the matter to come to court. This doesn't seem very much different to that. --Tagishsimon(talk)12:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeessss, it’s an interesting question, but the questioner uses the first person, (“Have I committed an illegal act under the eyes of the law?”) which kind of goes against everything we’ve been hearing on the desk recently. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly think this question is a problem, but if we’re leaving some “legal advice questions” and not others we need some criteria to distinguish. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conditional clause marks the question as hypothetical, no matter whether the subject is "I", "you", "one", "someone", or "Joe Shmoe". ---Sluzzelintalk21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be lack of sleep, but I was certain that the question initially was "A woman asked..." and was later changed to "If a woman asked...". In the first form, it was clearly a request for advice. In the second form, it was hypothetical. -- kainaw™14:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure. It’s a borderline case because, although it directly seeks advice, it is unquestionably hypothetical. My gut reaction is that it’s okay as long as we redirect him to sources. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obvious hypothetical case, on a topic related to medicine (first aid, in this instance). It's clear that no one is standing there with blood spurting out of his severed carotid artery, typing madly into Wikipedia and waiting several days for a response. (Of course, even if that were really happening, by the time the first response had been posted it would have been back to being a hypothetical question.) My instinct is that general discussions about first aid practice are okay – with reference to sources strongly encouraged, and comments without sources identified as such – but that questions related to treatment of actual injuries should be referred to qualified personnel.
(Aside from all the other good reasons not to give such advice, we can't guarantee that the poster has even reported his injury to us accurately and specifically. The answer to the seemingly-simple "I cut my finger; what should I do?" depends on answers to a lot of other questions. Is it a paper cut? Animal bite? Broken glass? Rusty chainsaw? Shallow cut? Deep cut? Is your finger still attached? Clean edges? Jagged cut? Is there material left in the wound? Is there material you don't know about in the wound? What is it that's making you nervous about treating a simple 'cut' without advice and assistance?
As well, in the hypothetical case the OP isn't under time pressure and isn't likely to go and act on the first thing someone tells him. He can wait for multiple comments, read through them, check the references. If ever faced with a real injury in the future, he still has to evaluate the situation for himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of a reply
I removed this reply (and its associated responses) because it left a bad taste in my mouth. I've never deleted anything from the RD before so I hope I wasn't out of line. Thanks. --Richardrjtalk email06:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a bad idea. Comments in the Ref.Desk are not censored. ~If you thought some answer was tasteless, you should state your opinion. 217.168.5.50 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the ref desk are censored if they seriously violate what the community thinks is acceptable. See, for example, legal and medical advice. 86.141.89.83 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one, this message advocated that the OP carry out an illegal action (at least in the US). Two, this was probably intended to be a joke, but it wasn’t made clear enough and it was still in rather bad taste. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case since it was a 14 year old I agree removing it was good. On the other hand if an 18 year old male or female, particularly one who doesn't specify where they live I don't think posts should be removed simply because someone suggests prostitution particularly if the person also suggests they make sure it is legal before considering it. Prostitution is perfectly legal in some countries including some parts of the U.S. so suggesting it isn't suggesting the person break the law. Selling marijuana is of course illegal in most places and could get you the death penalty in some cases. When it isn't illegal, I don't think it's a high profit job so that one is probably inappropriate. Particularly when the person is young, I don't think we should be suggesting illegal activities even in jest. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
who cares about edit conflicts?
Often I see RD responses that begin with a parenthetical note that an edit conflict had occurred. Presumably there's some point to recording this, but ... well. Enlighten me? —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do it when some of the information I have provided was edit-conflicted with someone else saying much the same thing. Instead of re-editing my comment to removed the duplicate information (thereby taking more time, which can lead to another edit-conflict) I prefer to note the conflict, as explanation for why it looks like I have, in part, simply repeated what another respondent added. Rockpocket08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another case (here's a recent example is when I'm responding rather directly to something poster A has said, but then poster B inserts a response first. My response then appears below B's response, making it less obvious that my post is in fact in response to A -- and mine might appear to be a response to B, even though it has nothing to do with what B said. So the "(ec)" is an attempt to alert readers to these possibilities. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. In general, it's safe to cut any question that starts with "Hi there, can a psychologist or a scientist figure out what type of problem I have?" and then goes on to list symptoms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades, thanks for also leaving a note urging the person to seek further medical help. In cases where a person is describing symptoms that have some similarity to the symptoms of depression it is essential that we respond to the person kindly and guide them towards other sources of help. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. For the record, we should always respond to people kindly, and encourage them to take their requests for health advice to a more suitable venue. That usually includes their doctor, but may also include a pharmacist (for questions about medication) or a parent, guardian, trusted adult, or school nurse (for young people). Just a reminder that we should never be offering an opinion as to whether or not a poster's symptoms seem serious; that sort of estimation is fraught with risk of both type I and type II errors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the icon of the Entertainment desk a music note but "music" is listed in the description of the Humanities desk? Seems a little inconsistent...although maybe one is for popular music and one for classical? --zenohockey (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent, the Humanities/Entertainment split mirrors the (artificial and possibly false) dichotomy of high v popular culture.
Questions on classical music, musicology, the history of music, music sociology etc might receive better answers at the Humanities desk, while questions on band names, Britney Spears lyrics, or famous drum solos might be better served at the Entertainment desk. The same might apply to literature: Questions on Stendhal versus questions on Vampire Knight. Or cinema: questions on the aesthetics of Italian neorealism v questions on who played "Mambuza Bongo Guy" in The Hot Chick.
The Entertainment desk used to feature "popular music" while "music" wasn't listed at any desk. Some users (myself included) felt that questions on classical music received better answers at the Humanities desk, so "popular music" became "popular culture" in general, and "music" was included in the humanities (along with "art"). The high/low or artsy/entertainment division is a construct, and everyone will draw the line somewhere else. A certain ambiguity and overlap remain inevitable. (And seemingly paradoxically, a question on popular culture studies belongs at the Humanities desk). ---Sluzzelintalk19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beware: a recent (i.e. today) change to the MediaWiki engine means that refreshing a page is less likely to show you its new content. You may have to use action=purge. See this message on the wikitech mailing list (specifically, the bit about "as a side effect we turned off 'refresh' button on your browsers"). —Steve Summit (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any list on Wikipedia of the most unusual (but still well answered) questions from the reference desks? It seems like it would be a good idea to have a similar list to WP:UNUSUAL. If not I’d be happy to create one in my user space or even in Wikipedia space if it’s deemed appropriate for inclusion there. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, we lost a great contributor with DirkvdM. I wondered why I hadn’t seen any answers from him lately. Anyway, thanks Sluzzelin! Those are interesting pages. I’ll start my own. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is some secret code or not but it has this on the misc' desk just above the contents. Has it snuck into a template somewhere? Lanfear's Bane | t10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to note that Taraborn did the right thing, but WebHamster reverted the deletion. I knew I shouldn't have strayed too far from the chocolate fountain. --LarryMac | Talk19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many questions have there been in the last month that should have gone on such a desk, had it been in existence? --Lambiam21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.
As Lambian asks, is there sufficient traffic (on par with Entertainment, give or take)?
Are those questions not appropriately handled by the current desk(s)?
Is there any reason to think that a separate desk improves the handling of those questions?
Basically, barring overwhelming traffic, I don't see much reason for splits. Math/Computer, for instance, made sense: Math said "...and Computer Science" in the description, and that was confused with "...and why doesn't my mouse driver work?", a question completely unrelated to the field of mathematics. I don't see a flood of economics questions overwhelming the intended purposes of the existing desks. — Lomn21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a case could be made that the Math desk isn't really all that necessary. There are barely any questions compared to the other desks, and as it is many of them could easily fit on the Science or Computing desks, with the rest barely adding to the Misc. desk. But I'm not proposing getting rid of it. :-) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We went through all this with the short lived history desk. Further desks don’t help; they just spread the available editors more thinly. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, we need a Dear RD desk for the Dear Abby style personal advice questions we seem to be getting lately. And perhaps also a MINI desk to get Steve back. Matt Deres (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same IP who ranted about WP:TRUTH earlier, and reminiscent of fox-news-this-is-breaking-NOW-NOW-NOW guy. I'd say either makes for a good reason to quietly nip this one in the bud. — Lomn07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody ask for medical advice if he accepts and understands that we can't give professional medical advice and, consequently, the questioner should take our replies at his own risk? --Taraborn (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. What a person can do is ask for information. For example, if I have some weird growth on my finger, I could ask, "Is there a general medical term for lumps that grow on a person's finger?" Then, given the medical term, I could use Google to search for more information. However, I cannot ask "What is this growth on my finger?" -- kainaw™16:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all that makes sense. The only thing I didn't like is the statement "We're trying to avoid harm to the poster". I guess it's fine to worry about other people's health, but I don't think we should implicitly assume the question asker isn't capable enough to decide for himself. --Taraborn (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taraborn, I can't believe that you brought this up:
...if he accepts and understands that we can't give professional medical advice and, consequently, the questioner should take our replies at his own risk...
which means what exactly? That the somebody signs a WP release form agreeing to our conditions? I don't understand this effort by some to steer into a controversy that most have agreed to steering clear. hydnjotalk20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to T) Why not? We have a roughly fifty-fifty chance that the questioner's IQ is below 100, all else being equal. Factor in that he's asking for medical advice from a ragtag bunch of strangers, and the odds swing sharply in favor of the assumption. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that asking advice from a "ragtag bunch of strangers" is that bad provided you use your own knowledge, common sense and experience not to take their opinions as absolute truth. Actually when you read Wikipedia you're reading what that ragtag bunch of strangers wrote, a great portion of which attends high school and will never be awarded a Nobel prize, isn't it? It is not my intention to "steer into a controversy" a generally accepted policy nor I want to perform any other evil deed, please, refrain from such accusations. I've just thought that, perhaps, if the questioner explicitly states (just a simple sentence saying so, there's no need for a complete form) that they understand Wikipedia can't give professional advice for a number of reasons but still thinks the replies they might receive may be of some use, his question could be made open for replies. I thought that because someone looking for medical advice will obtain it just by slightly rewording their question. Maybe we want to filter the below-average IQ range (those that have the highest chance of misusing the replies) by posing this small difficulty? I guess that's fine answer to my question, too. --Taraborn (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your intentions seem well, well intentioned - the problem is with the implementation. The consensus seems to be that with so many other areas of contribution that are offered to us each day that we need not spend any time debating those marginal areas (medical, legal, suicide, bomb-making, trolling, spamming, etc) that come our way. I for one am in complete agreement with this consensus. If you really feel a need to contribute a response to those inquiries then you do have the option to do so privately through emails. I really do believe that this has been sufficiently discussed here that exploring yet another corner of the envelope is not going to be productive but, that's just me. ;-) hydnjotalk23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, that I seriously doubt anyone with more than three brain cells agrees with, is that an intelligent person may come here and ask a question that appears at face value to be a request for medical advice. They aren't really asking for advice though. They are asking for information. For example, a person may want to know if there are any documented studies on the "best" amount of Vitamin C to take every day. Is it just a couple pills worth or should you consume as much as you possibly can? The question may appear to be a request for medical advice, but it is truly asking for direction to find more information on the subject. Telling this person of intelligence that they are stupid for asking medical advice from strangers is rather demeaning and does nothing more than give Wikipedia a bad name. That is why I've pushed for replacing the "go see a doctor" response with "if you want information, go see WebMD's page XXXX or the NIH's page XXXX. If you just want advice, we can't give it." -- kainaw™00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(exdent)
Whoa! Please don't get me wrong. I have no problem at all with responding by directing the questioner elsewhere via links to other places. My quarrel is only with providing "advice" in any form from a Wikipedian. If one of us feels that providing links (aiding a search) would be helpful then fine. My personal choice however would be to ignore the question entirely (in keeping with many of the posts above). Regarding Kainaw's example just above one only needs to read this controversy to see that quicksand abounds. hydnjotalk00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after e.c., but grateful for the exdent) Kainaw, maybe I'm completely out of the loop on where the consensual "we" currently stands on the endless topic of giving medical advice, but consider the following questions "How much Vitamin C a day should a person take?" or "How much Vitamin C do medical studies recommend for a person's daily consumption?" Wouldn't there be consensus that these questions are okay and may be answered? ---Sluzzelintalk00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I feel that both are asking for information (what is the recommended daily allowance), the consensus is that any question that could possibly result in someone harming themselves medically cannot under any circumstances be answered. How do we know that the person isn't allergic to Vitamin C and that an ordinary over-the-counter multivitamin may cause nearly instant death? I know it is absurd, but that is the consensus. -- kainaw™00:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gulp. I thought medical advice related to the questioner asking about his or her or a friend's or a relative's or a pet's individual medical condition, what they have to expect, and what can be done about it. I didn't know it applied to general medical information and referenced health recommendations. Well, I don't wish to add another verse to the ballad of giving medical advice , and I never touch those questions anymore anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. ---Sluzzelintalk00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us Sluzzelin. I for sure don't want to start a poll here but would be gratified if others followed our example. hydnjotalk00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kainaw, the consensus I imagine isn't quite that harsh. In particular, a while back, I posted a longish essay on professional advice, which is now in the archives. In particular, I suggested that while there might be everything wrong with answering questions that asked for advice, there was nothing wrong with answering hypothetical questions, even though those hypothetical questions might be advice questions in disguise. And I don't believe anybody disagreed.
I closed that essay with my opinion that
...we ought to have guidelines against asking (and answering) professional-advice questions, but at the same time... we can be reasonable about enforcing them. We certainly don't have to apply them massively or expansively stringently; there's absolutely no need to take anything that even remotely smells like a legal or medical question and knee-jerkily categorize it as a prohibited one.
Now that bit, it's true, isn't necessarily accurate at the moment; it almost seems as if there are people who are "knee-jerkily removing anything that even remotely smells like a medical question". But that's a long-standing foible on Wikipedia: it's all too easy (for any editor) to fall into a zealous rule-enforcement mode, losing sight of the spirit behind the rules. But I wouldn't assume from the fact that there are currently a few editors who might be knee-jerkily removing all such questions, that there is a bona-fide consensus that "any question that could possibly result in someone harming themselves medically cannot under any circumstances be answered". We can, yes, all be reasonable. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Steve, we can some of us be reasonable, not all of us, and therein lies the root of our well intentioned response. Once we start to draw those distinctions amongst us well then a whole new thing arises.
It's best, it seems to me, that if the least competent of us wouldn't usually provide a satisfactory response to these kinds of questions (n.b. these kinds of questions) then we should avoid them (the questions), all of them. Additionally, I don't think that this has anything to do with the inclusionist/exclusionist argument that sometimes arises in defense of these types of questions - that argument is better suited in the Article namespace. hydnjotalk02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I reject least-common-denominator, "cult of mediocrity" arguments. Just because a few people might be idiots, doesn't mean I'm willing to have all the rest of us dragged down to their level. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no Steve - I only meant as it involved these kinds of questions. In general, I don't at all subscribe to the limiting of responses and make no judgment whatsoever regarding who's-who. Hell, I've seen some of my most well reasoned and articulate responses dashed in seconds by those very willing to point out my unreasonableness; that's NOT what I meant above.
Apparently I'm not saying this very well but allow me one more chance. The RD is a wonderful free-for-all venue that provides us all the opportunity to help those who come here for help and in our own "fun" way call each other to task whenever we have faltered, been remiss, or have just plain been wrong with our response. The subject that I was addressing was only about those questions which impinged or boarded into what many of us have agreed was inappropriate territory. Those subject areas have become so damn controversial it seems, that our collective wisdom and energies would be better spent on addressing the next question rather than doing this. I can't imagine why skipping those few questions diminishes the overall RD quality of response at all. hydnjotalk03:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still not sure why you keep using the circumlocution "these kinds of questions" or precisely what you mean by it, but if it's "anything that smells even remotely like a medical question" then, well, I stand by my previous response. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then if our only disagreement is what I mean by these kinds of questions I feel that we're on the same page, perhaps a distinction without a difference as "they" say. I don't feel comfortable about setting out rules or boundaries about "these kinds of questions", I think that if we generally agree that "they" shouldn't be responded to with "knowledge" answers then we're (let me respond for others) fine. The few questions that may border the edge of our collective intent will and should be discussed here so that we may refine our collective understanding as to what is meant by "''these kinds of questions". I'm not being cryptic about that usage, it just seems a compact way of saying it right now and if that's disturbing to you then I'll stop saying it. hydnjotalk03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Touché and correct. So, is "colon counting" to be the measure of one's ability to answer questions around here? Hmmn, I hope not, my eyes quit around six or seven but if so, let the colonists come forth, the infirm await your diagnosis! ;-)) hydnjotalk05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bad news is that your condition is incurable, but don't panic. Have you tried reading glasses? An alternative is to have your browser preferences set to "blind as a bat" mode. It's easy to find, just echo locate the "help" menu.... never mind, get a friend to do it. :) David D.(Talk)06:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, so then you'll be happy to know the good news about my incurable condition; that it's not so much the seeing as the counting (you know: one, two, many...) but I'm working on it and should be able to parse "many" any semester now. Also, I tried your suggestion about preferences but my browser doesn't seem to understand counting too well even when my friend tried it (she couldn't even find the "hope" menu). Anyway, we'll keep on keep'n on - I'm sure that we'll break through sooner or later but if not well, there's always the good ol' refrinse desck to help us (well, me) through the stupid times. ;-(),,, hydnjotalk06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"as the counting (you know: one, two, many...)", I knew that too! 'slaps head' Sorry to hear you're in worse condition than we thought. For your info you'll need six colons for the next reply. Don't use more, that might lead to huge indents and I'm not liable for the side effects from such an occurrence. David D.(Talk)06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, if we're thtough screwing around with each other we seem to be wandering a bit off the original topic (it happens) which according to Taraborn was:
"Can somebody ask for medical advice if he accepts and understands that we can't give professional medical advice and, consequently, the questioner should take our replies at his own risk?"
Yes, somebody can ask whatever somebody wants to ask. There is however, no implied or explicit consent as to the efficacy of anyone's response so, why respond to "these kind of questions"? The downside is that someone (not us of course) might offer some stupid advise which might be followed resulting in some stupid well, result. IMHO - screw it. Go and answer some other question or catch a "Random article" and for sure do some good (know what I mean?). hydnjotalk 07:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) addendum: Please note that my comments refer only to "these kind of questions". The definition of "these kind of questions" is, as always, under discussion. ;-) hydnjotalk07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to understand why somebody once said that the "problem" of Wikipedia is that it only worked in practice, its rules are so flexible. Well, thanks to all for clearing my doubts up. --Taraborn (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction I draw when trying to define "these kinds of questions" is:
Question asking for advice about my particular problem: bad.
Question asking for information (perhaps about a hypothetical situation): good.
That is a subject I've raised repeatedly (forming many an enemy in these parts)... How do you define a question as being advice and a question as being information? For example: "I have trouble counting the colons in these long indents. What font size should I be using for a 17" monitor?" Well, that is information, right? There are those who will argue that he is trying to get us to diagnose a vision problem he has. What if you get real close to the gray area with: "I was diagnosed with diabetes type II last year. Jones cola has inverted sugar. Can I drink inverted sugar?" This is information, right? The question is: "Does inverted sugar have an adverse affect on Type II diabetics?" But, most people will say it is a question asking for advice, not information. In summary, it is easy to say "information is OK but advice is bad." The problem is that I haven't been able to get any intelligent discussion going to try and define what the difference is between information and advice. -- kainaw™22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kainaw, whenever people try to engage in discussion about this they tend to get the reply that they haven't understood what you're saying, unless they agree with you. I'm beginning to think intelligent discussion is rather like the true scotsman. Skittle (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Medical dignosis removed from Misc desk
I removed this response in accordance with RD guidelines:
It's also possible that the gums hurt instead, which could be a sign of gingivitus or periodontitis. I'd schedule and appointment with your dentist if I were you, and in the mean time you can brush, floss, and gargle with Listerine (if it doesn't make your mouth worse by inflammation, etc) or hydrogen peroxide. Remember to schedule an appointment with your dentist for professional advice. Cheers. --72.69.146.41 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. It appeared that you removed a question asking about some sort of gum or tooth problem and responded with the comment above, leaving out the question. Reading it again and again and again, it appears that you removed a response to a question. -- kainaw™23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct: I removed a response because it was offering a diagnosis which is contrary to RD guidelines. (I think the whole thread should be removed actually-- but someone else can do that if they see fit.)--TreeSmiler (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bitey comments
I have noticed a small but worrying increase in the number of bitey responses to questions that may appear to some to be "homework". I find this very disappointing. Unless a questioner explicitely says that it is a homework question, there is no way for the rest of us to know that it is. Editors for whom English is a second language may often (in my experience) phrase a question in a way that sounds like homework to a native speaker. Some editors may also naturally frame a question in this way as it is the only way in which they have experienced intellectual questions. May I suggest that if you don't want to answer a question because you believe it to be homework you simply avoid responding? Biting editors becaue you don't like the way their question has been phrased is, I believe, entirely contrary to the spirit and traditions of the refdesks, and will also damage the Wikipedia's reputation. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think those comments are particularly 'bitey'. The first is a legit question, and the second is an observation. wheres the bite?--TreeSmiler (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "homework" suspicion could have been more delicately tactfully phrased but I've not noted any trend towards increased "bitiness". hydnjotalk01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling "question" removed
My reading of this was that it was a troll of a question. The OP seemed to already be knee-deep in a knee-jerk thesis and seemed to have no interest in actually learning about the subject. It is more of a soapbox rant than a request for enlightenment. So I removed it. FYI. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly a terribly leading question and might well have been a troll of one also, but it kind of sucks that in removing it you also removed a bunch of respondents' answers, sort of negating whatever time, thought and effort went into formulating them. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I defiantly appose this removal and hope that the question can be restored to the desk quickly. We should only be doing these total reverts in exceptional circumstances such as personal attacks and blatant spamming. A little trolling like this has always been present on the desks. If the OP isn’t actually searching for information, the responses people give will almost certainly help someone. Let’s put this question back. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better – if you were interested in discussing the issues – for you to pose a question yourself that contained fewer rhetorical questions and more actual interest in the answers? Consider questions along the lines of
What evidence is there that tax cuts do/do not stimulate the economy?
How do governments balance the priorities of social services, direct economic stimulus, and tax cuts?
What is the impact of welfare fraud on the economy?
Hmm. . . I’m unclear as to who you are addressing Ten. I personally have no interest in this question whatsoever. In fact as a diehard liberal I found the original trolling slightly insulting. It was certainly a very unhelpful “question.” However, I recognize that we are standing on a huge slippery slope here. I don’t want the desks to become a big brother zone on Wikipedia. We have always done our best to answer all non-dangerous questions on the desks and I see no reason that should change. I also think many editors besides myself are unhappy with reverting messages at the drop of a hat. We’ve already lost at least one good editor because of it. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think encouraging such transparent trolling is good for the Desk. I'm not likely to go to the trouble of removing such a 'question', but I don't think it's worth putting back; we're not supposed to be a soapbox for thinly-veiled rants. But if you – or anyone – were interested in a civilized discussion on the topic, then the best way would be to ask a much less loaded question.
What can I say? I'm usually a bleeding-heart ACLU-supporting it's-a-matter-of-principle-dammit sort of guy, but I can't bring myself to get upset over our jackbooted crushing of that poor, freedom-loving-American's free expression. We're an encyclopedia project, and the questioner here wasn't interested in helping or in being helped. Show me someone who wants to drink at the well of knowledge rather than piss in it and I'll get more worked up over our censorship. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see where you're coming from, but I just see so many problems with this.
We revert medical and legal advice as well as personal attacks and spamming. These reverts do not require a judgment call. There are some gray areas but it’s almost always a clear yes or no case. Reverting trolling however DOES require a huge judgment call. Who’s to say what’s trolling and what’s not? Sometimes it’s pretty obvious, but if we start doing this what’s to stop Joeblow Wikipedian from reverting any question that seems a bit unconstructive? As has been pointed out before users who are not accustomed to Wikipedia may think they posted their question in the wrong place or somehow didn’t save it right.
If we start reverting what looks like trolling why not start reverting questions that look like homework? Why not “debate/chat room” questions? Why not revert questions written in all caps? Why not revert questions that can easily be answered through a quick Google search? The same logic can be applied to any of these cases.
Do we revert soap boxing/trolling on any other talk page on Wikipedia? No, we revert slander, attacks, threats, etc. For soap boxing we ignore the person or leave them a civil message informing them that this is not the place.
If we revert trolling on the desks on site we may be biting people or ignore genuine questions. If we answer constructively, or at most use a slow revert we do no harm and make the desks a bit more civil. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the slow revert process as documented on that page is that it assumes a "lack of any kind of immediate response". I think we all know that there is little chance of such a lack on the Desks. The question in question had four responses in a little less than five hours, the first coming within two hours (which is actually kind of slow for the Desks). And personally, I'd be delighted to see debate/chat room questions shot on sight. --LarryMac | Talk19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I’m thinking slow reverts in egregious cases. These kinds of “questions” are often left unanswered already, and if this became a standard response it could be more workable. Still I think it’s almost always better to answer politely. . .
I’ve outlined my reasons for objecting to this. If it doesn’t convince anybody then that’s that. We must agree to disagree. Still I don’t see the approach working on a regular basis anyway. Editors tend to object to having their carefully crafted responses reverted along with the OQ. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do revert and remove soap boxing and trolling on talk pages on occasion, particularly on a very active talk page where it risks getting out of hand. This however is simple enough to do because talk pages are ONLY intended to discuss ways to improve an articles content. Clearly if someone is offering their opinion of GWB or their hatred for whatever or how bad whatever religion or whatever is it's off topic since talk pages are not places for people to posts such opinions. Anyone who starts soapboxing or trolling is usually already way off topic. It is possible to soapboxing or troll without clearly going so clearly off topic. For example asking why doesn't the article mention anything about XYZ. In these cases it's usually ignored rather then removed. But on the RD, it's rarely so simple since questions are welcome and so are answers so the line between soapboxing and trolling and a poorly phrased question or a question by a naïve person doesn't exist. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the people who tried to give a reasonably thoughtful answer, I'll allow that I was annoyed by the removal. Even if the OP was a troll, there are many 'Mercans who agree with his sentiment, and it makes sense to at least offer an attempt at lighting a candle. Complete removals should be reserved for egregious cases, and extra care should be taken when responses have already been made. --Sean02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism on Misc Desk
There's a curious piece of vandalism currently on the miscellaneous desk - the categories at the bottom of the page include "West Semitic gods". I've looked at the whole page in the edit window, and I can't see where it's coming from or how to remove it. Anyone? --Richardrjtalk email05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... this guy apparently wants us to do a kinda long translation instead of hiring a translator or proof-reader. Are these questions allowed here? --Taraborn (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allowed, yes, but fulfilling the request is left to the discretion of the RD denizens. I don't see a problem with leaving a note suggesting that he'd be better served by a translation or proof-reading service. — Lomn22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as long as they are linking to the source rather then pasting a whole source which raises copyvio issues as well as simply being confusing and making it difficult for other editors to edit and readers to read the RD. If someone posts a several thousand word essay and asks us to translate it I think you can remove it Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidence for Christianity as the One True Religion?" thread removal
Keep it removed. It is crossposted and appears to be a pathetic attempt to get a lot of links to Google will rank the OP's site higher. -- kainaw™05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not starting a debate, this is just asking people what they think. This is just asking about what a particular group of people would think about a particular subject.
As for a higher OP site ranking in Google, that's nonsense! I was just giving it as an example of the claims of some Christians for those evidences for Christianity to be one true religion. Bowei Huang (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Bowei, but regardless of what you believe your intentions to be, those "questions", as worded, are so full of intrigue and innuendo that they absolutely beg for debate. In fact, they serve as a nearly perfect example of why we decline debate-fostering questions on these desks.
BOLD PROPOSAL: Merge the Humanities and Entertainment desks
For a very long time the Entertainment desk has been the ugly, low-traffic duckling of the Reference Desks. Many questions there go unanswered, and the quality of the answers is often inferior to those on WP:RD/H. Part of this problem has to do with the nature of the questions asked--I will concede that--but I honestly believe more and better answers would be forthcoming if the questions were visible on a forum with higher traffic.
Regulars at the Humanities desks might initially bristle at the sudden influx of questions about sporting teams and pop groups, but I'm sure they would get over it eventually--and they could easily ignore the questions that fell outside their areas of interest. Besides, I firmly believe that the line between high and low culture is a contrived and nebulous one. So, if there are no objections....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the line between high and low culture can probably be called contrived and nebulous; but for many people there is only one significant culture - popular or traditional, depending on their tastes. I'm fairly indifferent to this proposal either way, but if it fails, I'd like to see the Entertainment desk renamed "Popular Culture". That seems to capture the flavour of most of the questions that turn up there; and I'm sure those who are interested in more traditional culture, who tend to go to the Humanities desk, would be shocked to think we don't consider classical music, for example, as "entertainment". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I see Steve Summit suggested this very name name change on 16 January. He said he wasn't being serious. I, on the other hand, am quite serious. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree: The Humanities, or Homework Desk as it is often know, is like a wannabe teachers wet dream. Please don't ruin the Entertainment Desk with this merger. Lanfear's Bane | t10:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging but slightly support renaming. The Humanities Desk is likely to discourage they type of questions that currently appear on Entertainment, and calling it "Popular Culture" would probably generate more interest in it. Think outside the box13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait wait people! THIS straw poll is about renaming the desk NOT merging. :) Start your own straw poll about the issue of merging; this one is already too confusing as it is. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per JackofOz. Not to keen about deletion of the Entertainment desk (which is what the merge would amount to). Going through the archives, this desk's existence is justified by overall frequency (comparable to the Mathematics desk) and by the type of questions asked there. As far as I can see, the answers and references tend to be useful too. Indifferent to confusion of mixing polls. ---Sluzzelintalk23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose merging: Entertainments is a delicate plant that would die in the harsh light of Humanities. Mildly oppose renaming as any mention of culture would scare away the sports questions, I think. SaundersW (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added "sports" to the Entertainment desk's subtopics and regrouped the subtopics slightly. (diff). I think SaundersW makes a good point regarding sports, and had wondered about adding the topic before. Please revert if anyone feels sports questions belong elsewhere (miscellaneous?) and we can discuss it. I think "sports" should be included in that desk no matter whether its name is "Entertainment" or "Popular culture". ---Sluzzelintalk20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that sports belong to culture of any kind, or to entertainment. I'm not suggesting they're not entertaining or culturally significant; but the entertainment factor applies only to spectators, not participants. And when we hear the word "culture", apart from reaching for one's gun, one doesn't immediately think of sport. Well, I don't. Maybe we should have a separate Sports Ref Desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jack. I reverted and removed "sports" for now. I'm not sure about creating a sports desk, because I'm cautious about adding more desks as long as the ones we have are manageable. I did mean spectator sports types of questions, not questions on sports physiology, for example. As usual, there is grey overlap and a perfect fit won't be possible. I guess we did okay without mentioning sports, and sports questions get asked at the Humanities and Miscellaneous desks too. Thoughts? ---Sluzzelintalk20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think Sports is a valid subtopic for Entertainment. For those whose complaint is that RD/E doesn't get enough traffic, steering sport questions there will perhaps meet the imaginary quota and get the poor li'l desk the respect it deserves. US sports cable TV network ESPN shows almost nothing except sporting events, but the letter stand for Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. Which may indeed be a specious argument. --LarryMac | Talk21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case for saying that sportspeople are in "show business", ergo entertainment. But I think most people would make a clear distinction between the usual connotations of the word "entertainment" and "sport". The object of an entertainer is to entertain; the object of a sportsperson is to play a sport, and they may just happen to be entertaining while they're about it - or they may not. Still, it's only fiddling at the edges, and we'll still field questions wherever they appear. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Entertainment" makes sense, and is more inclusive of questions like "how do I wire my HDTV thingie?". In my opinion, nothing should be named "Popular culture". / edg☺☭20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Choose a Section" section...
Each RD page has various fixed elements: The main menu at the upper left, the editing tabs at the top, the rules in the middle followed by the index, etc. On the right, at the top, there is a fixed group of links to the various desks.
I tend to troll the various desks, looking for something interesting to learn, and occasionally adding something useful to someone's question. I am lazy, and would prefer to not have to scroll all the way back up to the top of each page to access the next desk on the list, and I can't help but notice that there is a lot of empty space along the left margin towards the bottom (since the main menu is fairly short, and the various desks always have huge center Q&A sections).
Would it be possible to also have that fixed group of links-to-various-desks also show up on the left margin, at the very bottom? Surely I'm not the only person who trolls more than one desk, and if someone can figure out how to do this, it would be "work once" for "benefit forever". No, my html skills are not up to doing it right the first time, and I'm not gonna experiment on this. -SandyJax (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation! :O I'm going to update the code right now since both scripts are crippled by the stupid decision to recognize WP: as a namespace:D\=< (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hm, looks like it's a side effect of merging the headers back into a kludgey half-dynamic template.. a lot of work to fix up. So unless someone wants to do it, you'll just have to live without slick highlighting of the boxes :D\=< (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks starting with slash?
I can't seem to link to the /dev/random/ article on the reference desk. Now that I try it out, it doesn't work in the Sandbox either. It works fine in article space, though. Is there a way around this without resorting to external http links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by APL (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links in the "See also" section of the /dev/random article are surrounded by tt tags and have a colon before the slash. The tt tags are just for appearance, so a link such as this - /dev/random seems to work. --LarryMac | Talk15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the reason it works in article space is that subpages are disabled there, so the software doesn't think you're trying to link to one. Algebraist16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed thread from lonely 22 year old
I'm not going to cite chapter of verse of Wikipedia policy or guidelines to justify this, but I've removed this thread from the Desks. I am at least the third editor to do so in the last twelve hours. I've blocked the IP, but I suspect he will be able to get another one fairly readily. (He's already done so once.)
In a nutshell, the user claims to be a friendless 22 year old who's given up on finding a girlfriend, but who wants to "befriend little girl[s] (age 5-12 or so)"; he says he "find[s] them extremely adorable and this appeals greatly" to him. He claims to already be in webcam contact with a 9 year old who is "unfortunately" in another part of the country.
Given some of his responses, I suspect that he's just a troll and not a pedophile. In any case, I'm kicking this issue upstairs to AN/I. (Post will appear shortly.) I ask that no one restore this thread in the meantime. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This question has been deleted, apparently for the second time (I didn't follow it the first time). In the first place, I'm not sure that it warrants deletion; I'd welcome other editors' views on that. In the second place, I'm a little irked by the way the word "troll" is being used (in the thread itself and in the edit summary), as though it's a matter of indisputable fact, rather than interpretation, that this guy is a troll. As I said in the thread, I hardly think either this question or the rest of the guy's contributions mark him out as "someone who posts controversial messages in an online community...with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response" (from our 'troll' article). And the good faith we should be assuming seems to have evaporated for no other reason than that the guy called someone who labelled him a troll an "idiot". --Richardrjtalk email15:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the time to check the page history and look at this guy's contributions (with the "other" IP address that was pointed out in the thread), from about 13-14 hours ago, you can see that he used up his allotment of good faith quite well. He deleted a whole section of the page (and caused other questions to be lost), when the section was restored, he struck out all of the text, and his edit summaries were over the top. These actions and the first posting of the question resulted in the first IP being blocked. And do you really think that the deleted question was not controversial? I'm not going to throw out diagnoses that I'm not qualified to make, but "creepy" is the mildest description I can think of. --LarryMac | Talk15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does no good to say "troll", I agree. If you do, and it is a troll, he has succeeded. If he's not, you have failed. In this case, though, if we assume good faith and he is not a troll, it is our duty as responsible citizens to do what we can to make sure that the police have a look at this man. I'm not kidding. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel utterly stupid for answering the question in the first place. The provocative language was a warning sign but I reasoned that it could be just poor language choice or that English was their second language. SeraphimWhipp22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please never feel stupid for assuming good faith. Normally, that's the best way of handling trolloid threads. This is a very special case with a history of violent language, editing, and a question on an extremely uncomfortable topic. You did nothing wrong. ---Sluzzelintalk22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? Algebraist 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
