Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 103

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

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Integrating with the Wikipedia Library

Hello refdesk folks. Most of you are probably aware of the Wikipedia Library (TWL). Although the RefDesk and TWL serve different purposes, they should be integrated a bit more. Some users may be looking for a source for references, which is more the purview of TWL and the resource exchange. I'd like to add Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/header to the main RefDesk page. I realize that the page is already fairly template heavy - alternately we could make a "footer" version, or a navbox. Just floating the idea here for feedback. Best, The Interior (Talk) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you can probably find a place to put it... though I'd reccomend making a footer version as that would probably reduce the clutter. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 18:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly just a very small but bolded top link next to "Want a faster answer?" Unless I am reading this wrong it doesn't have to be its own box does it?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A link at the top would probably get lost among the hatnotes. The reason it's a box is because the Library is spread out, and operates on several pages/related projects. Ocaasi has added it as a footer at the bottom - I think it looks good down there and doesn't add too much to the clutter. The Interior (Talk) 17:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah; I think it looks good down there. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 19:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

This is backing up a bit. Could someone who knows how take a look. Mingmingla (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot has been down for a couple of weeks. In the meantime I've manually archived enough to catch up -- hopefully the bot will be fixed before too long. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've forced the TOC; we don't normally have to worry about a shortage of thread here. :) Matt Deres (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

repeatedly reopened speculation removed after closure by andy

I am not sure what you want to call the "questions" on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them. diff. The answers given by our regulars to the second edition were ill-iformed--cancer is the failure of the regulatory system. It is not evolution. Evolution is the change in populations of organisms over time due to natural selection. Cancer cells may mutate, but the do not establish new species. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And if they did, they'd be short-lived, as they would die with the body they're attached to. Maybe the best thing would be to have the OP read the cancer article and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a mixed message here, folks. To comment on the veracity of any answers is to legitimise the provision of answers. Yet your position, Medeis, is that the nature of these "questions" was such that they fall outside our guidelines and answers should not have been provided. You seem to be wanting to have it both ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Cancer cells are not necessarily short-lived at all - see HeLa cell line. I agree with Red Act (below) - the OP's second post is a sensible question and appropriate for the RD. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Had it been up to me alone, I don't know what I would have done. But I wouldn't be opening and adding cruft to already closed material. μηδείς (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- First the OP posted a rant of sorts, based on some obscure theory; and then rewrote as a series of sort-of questions. It appears the OP's English is marginal, which doesn't help the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP's first post was ~~somewhat of a rant more than~~ phrased as statements rather than as a question, but the OP's second post was posed more as questions, so I restored it. Furthermore, there really do exist cancer cells which have the opportunity to evolve over long periods of time within multiple hosts, so the OP's questions aren't quite as nonsensical as they might first appear. Red Act (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I regret my use of the word "rant" in my above post, so I have changed the wording to something more appropriate. Red Act (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Whether or not the OP's first question was a rant is a matter of opinion. It could be just a product of his poor grasp of English. We should assume good faith, and not penalise someone who has poor English. It's not a crime to have grown up with a different language. Some folk who think they do have good english and write well do not and don't, as seen by persons from USA, Australia, Britain and the like, due to cultural differences. Some folk from the Indian subcontinent are in that class, through no fault of their own. So assume good faith and try to read what he's trying to say.

Personally, I always thought the OP had presented a question along these lines: "I am trying to understand cancer. I think it works this way - blah blah blah. Am I right or am I wrong? That's a not only a perfectly legitimate whay to put a question, its a good way, because it lets us tailor answers to suit the OP's needs. It's NOT a rant.

Medeis, you are an idiot. You are an idiot because if you delete someone's post without any explanation, what do you think they are going to do? The most obvious thing that will occur to a new or relatively new user, as this OP appears to be, is to assume it got lost in a computer glitch or system operator error. So the obvious thing to do is put it back. He won't have restored it from archives, he may have kept a copy on his own computer, or may have just typed it all in again. That's what I did when my some of posts dissapeared when I was new. Only later did I realise that there is the History tab, and that certain idiots, youself being a major culprit, were deliberately deleting my posts, typically because you/they just didn't like them or dissagreed with what I said.

Medeis, you are an idiot because you decided that the OP's premise, and the answers, were wrong. It's you that is wrong, as others have clearly showed. If you think an answer is wrong, the proper thing to do is post a calm refutation. Not just delete and leave no explananation. And if you MUST delete, leave an explanation. Generally, deletions on REference Desk, should be used sparingly, in cases of medical or legal advice, blatant persistent trolling, providing sex advice to OP's who are obviously children, discussing the private lives of identifiable people not being of wide media interest, or people blatantly and persistently trying to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

In short, Medeis, you see your self as the Ref Desk sherrif. In that you are a serial pest. Get back in your cave and don't come out. We didn't elect you.

120.145.195.215 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be a rant. But one that had to be made. Could some please show why the advice contained in, viz assume good faith, be tolerant of those whose first language is not English, and be sparing about deletions, and give an explanation when you do delete, is not good advice? Could someone please explain why Medeis, who does none of this, continually deletes and hats things, and violates his own rules, and IS a serial pest, is allowed to continue without any sanction? 121.215.53.175 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Should we assume you are the same user as 120.145.195.215? Also, are you aware that calling editors "idiots" is a blockable offense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the 120.145.195.215 that posted an answer to the cancer question, then, yes, I am that person. I had to shut down my PC, so I got a new dymamic IP when it booted up again. Now, you are the person who started this issue by doing the first delete of the question. I was not aware that calling editors idiots is a blockable offence, but under normal circumstances it would be a good policy. This isn't normal circumstances - Medeis continually does far worse things, such as deletes on just his whim, and he's not against a bit of cheek either. In short, he does idiot things, as I described above. I'm still waiting to hear why this turkey, who is frequently discussed in talk pages, is allowed to continue without any sanction of any kind. There, I've done it a third time. Calling someone a turkey is the same as calling them an idiot. I'm still waiting to hear why the advice I gave is not good advice too. Please do enlighten me. 121.215.53.175 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete the question, so don't yell at me about that. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for you to own up to who you really are. To me, it looks like you're an IP-hopping troll whose sole purpose in being here is to attack other users. Feel free to prove me wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So Bugs, it's your position that calling someone an idiot is a blockable offense - but calling them "an IP-hopping troll whose sole purpose in being here is to attack other users" is perfectly OK? Hmmm...interesting. SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I said that's what he looks like to me. Meanwhile...

120.145.195.215 (talk · contribs)

121.215.53.175 (talk · contribs)

The known IP's point to western Australia. Isn't that WickWack's bailiwick? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed amazing new theory of gravity

diff -- BenRG (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Good removal. The IP needs to find a science fiction forum. That reminds me: Many years ago, I heard this theory of gravity. I don't necessarily believe it, but it was somebody's theory regardless: "There is no gravity - the Earth sucks." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Brett Easton Ellis, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Day

The question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Sentence needed (version of 00:15, 6 November 2013) reminded me of Guy Fawkes Day (November 5).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Debate under question about Sweden

On the Humanities reference desk, under the question "Sweden", I removed a long and uncivil debate about American politics that had absolutely nothing to do with the question. This debate continued even after it was hatted, and I felt that it was distracting attention away from the OP's question. If any uninvolved party believes this is not the correct way to handle the situation, feel free to revert. On the other hand, if any participants in the debate try to revert, please explain how your "contributions" are remotely, in any way, helpful to the OP or how they do not blatantly violate WP:SOAP. Go ahead, I dare you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlhover (talk • contribs)

Seriously, you "dare" us? There's a good consensus we don't delete remarks except for personal attacks, BLP violations, req's for medical advice (in which case a template is used), and egregious trolling, not a long-multiple user thread. There's no requirement anyone prove anything to you about the utility of the conversation. Nor are you allowed to impose conditions on participants versus non-participants. At worst hatting is appropriate, and it has been hatted. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is astounding. On this very page, in the immediately preceding section, you said "I am not sure what you want to call the 'questions' on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them." Either you violated the same "good consensus" you claim exists, or you thought the conventional methods were insufficient and resorting to deletion was justifiable in this exceptional case. If the latter, you have no right to prevent editors to take matters into their own hands in a similar way. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a personal attack. Also, you've got an IP doing this edit-warring now: 94.68.228.99 (talk · contribs) That's what happens when you try to be a ref desk nanny. STOP IT. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This has got to stop. Buggs, isn't about time for you to take a break? 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reported the IP for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In amongst the (alleged) inappropriate behaviour, he has a point about the substance of his issue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It was hatted earlier today, which should have been sufficient, until Bowlhover stuck his nanny nose into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He did the right thing. Learn it, Know it, Live it. Now go take a break, when you come back, at least make an attempt to be productive. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't take the advice of cowardly drive-bys. Come back under your real ID, once you've been unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As the only third party (besides the IP troll) who's commented on this issue, I'm curious to know what behaviour you feel is inappropriate. I've deleted the debate twice (so I reverted once), and the second time, I included an edit summary and created this talk page section. I have not made any edits to the section since the last revert. I personally don't think one revert constitutes an edit war, and if it does, both Baseball Bugs and Medeis are just as guilty of edit warring. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And now we've got another IP into the act, 202.124.242.10 (talk · contribs). You caused this problem, Bowlhover. I hope you're proud of yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How am I responsible for the behaviour of troll IPs that I have no control over? What you're doing is victim blaming, and it's ridiculous. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the SOAP issue is what started it. It appears that reflection is in order for several of the parties here. 202.124.242.10 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Another cowardly drive-by. Log in under your real ID if you expect anybody to take you seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I just stopped by, I'm not reading any more of this thread right now, there's plenty of bad behavior to go around, but you have got to stop trying to redirect attention onto your much-feared "drive-bys" and other bugaboos, and start answering for your own behavior. Jeeeeeezus. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He said STFU. I wish I'd said that. Everyone's repeating it around the club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about your behavior, not mine. "Cowardly" and "Drive-By"...How does this correct the root problem? Personal attacks are but a distraction from the issue here. It is a shame that you must behave this way. 202.124.242.10 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide whose behavior is scrutinized and whose isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you not feed or legitimize the IP editors by engaging in back-and-forth with them, Bugs. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the IP 202 is a sock of a sockmaster with hundreds of socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And it further turns out that the sockmaster is a banned user - which means any edits made by its socks are subject to reversion without penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. What's the blocked user's name? μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Here you go.[2] I don't want to dignify the sockmaster by mentioning it here. But he's got literally hundreds of socks. None of them wickwack, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A pass-the-buck style admin doesn't want to block them. But they seem to have disappeared anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just curious Bugs, but if a non-sock-puppet-non-IP told you you should take a break, would that make any difference to you? Forget this Sweden thread, I'm actually thinking of the Magna Carta question. It looks like French! Seriously now. You don't have to answer every single question, especially when you blatantly don't have a clue. You may want to stop and consider why the Reference Desk needs "nannies". Hint: it's because of you. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at the boulangerie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack?

Editor 202 has not been involved in the thread or discussion unti after Bowlhover and 94 maxed out their edits. Given 202 geolocates to Australia, is it possible he's wickwack? Can anyone point out if there was ever an account blocked by wickwack (who last editted from an IP 203, bragging his IP's show up all over), and what his actual username was? μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, I maxed out my edits? Let me remind you that I reverted once, not 3 times (which would still not be over the limit), and not even 2 times. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

3 is not a magic number. You deleted that section twice, which was at least one too many. Your IP "friends" then got into the act. If you had not deleted that section the IP's would not have joined in. You are the cause of the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'cause of the problem' was people dragging the thread off-topic in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it was hatted. There was no actual problem until Bowl-over appointed himself the nanny of the ref desks, which started to attract banned users to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

People dragging threads off-topic is an 'actual problem'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire thread was an invitation to debate from the get-go--and the hatting was selective in the very least in allowing a false and unsupported claim the conservatives in America want a zero-tax rate while hatting a response that challenged that. Nevertheless, you didn't see anyone edit warring over the hatting. And Bugs and I, for example, are on opposite sides of the issue. (Note also from Bowlhover's talk page it is I who taught him how to hat in good faith in the first place.) The bottom line is we do not delete comments without discussing it here. And we don't delete comments unless they are personal attacks, requests for medical advice (which is templated) BLP violations (which are revdeleted), and egregious trolling. This was a multiple-editor thread that was none of those. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous:

1. Here on Wikipedia, we assume good faith.

2. If the question is indeed an invitation to debate from the get-go, you don't take the bait. You don't feed the troll. Instead, you not only took the bait and jumped in with irrelevant political polemics about America on a question about Sweden, you reverted my attempt to hat the debate.

3. I considered hatting StuRat's response, but did not do so because it was marginally related to the OP's question. Every single response below that was not.

4. Again, you reverted my hatting of the debate. I never reverted any edit more than once. Since you obviously consider my 1 revert to be edit-warring, you must have also been edit-warring.

5. I don't give a crap about anyone's political opinions.

6. Don't flatter yourself. I've been an editor for numerous years and knew about hatting well before you "taught" me. Even if I did not, I'm fully able to look at source code and figure out how to hat.

7. In the previous section of this page, you admitted to deleting a user's questions even though they were not personal attacks, requests for medical advice, BLP viiolations, or egregious trolling. You also deleted the questions before, not after, discussing them here. Your double standards don't fly with me. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You deleted it twice:[3][4] You should not have deleted it the second time. BRD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my. It's a good thing I didn't revert you on that thread when you hatted the discussion, Bowlhover. It looks like that might have made you angry. Thank god this matter ended two hours ago, for all our sakes. (Now pressing the moot button.) μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

202 doesn't appear to be Wickwack, but it looks like it could be another banned edit as per the block log (it's a proxy so I'm not sure if all the edits are from said editor but there aren't many so it may be). AFAIK Wickwack has never edited from an account that we know of, that's part of the problem considering what got them blocked. When it was suggested that they register, they suggested they tried to register once but was 'misidentified' as someone else. Presuming this story isn't totally fictional, whether the identification was actually incorrect, I can't say. In any case, Wickwack seems to once again be a semi regular at the RD as no one can be bothered reverting them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm _assuming_ the recent deletion from the "Pink Noise" thread for one of WickWack's contributions, and I note that the deleted text has been recreated by "127.0.0.1" (a rather disturbing IP address - I sincerely hope the message wasn't posted from the server console). diff for the interested. Should this also be deleted? Tevildo (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For a while, apparently, the WP software was routing some IP edits in such a way that they were appearing to come from 127.0.0.1 (see WP:VP/T#Edits from 127.0.0.1). Deor (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference - the duff IP addresses are from Oceania, I note. What's the standard of proof for deciding that the posting is from WickWack? I'm personally sure, but my judgement is poor on such issues. Tevildo (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

~~The 127.0.0.1 could be WickWack, but it also could be enough other people and give it's a short fluke that I think it's best to discount it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)~~

Actually discount that, the follow up discussion combined with [5] demonstrates it was Wickwack. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Phooey. I just went on a goose chase [6] expecting an amusing bug, but it's just an ordinary IP, not loopback. Would be ROTFL if someone checkusered 127.0.0.1 and decided it was Wickwack. :) Wnt (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(But see User:127.0.0.1 and nearly 100 contributions [7]) Wnt (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed lengthy Mac OS X advocacy on RDC

I have closed this [8] which primarily consists of lengthy OS X advocacy by User:Nimur.

The RD has a bit of a historic problem with someone running some software asking a question, only to be told to run some other software even when the suggestion was clearly unwelcome and unlikely to make a difference. This is something I've long objected to as I've said before.

Historically it's someone running Microsoft software being told to run open source software (and some would also suggest Apple products tend to get unfair opposition) so perhaps it's a bit funny that this time it's someone wanting to run an open source operating system with some proprietary components (as per our article) being told to keep running a closed source Apple operating system with some open source components (again as per our article), but not really.

If there was something of an answer to the OP's question in the answer, I would have left it be, but while the OP may not have specifically said they only want help running Ubuntu or some variant of Linux, I think it's clear even from only this question that what they want, not to be told why they should not do so. Heck even if this was a shorter post, I probably would have left it be. But I know a bit about long posts and I think this is the sort of long OT post that is too distracting. Referring to Apple and Microsoft as "crApple Mac O'SuX and Microshaft Windoze" in another question doesn't seem to in any way justify such a response.

As to the continous closing only draws attention/deletion is better/whatever arguments, the only thing I can say is if someone does provide a useful answer, closing prevents it being lost. Deletion will as well, but Nimur is a respected contributor even if their contribution is unhelpful here and I feel deletion is unwarranted although won't object if someone else does so.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize that my answer was unhelpful and that its tone did not meet the high standards of professionalism that I usually expect from myself and other contributors. My intent, which I did not accomplish well, was to redirect the original poster's efforts toward more productive exploration of the benefits of an open Unix-like system, rather than spending time proverbially "re-inventing the wheel."

I stand by my original position, though, which is that the requested task - to replace the system software - is in this case prohibitively difficult, given the minimal reward it can provide. From my perspective, the best references we can provide - links to documentation - will dissuade the user from undertaking a fruitless task. I did not do a very good job directly linking to such resources that would assist in persuading the OP. And, I will accede that this is simply my perspective, and may not be shared by others. Nimur (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The correct spelling is App£e and Micro$oft. Count Iblis (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I read Nimur's discussion before and found it intriguing, relevant, and technically sophisticated, as is generally the case for his contributions. I still don't really understand it though, and hold some mental reservations (if Mac OS X is free/open source why don't people run it on PCs?) but it certainly overturns some assumptions that might hinder further understanding. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your parenthetical, only parts of OSX are open-source, not OSX as a whole. (Mostly the parts that descend from BSD through NeXTSTEP, but some other pieces as well.) APL (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons:

not all of OS X is free software. Some parts are proprietary. This is similar to Ubuntu: while the linux kernel is free software, Ubuntu contains more than just linux. Ubuntu contains some non-free software; some of it does not work and cannot be modified. In the case of OS X, certain non-free software is also made available at no charge for owners of Apple hardware, like the OP.
Free and open source software is great, but it doesn't automatically mean the software works for all purposes. To make something as complex as an operating system that can run on a specific piece of hardware, somebody must take that free software and modify it. Who is doing so? Ubuntu source-code - even that portion that is freely licensed - is not owned by Apple, so Apple will probably not use or modify it. Somebody else must take that work on: Apple has already provided a functional alternative.

Nimur (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nimur, you do realize that Apple hardware is a pretty common choice for Ubuntu users, right? They like stylish, nicely designed hardware as much as anybody else.

Of course somebody has to "make it work", but that's true for all hardware. Gateway and Dell aren't supporting Ubuntu any more than Apple is. APL (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

APL, Dell is an official partner of Ubuntu. They are very publicly, out in the open, announcing that Dell is spending money and engineering resources to make Ubuntu work on Dell hardware. I cannot speak to whatever other corporations are working with Ubuntu under non-disclosure agreements. Nimur (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Being rather ignorant here, I still tend to see the situation in black and white: I mean, either OS X and Ubuntu have useful open source components, or they don't. If they do, then I expect that by and by I should be seeing OS X available for the PC with some extra code written to paper over the remaining problems. (Ubuntu, of course, I know I can encounter parts of as simply Linux). Is this a reasonable perspective, and if so... should I expect OS X on PCs? Wnt (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

... PureDarwin ? Few people use it, because it's essentially like running OS X... without the performance, stability, and Apple hardware. Here are some photographs of the system running on a MacBook Pro and on a Lenovo X series laptop. As far as I know, the phrase "OS X" is trade-marked; in most places, you cannot call "whatever you are running on your PC" by a trademarked name unless certain legal-ese constraints are satisfied; but Darwin is composed from portions of the system released by Apple that are open-source and free software, plus some patchwork to make it work on a PC. Nimur (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OSX is built upon an opensource unix variant, but many of parts that make it unique from other types of Unix are proprietary to Apple. You couldn't use only the opensource components to build something that could usefully be called "OSX".
Ubuntu is built almost entirely of open-source components, but unlike like more "ideologically extreme" Linux flavors, Ubuntu will include things like closed-source drivers where needed. (iirc, Our original question-asker seemed to have installed from a disk that only had the open-source Ubuntu components, and needed to download the closed-source wifi driver from Ubuntu's servers. Which obviously presented a minor catch-22 since he needed the driver to make his wifi work!) APL (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We're making progress here (which, I should add, legitimizes this as a discussion belonging on the main Computing Desk). We've identified that the open part of OS X, plus some extra stuff, equals PureDarwin. The open part of OS X is also described as "an opensource unix variant" and as not being distinctively OS X on its own. Now the question becomes, does PureDarwin have advantages over other Linuxes, or will it once its development achieves its major goals? Example question: are there programs that run on both OS X and PureDarwin but not Cygwin, Ubuntu, or Windows (or not as easily)? Wnt (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Wnt has a good question ("are there programs that run on both OS X and PureDarwin but not Cygwin, Ubuntu, or Windows (or not as easily)?", and I recommend posting that as a new question on WP:RDC so that other enthusiasts can contribute responses. I do not actually know the answer, but I am interested to find out. Nimur (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no legitimacy to answering a specific technical question with a general discussion comparing the question-asker's operating system and the operating system the question-answerer happens to believe is better. This is doubly true if the answer is sarcastic. APL (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

APL, will you please pause for a moment, re-read exactly what the OP wrote, and express which specific technical question he asked? In actual fact, the original post I responded to - the one you believe I answered poorly - was not a specific technical question. The OP did not actually ask a question; he merely stated that a problem exists - which I verified on my own hardware. And I noticed that these problems are in fact quite profound and will not be solved easily with a few "configuration changes" or instructions on an Ubuntu forum. So I recommended an alternative, and I even directed the OP to a retail store where he can get free, polite, professional help with his computer. Perhaps I couched my response in a little bit of cynicism, but at the core, I tried to help the OP, who has not actually complained about my responses at all. Only a small number of fellow reference-desk-regulars seem upset by my post, and I have already apologized for the tone. How much more effort and good faith do you honestly expect from an anonymous contributor on the reference desk? Nimur (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just now re-read his first question. He asked about downloading the non-free binary driver package, on a different OS. (Presumably to copy over to the target machine, since he can't download the driver with out first having the driver.)

Your answer was that he should instead write his own wifi driver. (Suggesting, with what I can only assume must be sarcasm, that it would be easy to do.) Or, alternatively, give up on Ubuntu.

His second question was trickier, but as Ubuntu on MacBook Pro is not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination, it's not unreasonable for him to have assumed there is a solution to his problem, and that somebody here might know it.

I appreciate that you apologized for the tone. I just think that this is still fundamentally a "Install [OS], Problem Solved." answer, which falls into the larger category of rude answers of the form Q:"How do I [X]?" A:"Don't [X].", which, while very easy answers, are I believe fundamentally rude, unless they include the actual answer to the question asked in the explanation of why [X] isn't usually a good idea. APL (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

deleting threads on this page

enough--a talk page is about improving its main page--not about expressing mutual hostility

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

Do people find this a valid deletion? (I was about to restore it, but maybe it's fine.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted threads on the main page end up being discussed here, but where do deleted threads here get discussed? Right back again. People can play at hatting threads, deleting them then having a wikilink to the history pop up, whatever, but it's easiest just to post a dismissive comment and be done with it. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's my fault, I thought I posted that I had deleted that here last night. But why in the world would you want to restore that closed bit of anonymous IP trolling, Steve? Go ahead and restore a personal attack on another editor by a troll--an attack someone besides myself saw fit to close--if you see some encyclopedic value in it. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You so indicated in your edit summary.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing at all that constitutes trolling, and I have no idea why people are so touchy about such a comment. It is clear that the editor has been reading the Ref Desk for a while, to have formed an opinion about the general nature of someone's editing. It also seems clear that the person really was wondering whether he was alone. However, the person can now dig up the archives and find the answer to his question - he really isn't alone, and the debate need not be protracted. Anything further is simply likely to put us at each other's throats, and cause yet another escalation. I don't think that's what the OP wanted, but once the basic question has been answered, well, no need to go on about it. I see your point, Steve, but I'd suggest leaving this one. IBE (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It is, in fact trolling; a personal attack by an IP, its only edit since the summer of 2012. If that isn't trolling, nothing is. And Summit bringing it up here further feeds that troll. Good job. This section too should be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I second that. There's no reason now for the diff above to be highlighted, or my edit to show the summary; perhaps Steve or some editor who hasn't commented yet will delete this thread? μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Gee, Bugs, I find plenty of your comments useless and/or annoying, too. Does that make me a troll and a personal attacker, as well? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, and the feeling is mutual, but I often curb my tongue. A major difference, though, is that you and I stand behind our registered accounts, and don't hop around different IP's firing random shots and then disappearing back under the rock from whence they came. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for expressing our personal opinions of other users. See talk page guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of information increases the entropy of the universe and will thus cause the heat death of the unverse to happen sooner. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The operation is reversible, so there is no net gain in entropy. In fact, the deletion causes an edit history entry and creates more information. :-) Katie R (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending Reviews for the Ref Desk?

Why is there an edit "pending review" for the (sci) ref desk? Has this recently been added, is it a matter of the IP editor? The edit is certainly not controversial. This is going to frustrate legitimate IP inquirers to no end. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It was set here. If there was ever any doubt that this discussion page is useless, note it was not discussed here. Supposedly it expires on the 10th, so I'd recommend we all just take a break until then. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's very rare that I find myself agreeing witn Medeis and Wnt, but I have to second this. Who do we need to contact to get this removed? Tevildo (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The protection request was added by Bugs (diff). We need to go through WP:RFUP to get it cleared - I'll make a start on putting the request together now, although someone with more experience in this area might beat me to it. Is this going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets Bugs banned? Tevildo (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The RFUP request is in. Tevildo (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask for any "pending reviews" nonsense, I asked for semi-protection, to keep that IP-hopping Toronto-based racist troll from posting there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, semi-protection has basically never reached consensus here, including situations where we were being swamped by the Avril-troll for example. I freely admit to being one of the opponents of semi-protection, especially for such a length of time. In my opinion it defeats the reference desks' purpose. Not only are you keeping out a large percentage of those who come here seeking our help, you also exclude a significant amount of knowledgeable and helpful regular volunteers who choose to edit without registering here. Remove the post when truly egregious, better yet, discuss here, but please don't help shut the doors to those we serve and those who serve just because of a racist troll. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP was edit-warring, and hopping IP's. How do you fix that without semi-protection? And how do you deal with the folks who keep arguing with the Canadian troll rather than simply deleting his garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

One possibility is to ignore it. That's always what works best when trolled. (Admittedly, the effect is more powerful when everyone ignores :-) Like I said, if it's outrageously offensive or whatever, snip away or hat away — though I'm a fan of neither I still prefer it to semi-protection. Or discuss here and reach consensus on what to do. Either of these options is preferable to semi-protection, in my opinion, and option one, ignoring, seems the like the best one to me. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I had intended to zap it again once the second IP got blocked, but the admins took their time and somebody responded to it. What does the "pending review" do? Can that be rejected repeatedly without incurring the wrath of the 3RR gods? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Having now read this classic (and, if you think of Uhura in The Savage Curtain, quite flattering) comment by the IP on my talk page, I agree some sort of reaction is appropriate here. The problem is semi-protection blocks all IP edits, and pending review is awkward and unfriendly. I think we can safely agree that deleting related material geolocating to the same area should not be viewed as a violation of 3RR. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, I hadn't seen that. Well, I only wanted it semi'd for a few days, to let the troll go live under some other bridge (the Niagara, with any luck). If there's agreement on exempting this kind of junk from the 3RR, that should make things easier. P.S. Uhura was beautiful. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just told one of my girlfriends about this and we laughed for fifteen minutes. I am almost tempted to request the troll not be blocked, under the policy of "Tell me more about my eyes." μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We could also let a bot accept all the pending changes unless the IP happens to be on a list of banned editors. Count Iblis (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's excellent! I was wondering if something like that was possible, but assumed it wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not excellent. Nobody wanted this, and it doesn't get to become the New Status Quo as long as someone can propose some mechanism by which somebody someday could perhaps make it workable in theory, to avoid "consensus" to get rid of it. And this particular idea is not workable, because the bot to accept edits from everyone but one editor is called a "block", and it's defeated by switching IPs. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

But would not the effect simply be to temporarily require pending approval of IP's geolocating to Toronto? Surely the troll to newbie ratio, just there, right now, would justify such a thing? μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Because - as already happened in the first four hours - other editors' work can get caught in the net. [10] Despite many misrepresentations during the voting over introducing Pending Changes, even edits by established editors can be hung up behind one of the troll's edits, then lost. We should also remember that conversations on the Refdesks can move very quickly, and when some people aren't seeing all of the pending edits, they'll end up not responding to one another properly. Above all, it's simply an offensive way of setting up an editor hierarchy. It was originally claimed as a solution to things like BLP articles -- not for dealing with free forums where libel is rare and would be reverted very quickly anyway. And last, but not least, because silencing racists in this way denies me and others the opportunity to take the high ground and disprove their claims. We see this in real world politics -- Europe, where countries have stupidly taken action to suppress racism and Holocaust revisionism, is falling once more into an abyss as they play the victims of persecution. Wnt (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree entirely that "taking the high ground against racism" is at all useful here, since it usually means some sort of scientifically ignorant blanket skepticism and naive moral relativism, which is just as bad, if not worse. But, that being said, if pending changes means there is a queue of edits, some of which are not by IP's, then I am against it. I also don't like a privileged class of reviewers--I think our entrenched admins are already a disaster--look at the last vindictive block against BB and the pathetic, "he's one of us" response to it. At this point I think we are back to agreeing 3RR should not apply to obvious baiting from the IP? μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Either racism is wrong, or you don't need to fight it. I think (a) is true; otherwise I'd be out beside the troll. By wrong I mean untrue, and by untrue I mean, we can find ample data to support our position against it. Additionally, as in this case, I don't think we should be above a few words of exorcism ("Non Angli, sed Angeli") to further the cause. Wnt (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you respond to something relevant here, like whether your claim the pending changes setting queues up registered user edits behind IP edits is true? I am not, frankly, interested in whether you put ideology above findings of fact. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It was admitted during one of the great PC debates, and I saw an example of it during the short period when PC was active. However, there is no way to link to it now - I didn't think I needed to take a screenshot, as I think this is widely recognized. Wnt (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Protection removed. DES ^(talk) 03:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel and Tevildo. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on pending changes

I have no comment on the issue of protecting RDS nor or what "misrepresentations" may have been made in previous discussions about pending changes. But rather then treating as if it's some major open secret, widely known and occasionally alluded to but only written down in obscure places, which therefore needs either to be taken on faith or requires a screen shot, simply checking out Wikipedia:Pending changes will show this template Template:Pending changes table which confirms if an unreviewed edit remains, edits from non reviewers will not be shown until reviewed, which I would assume is enough for μηδείς. (A reviewer could likely also test this themselves using a sandbox.)

Incidentally, the template has said this since it was started in 2010 before the first trial [11] spun off from a table in the older article [12] [13]. The table itself had existed in the proposal page since 2009 [14], as a change from the original proposal autoconfirmed editors be made reviewers which started to change here [15]. So whatever mispresentations may have been made, it's never been a secret, and should have been simple to clarify then as it is now.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of questions

My question about Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising was deleted immediately upon posting and with NO explanation given! Since when is this acceptable here?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

When, and on which of the desks? If you think it was totally unjustified, it could have been a glitch or edit conflict. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in your posts since mid September related to this--sounds like a glitch if it existed: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.23.196.85. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just this evening, on the Miscellaneous reference desk: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=581996645&oldid=581996284 24.23.196.85 (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks like User:Edison being negligently sloppy about an edit conflict. You should just restore your question. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it. Deor (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily negligence, wikipedias auto EC resolving function has been known to do that on occasion, at least as of a few years ago (and it was the sort of weird, rare bug that I expected is difficult to solve). Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I accidentally deleted a question in the process of re-adding an edit-conflicted comment. It's puzzling that it happened. Sorry, 24.23.196.85 and thanks to Deor for re-adding the question. Edison (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost incomprehensible questions

I assume we have to AGF with User:108.240.77.215? They're posting almost meaningless questions every few days, and I fed the troll on Beatles foreign languages recently. Rojomoke (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There are times when Wikipedia:Competence is required should be applied. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I linked the user so we can read his contributions. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading these, he's a single-purpose account who has posted 24 nonsense questions. I am all for a warning, then a block. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you get that number Medeis. There have only been three questions posted from that IP address. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is because you edited the IP Medeis posted to refer to another one entirely. I assume this was an error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry. And thanks for fixing it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure who we're talking about now, but there are two unserious serial posters, one from Louisville, KY, and t'other from Ohio State University. Both use a range of IP's. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the user 140.254.136.168 HiLo was referring to. Please note that Rojomoke started this thread about another questionable user, not I about my race-stalker. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To better judge, here's 108.240.77.215 (talk · contribs), which Rojo originally referred to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack again

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#science (magnification in parallel and series circuits), we are seeing Wickwack doing exactly the sort of thing that got him banned. The IP denies being Wickwack, but there is no doubt in my mind -- I recognized him immediately. Unfortunately, because he started by pointing out an error in my own post, I felt unable to remove his message as I otherwise would have done -- but he has now turned the thread into the usual Wickwack nonsense, and I'm not happy about seeing no action taken. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Reverted most recent additions. If the editor persists then repeated removals are suggested; let's try to avoid drama - just remove. -- Scray (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: you were the first in with a wrong answer (I'm not criticizing), then Bugs made a joke, then the IP gave what seemed to be a decent answer in terms of correctess, even though he was a bit rude and unnecessarily critical of you and the ref desk as a whole (and didn't give refs). Then I posted an actual link to a WP article, and also made a comment about engineers in Perth. I should have refrained from engaging the whole Wickwack discussion, and won't do that again. Finally, a few others have since chimed in, with a few more decent wikilinks. My point is, whoever that IP is, he gave good info, though was a bit surly about it. His answer was what spurred me to search WP a little more, and I think he did overall help the answering process. But this is just a tempest in a teacup; I doubt the OP has even been back-- but I learned something here, and perhaps a few other did to.

Basically, I can't get too worked up about the notion that some cranky old dude posts irate but usually good answers here, even after he's been "banned". SemanticMantis (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. As regards the "joke", although I cited Chico Marx for inspiration, the correct answer to the original question indeed seemed to be "No." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

toronto IP troll

I have removed a question on the consistency of dog semen by an IP editor from Toronto based on the thread itself and the discussion above under pending revisions. Signed by Medeis. Signature added later by 140.254.229.160 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That topic sounds like an innocent question. Just because a person is from Toronto or wherever doesn't necessarily mean that he or she will continuously "troll" the forum. Besides, perceiving that someone has trolled is largely subjective. What one person may classify as trolling may not be the same for another person. There are resources on the Internet on this very subject. I thought the Reference Desk is to provide the references on various topics, not shunning people out and calling them "trolls". 140.254.229.160 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Search "dog orgasm zoophile" on Google, and you can find plenty of results. Websites about Human-Animal Sexual Intercourse 140.254.229.160 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC) The IP said his interest is in dog reproduction, not having sex with one. diff. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's rather obvious you yourself are a troll, IP 140. That being said, someone interested in dog reproduction as the IP asserts will seek professional assistance, not our comments on what dog orgasms look like and the consistency of their semen. I think maybe it's time to go back to pending revisions for the ref desk, if no admin is willing to block these trolls outright. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This was one of Light Current's recurring themes. Maybe he moved to Toronto? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Forget pending changes. Just because there's some question or comment every week you want to remove (and have no trouble doing) doesn't mean we should surrender and let you vote up or down on every single edit ever made here. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending Changes are pretty much of a nuisance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I should note that for serious science enthusiasts (or dog enthusiasts) this kind of question is relevant and answerable: [16][17][18] Note that most of the tests are highly technical and need to be conducted in a timely fashion, but gross observations of a blood or urine tinge can give a sense of whether a particular sample is in good condition. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful new question (black skin on white people)

What, if anything, should we do with this? I don't like the look of it, but perhaps we should discuss it here before taking action. Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are various conditions that cause this. I was hoping the vitiligo article would have a see also to a relevant article, but I can't find it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the question. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and even if there were no related or similar conditions, the question is still fine. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving Israel

Here[19] we have a single-purpose, red-link account demanding to know how much it would cost to "move" Israel. Is this an appropriate ref desk question? Is it answerable? Is it just semi-clever trolling? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I start to suspect the last option. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Especially when the OP posts something demanding that it not be hatted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not clever trolling. Even a cave troll could do it. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've hatted it there are no references and maybe two vaguely relevant links in the whole heated and skeptical debate. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of complaints that the question is unanswerable. Those remain hatted. I think it's okay to move the genuine answer to below. I think it's quite appropriate not to add commentary about how a question is impossible to answer, given that people are answering it with good references. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed nonsense comments

I removed some nonsensical comments by Dr. Madhattan (talk · contribs) (edit). -- BenRG (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My edit was undone by Die Antwoorde (talk · contribs), who appears to be the same person as Dr. Madhattan. -- BenRG (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

They are the same per the talk page notes. In my opinion it's a clear-cut case of using the page as a forum. I'm willing to assume good faith but am not hopeful. Nevertheless, I hope that my latest note will help sort things out without further escalation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: both are now blocked for (general) disruption.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And identified as socks of a sockmaster called OneMadScientist (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

'The white man has no friends' thread

This thread was clearly asking for opinion/speculation, and has been repeatedly hatted accordingly. Since the IP insists on removing the hatting, I have now blanked the thread entirely. [20] A look at the IP's brief edit history suggests to me that this may possibly be trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's the Toron-troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Another of its socks used the n-word against Medeis again. If it's not blocked, I'll see what can be done about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I really don't want these comments removed--I can do that. I'd prefer my talk page simply be semi-protected (If you are an admin, hint, hint!). I do appreciate the concern, though! μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But you can request protection at WP:RFPP. In which case, you should create a separate "unprotected talk page", where idiots can post freely and be ignored freely. Also, feel free to reinstate those stupid comments if you want. Or, move them to that unprotected talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And it appears that your page has been semi'd without your having to go to RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

General Feedback

I just wanted to leave some user feedback and I'm not sure if there is a better place to do it. I have edited a few articles but whenever I've done it I've felt that it's been a frustrating experience and for the most part I use Wikipedia as a reader.

The feedback that I'd like to leave is in reference to the current image format that I'm seeing more and more of for Wikipedia articles. which is that of a small horizontal image. This "widescreen" format is frustrating as a user particularly when the subject of the article is a person or a character. My assumption is that this format is dictated by new design requirements by Wikipedia. For a portrait this creates poor cropping and I would disagree that this is a good and/or useful design choice. In general the starard format for portraits is a vertical format and the widescreen format that has become popular with movies, does not apply to portraits the same way (keep in mind that the cases for movies is still a vertical format). Please take this feedback into account.

The other thing I would comment about is whether your goal is the formatting is to have have good editors contribute to the site, or good programmers. I think that question should be self explanatory, but if please contact me and I'll be happy to clarify it. --[[User:beanlynch|beanlynch] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that sort of feedback won't have much effect here -- this page is specifically devoted to the Reference desks, where those problems don't really come into play. A better place for general feedback is the Village pump. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Blanking of math question without template or talk page discussion

Andy the Grump has blanked a thread where an editor asks about the math of making a solution of minoxidil, and over-the-counter baldness treatment. He describes the question as one asking for medical advice, but per Kainaw's criteria the OP is neither asking for direct medical diagnosis, nor whether he should take the drug. He just wants help with some math. ATG's action seems silly to me, and inappropriate give he's neither templated the question for the OP nor started a thread here, but is threatening me with ANI. I am restoring the thread, and repeat my invitation to discuss. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the above is entirely misleading. The medication the questioner is attempting to prepare is not 'over-the-counter', but is instead prescribed after a medical assessment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump into the edit war, but I tend to agree that this is close enough to asking for medical advice that we should be cautious and blank it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is explicitly about preparing a medication that requires prior medical consultation before administration. [21] There can be no doubt whatsoever that answering it would consequently constitute medical advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The questioner has not requested advice of any sort. --Trovatore (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. The questioner has asked for advice on how to correctly prepare a medical preparation which "should only be used as instructed and prescribed by [a] physician or pharmacist." AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The questioner asked whether a calculation was correct. That is not advice. --Trovatore (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So rather than actually addressing the real issue, you are going to try to Wikilawyer your way around it? Pathetic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm bloody tired of busybodies trying to extend the "no medical advice" rule past its limits. He didn't ask for advice. That's pretty simple. --Trovatore (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Asking for advice on how to prepare a medication is medical advice. How could it be any simpler? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

He didn't ask for advice on how to prepare it. He didn't ask for advice on anything. --Trovatore (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to block the next person that edit-wars to restore it. It's not obviously to everyone an explicit request for medical info, but it's at least in that area, and there's less harm in leaving it blanked for a little while pending discussion even if it winds up getting strong support to restore. But if Andy is the one to blank it next with an edit-summary such as his last few, I'm going to block him for that. Stand down, ladies and gents. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the view that it's a question we shouldn't answer, as an incorrect answer has the potential to cause harm. Even a correct answer has the potential to cause harm, actually, if it is incorrectly implemented. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A 'correct' answer, correctly implemented, also has the potential to cause harm, as it is made clear from the linked material that the medication should only be used after a medical examination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Any answer has the potential to cause harm. It's a medication. If the OP has questions about how to properly prepare his medication, he should be directed to ask his physician, not rely on random anonymous people on the internet. It is folly to ask the question here and it would irresponsible for us to answer it, whether we're sure of the simple math involved or not.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We answer requests for reference by linking to encyclopedia articles and primary sources, and explaining the parts that were complicated. These last few weeks have been tiresome, as our crop of regular time-wasters - anonymous and otherwise - have swelled their ranks with countless new time-wasters. But it is not the first time that there have been troublesome contributors on Wikipedia. We will all survive.

The question should remain deleted, irrespective of whether it is a "medical question," because whatever the question has morphed into, it is not a request for encyclopedic references. The Science Reference Desk is not the correct place for it. We can politely inform the OP; if they are reasonable, they will understand why the question is unsuitable for Wikipedia's reference desk. If the OP is unreasonable, we should remove the question, because we do not care whether they understand our policies. Nimur (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, here!!--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

UW:3RR holds that "being right" is not an excuse for edit warring. AndyTheGrump does this all the time, telling editors to get lost, tonight 6 reverts before he ever took this to discussion. That's a basis for blocking. I have filed a complaint here. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. And you've been told that this is being dealt with here. And you've carried on complaining. Trying to get me blocked so your own abysmal behaviour isn't looked into from the look of it - you evidently hadn't even read the link the questioner posted all the while you were asserting that this wasn't a medical issue. Which it self-evidently is, despite your misleading section header and posts. It was always open to you to start a discussion before restoring the question. Did you? No. Why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is in doubt about the wisdom or otherwise of answering questions regarding the administration of Finasteride (one of the substances concerned in the question), I recommend reading the section on adverse effects in our article. Prostate cancer, sexual side effects, anxiety and depression, male breast cancer, teratogenicity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is today opposite day?

AndyTheGrump, you're making the same appeal-to-emotion arguments that Medeis often makes for his/her dubious deletions! We all know that medicine is dangerous. (There is no rule not to answer dangerous questions.) What we want you to provide (and you know it) is a logical argument for why multiplying two numbers together can constitute medical advice in this particular instance.
Medeis, if ATG deserves to be banned, then you deserve to be banned ten times.

APL (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

the OP doesn't appear to be asking how to multiply two numbers. If that were the case, it would be on the math desk. The OP is specifically asking how much finasteride to add in order to change one pharmaceutical to another. The conversion of the pharmaceutical is what makes it science, not the math. We shouldn't be answering that any more than we should answer "math" questions that involve suicide or explosive manufacturing. The question is too specific a case to be answered. Point him to the encyclopedic articles on finasteride and minoxidil and be done. This isn't Breakin Bad. --DHeyward (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how they're asking for medical advice, I'm not even sure they're asking for advice on how to cook up chemicals at home- unless the question couldn't be answered without knowing what they were mixing, I don't see how they're asking for advice on it. For a stupid analogy, if someone asked "Does equal proportions mean the same amount when mixing two substances?", if the asker than clarified that they were mixing bleach and windex, they wouldn't suddenly be asking for advice, just telling us that they were doing something dangerous- by all means, I would hope people would inform the asker of the stupidity of what they were doing and not help them, but that they shouldn't do something, or that something is dangerous, does not mean they are requesting advice. I'm not suggesting that people should help this person, but if we're going to have an ethical policy of making sure no harm can come from our answers, then I suggest we make that explicit- and if we are not going to have such a policy, then we shouldn't contort our current ones to do the work of such a one. Again, despite what is right or wrong, the medical advice policy is exactly what it is, and I don't see any legitimate way that this falls under its purview.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not impressed with DMacks declaring on the thread that "we" (presumably regulars who want to answer questions) are beyond 3RR and civility, while simultaneously threatening to block "the next" person who restores the thread.

For the record, the OP asked (without any medical aspect in the initial question) whether 60 milliliters of a 0.1% solution contains 6 grams or 6 milligrams. There was a useful reference to concentration in the response (more appropriate than the specific drug articles, if we were to point him somewhere) but to be clear, the vast majority of biological and drug solutions of this type are w/v, not v/v. A bigger problem is that sometimes in the lab you run into w:v formulation, i.e. a "100% TCA solution" in water.^[22] However, in general pharmaceutical usage, I think it is w/v, i.e. you include the volume of the dissolved substance within the total 100ml.^[23] In any case the difference for such a small percentage is a very small ratio. Which means that we can go ahead and do the multiplication the OP suggests, being sure to make sure our units match up: (60 ml)(0.1 g/100 ml) = 0.06 g = 60 mg.

It is true that the 0.1% is a level that might be found in a pharmaceutical formulation [24] However, the sort of person most likely to be in possession of powder finasteride while not knowing how to make up a solution properly is a lab tech, and I feel we should feel free to answer the question, noting that our answer is "For Research Purposes Only". The use of finasteride medically is subject to specific risks.^[25] Wnt (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a risk that Wikipedia should not be taking. And while minoxidil is apparently available over-the-counter, there's nothing about whether this finasteride is. So, given the risks plus the doubtfulness of its unrestricted availability, we ought not be giving advice to someone about how to make up a batch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So Wnt's proposal is that we should make a wild guess that the person is a lab tech (one who thinks that random people on the internet are the best people to answer technical questions?) and go ahead and answer the question anyway, with a fictitious 'disclaimer'? Then again, Wnt seems to have gone out of his way to answer the question here. By guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that second item available over the counter? If it is, then the OP should still talk to someone at a pharmacy and get the right answer. And if it is not available over the counter, then we're done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The combination is only available by prescription, as the link provided by the questioner made entirely clear. Not that it makes any difference. We don't answer requests for medical advice, even if we think the answer involves over-the-counter drugs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia axioms is that we are not a "how to" website. So even if the OP has the legal right to possess both substances, and thus theoretically has the legal right to combine them, it's not appropriate for us to be instructing the OP. He should seek a qualified expert - such as a pharmacist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If we tell someone two and two are four, there's a chance that they're thinking two pills plus two more. There is no reason we shouldn't assume the questioner is a lab tech, and the fact that the possibility is open is what proves that this is not medical advice. And seriously, who else but a lab tech has ready access to large quantities of chemicals, is careless enough to ask basic questions about the mixing on the Internet, and actually would have a need for 60 mls of the stuff, which is no small amount of hair cream! Wnt (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason we should assume that the OP is a professional. A professional coming to Wikipedia for such advice? That would be nuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Lab techs really are not all that professional all the time. I mean, if you didn't make a solution yourself, you're never quite sure it shares your conception of molarity. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If the question merely asked about ratios and mixtures, it would have been fine. The lesson is (for any potential askers reading): strip any personal details and motivations that have anything to do with medicine or the human body, and your question will be much more likely to stand. I am not saying this is a wise course of action, but people clever enough to figure out what I just wrote are clever enough to take their own risks. As it stands, our policy and standards serve to weed out and reject naive questions related to medicine, but savvy posters can sail right through. The main issue that I see for the question in question is that when applied to medicine, simple ratios and mixtures may not behave as expected, and that's why people are afraid of giving information that may prove harmful. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why the OP needs to ask a professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the original question for a second (which seems to be what everyone is currently arguing about), the followup from the OP saying that they are "trying to make this product" seems pretty unambiguous. And it's not as though they're asking for chemistry advice, since they're not synthesizing anything. They're clearly trying to duplicate the final formulation and dosing of a (prescription?) pharmaceutical. As far all the edit warring goes, I essentially have no opinion on all this. I also don't really intend to get dragged into this argument in any direct way. (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 16:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Too late. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin here, this section needs to remain blanked. We don't provide advice on how to properly prepare prescription medication, for reasons I would hope are obvious but apparently are not. The original poster was clearly asking for instructions on how to prepare a compound medication which is only meant to be prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacist. Consider this a formal warning (and a serious WP:TROUTing) for Medeis as well, for aggressively edit-warring to restore an inappropriate question while failing to grasp the relevant details of the original post (for instance, the difference between minoxidil and finasteride). Really, if I'd seen this earlier I'd have blocked Medeis and Trovatore for egregiously poor editorial judgement, but since it seems to have been settled with DMacks' intervention I hope a word to the wise is sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- If I may just ask a question (now that this particular issue seems to have been resolved) - you say "for reasons I would hope are obvious but apparently are not." What, in fact, are these reasons, and are they explicitly set down anywhere in an official policy document? If not, should they be (a) codified and (b) added to WP:RD/G? Tevildo (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  - Sure here is the policy. If this was a math problem it would have been asked on the math desk. But it wasn't and everyone recognizes why the "manual" nature of the question was inappropriate. If that is blurry, I'd suggest refraining from contributions to those topics. --DHeyward (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's ignore the substantive issue of whether this was a request for medical advice. Lets address the formal question of when it became alright to blank out such a question entirely, without a medical advice template, without putting a notification here, and while threatening people who disagree with ANI as your first response to dialog and then edit warring six times before even commenting at talk, and insulting two different editors while you are at it? Is that the new standard? Because if it is, we shouldn't here a peep of complaint about anything ever again on this page or elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd like us to "ignore the substantive issue". Policy says that we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm having a dim few days, but can someone clearly explain to me how this is a request for medical advice? I genuinely don't understand. I realize that making your own drugs is dangerous, I understand that the chemicals may be dangerous, and I understand that answering this would make it easier for the person asking to engage in dangerous behaviour; however, I don't see what part of that involves medical advice- even if the question should be removed, ethically, I can't make the connection with the specific policy being cited. --let me clarify where I'm coming from: I feel like this is someone citing a rule that questions can't have spelling mistakes to remove a question with hideously poor grammar; it's related, the action makes an extent of sense, but it isn't justified by what is being used to justify it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the broader policy. We are not a manual or guidebook on how to make drugs. Medical advice is a subset of WP:NOT and includes drug-making help. This should be plainly obvious so if you have doubt, please rethink your contributions. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They didn't ask "how do I make this drug" they asked "Is this conversion correct", then said "I'm making this drug", the conversion question seemed fine till we knew what it was for. That said, what contributions am I supposed to be rethinking? There's a lot of ways to take that, none of them seem particularly reasonable- I'm welcome to have all the doubt I want, by the way, whatever may be obvious to you, discussing things because not everything is equally "obvious" to all people is the point of talk pages.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like SemanticMantis said upthread, the OP's mistake was to make his follow-up comment. If he'd just left the original question none of this debate would be taking place. There's a lesson here for OPs: depersonalize your medical advice questions. Instead of asking "I have a headache, what could be causing it?", ask "What are the causes of headaches?" --Viennese Waltz 09:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes a certain sense, but the reason it makes sense is, actually, exactly what my problem is in this case. We can answer "What are the causes of headaches" exactly because it is asking something different, the answer to that is not an answer to "What is causing my headache". If you look at Kainaw's criteria, the last example under the border line case section, it makes this very point.

Which brings me round to the question at hand, asking about the conversion is not asking for advice on using/manufacturing the drug, it is asking how to do a conversion. Going by the borderline case I mentioned above, if someone asked "Are there diabetic safe brands of icecream", then later said that they were diabetic, this wouldn't suddenly invalidate their question, even though the intent for the information would be clear. If it's the case that answering X is also answering forbidden Y, then we should stop answering X or ask if it is to help them answer Y.

Which brings me to my complaint: that makes no sense, and it makes no sense because the only way elaboration can make a legitimate question a request for medical advice, or a how to, is if it changes the original question- if I said, "What are common causes of headaches", got responses, then clarified, "None of those answers work for me, I got hit in the head and had a headache for days", that would change the question to "Why does my head hurt"; but if they said, "Thanks, I've had a headache for days", that wouldn't suddenly alter the original legit question. My point being, if the original question was legit before clarification, unless the clarification reinterprets the original, it can't delegitimize it- I don't see how anything in this instance delegitimizes the conversion question, which was legit before the clarification; the grounds for removing it seem to be "obviously, it's unethical to answer this, now that I know why you want to know".

I, personally, think this is a very important distinction to keep- even if a question "obviously", by common sense, shouldn't be answered, it doesn't automatically follow that it must be removable by some, on the face, related policy. If our policy is "we don't answer questions that are clearly being used for something dangerous, even if the question is otherwise okay.", then let's make that a policy- and if that isn't our policy, then we shouldn't be twisting otherwise to do the work of it. (Sorry for the rant, this isn't directed at you, it's just jumping off from your comment)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I wouldn't have thought that a clarification could so diametrically change a good question bad, either, but apparently it can, and this is a very interesting development. You're right, too, that if these new interpretations are truly de facto policy we need to update the guidelines to include them, and I had already penned a call for that below. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There may be a useful analogy in medicine. For online Q&A, physicians in some jurisdictions have to be careful to avoid practicing medicine in a state outside their license. There is no problem when they answer a general question with a general answer. My understanding is that answering follow-up questions (which consistently focus on a personal issue) is considered a qualitative (HUGE) jump in risk that some jurisdictions will consider the line (between general advice and practice of medicine) to have been crossed - and the physician may be considered liable for practicing medicine without a license. As a result, some prominent medical Q&A fora have prohibited the "resident" physician from answering follow-up questions. I am saying this NOT as legal or medical advice here; rather, I'm pointing out the analogy here. Clarifying questions can qualitatively change risk. -- Scray (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOW applies to article space. Does it also apply to the ref desk? If so, should we delete questions like "How do I make coffee from beans?" and "How do I power an LED lamp from a bicycle dynamo?", to take a couple of recent examples? If it doesn't apply to all questions of this type, where is the official policy that allows us to determine where the boundaries are drawn? The deleted question did not (IMO) fall foul of Kainaw's criterion, which is the current policy on this issue. I'm not saying the question should be reinstated, but I do believe a more formal policy than "apply WP:NOTHOW when it's 'plainly obvious' to do so, don't apply it otherwise" is needed. Tevildo (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOW applies everywhere. It's policy. This is the reference desk to point people to where they may find information and "reference" is the first line in WP:NOTHOW. To the extent it clarifies content is the border. Harm is another border. We have articles on the chemicals in question. Articles on chemicals often include their synthesis and do not run afoul of WP:NOTHOW. For your examples, to the extent someone wants to answer "How do I make coffee from beans?" there is going to be an article to refer to on "what" coffee is and any further answer is unlikely to cause harm. I'd prefer not to have to clarify it further as a fuzzy line lets each question be asked and discussed. I think a good starting point is to make sure the answer is answering a "what" question and not a "how" question and clarify the "what" portion. There is no magic chart that will box every question and answer into "allowed" and "not allowed" but this is the same as the real world. --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

{{WP:NOTHOW]] applies to articles. It says "Wikipedia articles should not read like:" and then lists instruction manuals, guidebooks and other things. Reference desk threads are clearly not articles. Edison (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. [[WP::NOT]] and WP:NOTHOW apply to Wikipedia. It says so in every statement. The fact they call out explicit instructions for articles does not mean it isn't applicable to the reference desk. Wikpedia is a reference. Articles reflect that standard. The reference desk reflects that standard. This isn't the "answer desk" and all the policies are consistent on being being a reference and not a "how to" guide. Trying to seperate the reference desk from the reference encyclopedia, specifically Wikipedia, is a non-starter argument. The reference desk is Wikipedia and is bound by its policies. --DHeyward (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to change the Guidelines

At this point we clearly need to rewrite the formal Reference Desk policy, and rescind Kainaw's criterion. The operating policy, which has been applied by several contributors for some time but has now been rather clearly articulated by administrators, is: "Anything that looks like medical advice is obviously off-limits".

While we're at it, we might as well add an explicit clause to the guidelines stating that questions concerning illegal or dangerous activities are also prohibited, since that's clearly the way the wind is blowing. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To which this particular admin says: WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the reference desk. Overeager vigilantes are no reason to adopt a stricter policy (which will lead to more overenforcement, not less). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethics override the "not censored" ideal all the time. BLP violations, for example, are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, ethics lead to the rejection of censorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Which comic book did you read that in? Sorry, but "censorship" is a bogus issue. There is NO ONE here who is qualified to provide medical advice to any user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I bet that is a BLP violation and a PA (if against unspecified Ps). But that's beside the point. There are plenty of medical questions that are not request for medical advice. "Can eating potatoes lead to heart disease?", "Why should I drink water if there is water poisoning?", "Are allergies really caused by too much soap?". All of them can be construed as a request for advice, and yet all are reasonable questions with informative and unproblematic answers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to state the simple fact that no one here is qualified to give medical advice to strangers over the internet. And regarding those hypotheticals, none of them is in the same league with "Tell me how to mix these drugs properly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And here you do it again! How do you know that none of our editors is a qualified M.D. that can indeed give useful medical advice (obviously only for some cases) over the internet? I'm not a M.D., but even I can give the useful "medical advice" that someone who has had contact with a potential rabid animal should immediately consult a physician about the possibility of getting a rabies shot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Telling someone to see a doctor is NOT medical advice. And it doesn't matter what someone's qualifications are. No one here is qualified to be giving medical advice to anonymous persons over the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It can be.

For instance, What if I say "I just looked at your post history and I think you really need to see a neurologist."

Haven't I just given you a medical opinion? APL (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't. If you said they don't need to see a neurologist, that would be a medical opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That absolutely would be medical advice, it would be medical advice that was medically unrisky (supposing they go to see a competent doctor). You are definitely advising someone to do something, so it is advice- it's hard to say that it's not relating to medical things. What a lot of people seem to want is to say "we don't give problematic medical/legal/etc. advice", but nobody seems to be able to define "problematic", it's treated like porn, people just know it when they see it. This also reflects the common argument given to objectors, "It's obvious!". The issue is, precisely, that it is not obvious, not in the least. Hence, whatever person X sees as a question that they think is obviously risky/dangerous/blah-blah-blah, they claim it's "problematic advice" and runs afoul of policy Y- even when policy Y needs to be twisted to fit it- borrowing from Psych, page 68 of the newspaper is the front page, "it all depends on how you fold it", our "folding" of policies to fit our opinions is our problem.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it absolutely would NOT be medical advice. You tell someone, "I think you're crazy. Go see a neurologist." So they go to the neurologist, who either says, "You're crazy", or "You're not crazy; send your friend my way." It is the neurologist who's giving the advice, not you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It is advice since you are advising someone they do something, it's negation is medical advice by your claim; so what kind of advice is it if not medical? Telling someone not to invest in a stock carries no risk, telling someone to invest carries risk, both are financial advice nonetheless. The only way it isn't medical advice, that I see, is if someone asks you "Do I have neurological issues" and you say "I have no way of knowing, you would need to consult a neurologist". However that is not the case being discussed, nor is it the same assertion.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's advice only in that it's advising someone to see a professional. That advice by itself does not constitute professional advice. It's the opposite of your stock scenario. Telling someone to see a doctor carries no risk. Telling someone NOT to see a doctor does carry risk, and hence is medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I said both were advice, not just the positive nor just the negative- the whole point was that risk is not the deciding factor. How about, "Go see my witch doctor" would that be medical advice? If not, I think your definition of medical advice has big problems- if it is medical advice, why? Hopefully you arent using the considerable background of medical knowledge you have as a result of living in the modern age to determine that, not giving medical advice shouldnt require several centuries of medical advancement to do so.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The potential risk IS the deciding factor. If I discourage you from seeing a professional, I'm potentially putting you at risk, because I'm pre-empting whatever advice the professional might give you. If I encourage you to see a professional, I'm deferring to the professional's judgment. There's a Grand Canyon sized difference between those two options. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That there is a giant difference in the risk doesn't suddenly make one of them not advice- if you say "I don't know if I want to go to the movies tonight", I can say "Go to the movies", "Don't go to the movies", neither has risk, both are advice about seeing a movie. The point about what makes something "advice" is that you are asking for someone else's opinion on what you should do. By the way, you still haven't answered about the witch doctor, is that advice? Finally, this, essentially, is my problem, instead of "we don't answer questions that are medical advice" the practice has become "I removed this question because it is medical device as defined by me, but I'm obviously right" Seriously, everyone here is a reasonably smart individual, yet each of us seems to have a massively different answer when asked "is this advice", "is this something that should be removed", etc. That, more than anything, indicates a big problem in our system: if we can disagree this strongly and widely this easily, then either our policies are weak or we've quit following what our policies specifically say. Personally, I'd say both.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just plain "advice" is not synonymous with "professional advice". (If you're aware of any "professional" witch doctors, you might want to turn them in to the authorities.) A decision on going to the movies is unlikely to have anything to do with medical or legal advice. If you say, "I have a stabbing pain in my lower right abdomen", advising you to see a doctor about it does not constitute medical advice. If you advise them not to see a doctor, then you're playing doctor yourself, which is unethical and could get them killed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

At no point in this side conversation has anyone said "professional advice", plain advice can be medical advice, even if not professional medical advice. You said, above, " And it doesn't matter what someone's qualifications are." I realize that that was in response to giving it over the internet, but if medical advice automatically means professional medical advice, then it's sort of confusing to say that. By the way, if I make money from being a witch doctor, than I'd be a professional witch doctor- and, even if that would have legal ramifications, still doesn't address the point, saying "Go see a neurologist" most definitely is advising someone of a course of action based on our own knowledge of what is medically sound. Finally, I'm not suggesting that we should stop advising people to see a doctor because it is medical advice, I'm trying to make the point that while each of us says "medical advice" like it has a fixed agreed on meaning for us, it doesn't- which is exactly the issue I'm complaining about.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Professional advice" being a blanket for medical and/or legal advice, which was the issue brought up originally in this section. If I tell you to see a doctor, that's not "medical advice", it's "better safe than sorry" advice. If you ignore that advice, and die from appendicitis, you have only yourself to blame. If I tell you not to see a doctor, and you take that advice, and die, then I share in the blame. Also, as noted by Dmcq farther down, and as I say frequently, no one here is qualified to give medical or legal advice to anonymous posters at the ref desk (or anywhere), regardless of their qualifications in those fields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Support both propositions, with a suggestion that "looks like medical advice" be made more formal. Perhaps "any questions relating to disease, medical treatment, or drugs (legal or illegal)"? Tevildo (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The only "overeager" ones are those who are hell-bent on giving medical advice to the unwary. As regards Tevildo's list, if someone says, "Where can I read about cancer?", you send him to the cancer article and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no. If you want to be polarizing about it, there are just as many overeager nannies who are hell-bent on deleting every question and answer that makes them uncomfortable. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose both. As Tevildo points out, the first proposal begs the question "what is medical advice ?", which is why we have Kainaw's criteria in the first place. If there is a specific proposal to modify the criteria, let's discuss that - but we will always need to have some guideline that differentiates "medical advice" from "medical information". FWIW, I think the original question that started this thread breached Kainaw's criteria anyway when the OP posted "I'm trying to make this product" with a link to a recipe for a hair loss treatment. On the second proposal, whether an activity is illegal or dangerous depends too much on context and location for any such guideline to be effective. Should we forbid questions about abortion because it is illegal in Chile ? Should we forbid questions about automatic weapons because they cannot be legally owned by private citizens in the UK ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the "dangerous or illegal" question, do you agree we should delete questions like "Can potassium cyanide be made from household products?", or "How do people find backstreet abortionists in Santiago?" Do you agree with the recent (apparently uncontroversial) deletion of a question about bestiality? If this sort of deletion is acceptable, I think we should make it explicitly part of the guideline. Tevildo (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  - Send them to those respective articles and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think questions about chemical synthesis should be deleted simply because they are dangerous. There's a fundamental difference with requests for medical advice: someone looking for a diagnosis or advice is worried about his health, his safety. Giving him the wrong advice could damage his health, which is the exact opposite of what he wanted. Someone asking about dangerous chemical reactions knows very well that actually performing such experiments could have dire consequences. Few people will deliberately put their life at risk, so we shouldn't assume that a question about making cyanide with household chemicals means the OP wants to try it out. Besides, I've seen government campaigns informing us which chemicals will produce poison gas when mixed together (and telling us not to do that). And the media tell us about people getting hurt by caustic soda bombs, and how these are being made. The information is out there, it's not the job of the ref desk to keep it from people who lack google skills... Ssscienccce (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

- Actually, Gandalf, we don't necessarily need a new guideline distinguishing advice from information, because what I'm afraid is that we're on the cusp of prohibiting medical information on the desks, also. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My criteria. Here is the test that I use: Any question that is framed in terms of medical issues that the OP claims to be encountering, or that involves decisions about medical procedures applied to the OP or the OP's acquaintances, shouldn't be answered. Beyond this there is an additional criterion: any question for which an incorrect answer could plausibly lead to physical harm to the OP should not be answered. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose, especially to the second part. There is already over-enforcement of the prohibition on medical/legal advice to include purely medical and legal questions. If we introduce a guideline prohibiting "questions concerning illegal or dangerous activities", virtually any question relating to real life would be disqualified. You want to ask about gay sex? Sorry, but that's illegal in many countries (including my own), and it's dangerous because of AIDS. What happens when you look at the Sun? Sorry, looking at the Sun is dangerous, and there's no way to confirm that you're not planning to look at the Sun. How effective is a bike helmet at reducing risk? Sorry, not wearing a bike helmet is illegal in many jurisdictions, and it's clearly dangerous. Your political beliefs include support for nuclear weapons? I think nuclear weapons are more dangerous to the world than any personal advice question can ever be, so sorry, I'm going to delete your question. Virtually anything remotely controversial will be construed as dangerous or illegal by some people.

The Reference Desk has no business nannying people. I'm surprised that Baseball Bugs, who often complains about others nannying him, has no problem with nannying others. If someone wants to trick us with a question disguised as non-medical-advice, takes our answers as medical advice, and dies as a result, it's his fault. What did he expect, deceiving people to circumvent a policy intended for his own protection? Similarly, if someone disregards 10 warning signs and picks a lock to enter a electricity station, and gets himself electrocuted, I guarantee you that the electricity station is not responsible for his death. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Giving medical advice is against the rules. If I were to give someone medical advice, I should expect to be "nannied" on that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Mann v Northern Electric. I wouldn't put money on it. Which is why we can't give legal advice, either. Tevildo (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Bowlhover makes some good points about why illegality in any given jurisdiction is not helpful for us here, and at times conflicts with NOTCENSORED. And while I like and basically follow Looie's criteria above, I don't think they can be easily formalized into our rules. I think we're fine to stick with Kainaw's criterion, and have to suffer the necessary evil of debating its application now and then (just like any other rule system, right?). SemanticMantis (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment The problem, as I see it, is that Kainaw's criteria (and the rest of RD/G) do not accurately reflect the current standards for deletion/hatting that are actually applied on the desks. We should either update the guidelines to reflect the de facto standards, or persuade/compel people to stick to the published guidelines rather than deleting or hatting questions merely because they're "obviously unacceptable". The first option would seem to be easier. Tevildo (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do guidelines and practice have to be in perfect agreement? We still have murder - not a reason to make murder legal! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. First, you need an RfC, not an informal survey. Second, "anything that looks like medical advice" is a useless non-criterion that begs that question of what medical advice is. Kainaw's criteria are rather straightforwards, although they do surprisingly seem to vex too many people. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The proposal might be used by any self-appointed,overbearing, power-mad busybodies who might join our ranks in the future at ref desk as a justification for censoring lots of questions they don't like which are actually quite appropriate. As pointed out above, many normal activities have an element of risk, and answers most of us would agree are appropriate and encyclopedic might inspire someone to overstep their level of competence. I can recall many appropriate discussions of questions which the overzealous might use this proposed guideline to censor: "How might a tree best be cut down?" "How do birds sit on utility electric lines without getting electrocuted?" "How does insulin work in the body?" "How was a tinderbox used to start a fire with flint and steel?" "How can you navigate in the wilderness via the stars?" Trees can fall on you or on someone else or can kick-back; electric lines can kill you since you are not a bird; over or underdose of insulin can kill you; fires can kill you; getting lost in the wilderness can kill you. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You omitted "How can I kill my neighbor's kids under the guise of poisoning the rats that live in my roof?" μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

- It's not about "not liking" a request for medical advice, it's that it's against the rules and unethical to give medical advice to strangers over the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  - Did you see the part where I said "questions they don't like which are actually quite appropriate."which excludes "requests for medical advice." Edison (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    - The problem is, there's a perpetual argument from certain users here that giving medical advice is, in fact, "actually quite appropriate." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    - Then I'll clarify: I do not approve giving medical advice.That would be inappropriate by present guidelines and practice. We have all the tools and rules we need. Edison (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      - Yes, we do. That's why no one argues about it anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The only "ethics" we should have here is that people should be here for the love of science. (or whichever topic) If you're not, quit wasting your time hunting for some troll in <pick a continent> and go join one of those groups that tracks down child molestors on the Internet or something, you'll have more fun. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What Wnt said. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wnt considers all doctors to be scam artists. So the next time someone gets agonizing pain in the area of their appendix, forget the doctors - just come to Wikipedia and we'll prescribe a cure for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Does telling another editor to stop being a certain body part constitute medical advice? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just a childish personal attack, not a medical opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There's something to be said for acknowledging when someone makes a good argument, even if you generally disagree with him on everything else. Wnt makes a good point up above, and I think you should listen. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Switching from Kainaw's Criterion to a "looks like medical advice" rule would only broaden the opportunity for disagreement.

If anything the policy needs to be more specific, and then enforced.

Anything less is just a thinly disguised version of "I don't like it".

"

Once we have such a strict definition, It'd probably be good to firmly codify the fact that asking "dangerous" questions that do not meet the med-advice test (whatever we decide that is) is not outlawed. Because if we allow people to continue using that argument we've got an even STRONGER defense for "i don't like it". APL (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

APL (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably there's a reason for these rules. Before making any changes, it might be a good idea to consult with WMF legal counsel and see what they think about the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We did do that years ago, when the Ref Desk guidelines were first put in place. IIRC, the opinion from a lawyer at the Foundation was that the Foundation is adequately protected by the standard Wikipedia disclaimers linked at the bottom of every page, and if the RD community felt it needed additional guidelines for the legal or ethical protection of individual editors, that was not the Foundation's concern. A lawyer engaged by the Foundation will be concerned only with the interests of the Foundation and its staff, not those of Wikipedia's editors. (Not a legal opinion - just what I recall). Gandalf61 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Then we should ask again. Times change, laws change. And just because the WMF thinks it's protected, doesn't mean it is protected. Have they ever been sued over any content within Wikipedia? If so, what happened? If not, then their "we think we're protected" is nothing more than a guess. And even if they are protected, the one providing the bogus "advice" would not necessarily be protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Bugs, let me see if I've got this straight. Even though The Wikipedia Foundation is now a big, high-profile organization, with million-dollar budgets and more-than-competent professional legal counsel on staff, you're questioning the opinions of that legal counsel, and suggesting that you and other random contributors from the Internet here ought to second-guess those opinions and make up our own? —Steve Summit (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

When is the last time anyone asked them? And has their legal theory ever been tested? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose That may be the way the wind is blowing, but that just means there's a really big problem with the wind! If anything, I'd say we jointly write up something four times longer and way way more precise- that way when we can quit arguing over who thinks what is what subjectively, and, instead, have fun arguing over just what the placement of a semicolon implies; that'd be more fun, at least, personally. --More seriously, though, I think we should rexamine various actual questions and various thoughts on them, then try to codify that in an addendum of sorts to the policies we have now- or maybe construct explicit cases that break the current policy/intent-of-policy and, then, make explicit how such cases ought to be handled.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We could try something in a different direction. For example: pick an odd number of people who come here everyday (all reasonable, each with different positions) and appoint them "stewards of the reference desk", then let people hat things based on the policies we have, if a majority of "stewards" care enough to say "this should stay", then it gets unhatted, if not, then it doesn't. We can have a vote or something to set up who gets this ability. If you picked 5 reasonable regulars with different perspectives (we all have a fair idea where everyone else stands), then if 3 of them really thought it should be unhatted, they'd be fairly likely to be correct- and it would stop all of us from endlessly bickering, since all of us have equal power anyways nothing ever happens as a result of our debates as is. On the other hand, I realize that this isn't really the Wikipedia way of doing things and that someone would need to give actual authority to these people to make it real, but I'm just trying to look for alternatives to "do what you think is best", "let's make a super precise policy", or "let's fight about it".Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We already have that. It's called "bold-revert-discuss". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't have anything like that at all, "bold-revert-discuss" is nothing like what I suggested. Unless you mean to say that administrators serve the role of the appointed folks I was mentioning, but if you re-examine what I said, you'll notice that that's not really the case- and they serve a very different specific function regarding the desks and only the desks.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The reason for not answering medical or legal questions is because we're not qualified to answer them. The best we can say is we've an article about something or go and see a professional. Getting some legal or medical advice from some dog on the internet is stupid. The purpose of the reference desk is to point people at reliable sources if possible. Personally I would have no problem if people actually did answer legal and medical questions with pointers to reliable sources with an answer but the place is infested with idiots who can't help giving their own anecdotal tales and giving the benefit of their own stupid ideas. If a change was put in and enforced where any answer which might be quite dangerous absolutely had to refer to a Wikipedia article or a high grade reliable source that would be good by me. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason for not giving such advice--or tolerating it being given--is the legal liability it subjects the project to. I don't care how brilliant certain people think their OR is. It carries civil liability with it, and they are not paying malpractice insurance. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just read what I said. No OR if there is any worry about damage. It doesn't matter if it is legal or medical. I don't want advice saying people should knock down a supporting wall in their house either. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, though, it turns out the main reason we don't give medical advice is not the legal liability it might subject the project to. The main reason is a much more basic moral obligation not to do harm. Our policy against giving medical and legal advice is already considerably more restrictive than is strictly legally necessary, so focusing just on liability concerns in these discussions tends to confuse the issue more than it enlightens it.

This is a very, very old debate, and I'm not going to trot out all the arguments and counterarguments here. There's a very nice essay on the subject by user TenOfAllTrades, and I just came across a rather lengthy post of my own (or, diff) from about the same timeframe that makes many of the same points. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Harm is always being done whatever one tries to do to avoid that. That's why we'll all going to end up dead. The current policy looks like written for immortals who would risk becoming mortal when exposed to an infinitesimally small perturbation. Count Iblis (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Security camera question

I've hatted this thread, as (IMO) it's crossed the line into legal advice, and is likely to get the OP in trouble with his landlord if we continue. It can be restored if consensus is against me, of course. Tevildo (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything legal advice except suggestions to get legal advice. I don't see a reason the questions can't stand. Mingmingla (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The last comment in the section was someone advising how to get around any such law. That ain't kosher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't mean we need to nuke the whole sequence. Mingmingla (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You're violating the long-standing consensus that legal questions are allowed, whereas legal advice is not. Similarly, medical questions are allowed whereas medical advice is not. The difference is the following:

Legitimate question: is prostitution legal in Canada?

Advice: I've been accused of prostitution; what should I do?

Legitimate question: what are the symptoms of the common cold?

Advice: I have symptoms X, Y, and Z. Do I have the common cold, or a terminal illness?

This is no guideline against impersonal medical or legal questions. In fact, our Reference Desk guidelines explicitly state that these questions are OK: "general medical and legal questions ('What treatments are used for diabetes?', 'Which countries recognize common law marriages?') are fine" --Bowlhover (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP is asking "Am I legally entitled to put a security camera on my front door?", which I believe does cross the line. However, by all means unhat the question if it's acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP's question was already adequately answered before it was hatted: "Talk to the landlord." He says "my" front door. If he's renting, it's technically not "his" front door, it's the landlord's. And if the landlord says "Do as you will", then the renter needs to talk to a lawyer (not to Wikipedia) to see if he's legally in the right, in Texas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that answering "Is prostitution legal in Texas?" does not constitute offering a legal opinion as it would be to say that answering "Does this black spot on my skin mean I have melanoma?" wouldn't be giving a medical opinion. The OP can always ask for a link to our article on melanoma or for specific resources. Any request for a judgment on our part amounts to a request for professional advice we can't give. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's possible we have an article on the legality of prostitution in various locations. That's a pretty straightforward kind of question that doesn't necessarily require any more than a simple reference. The question about security cameras is rather more complex. In contrast, any question that asks, "Do I have [insert any disease name here]?" is unanswerable. We can't know what disease some random internet person might have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're getting carried away again. There are lots of cases where we'd answer a general question about a melanoma - for example, if we have an illustration in our Melanoma article and someone comes in here and asks is that really a melanoma or did somebody mislabel a nevus? We do answer whether prostitution is legal in Texas, just as surely as we create an article about prostitution in Nevada. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone asks, "What can you tell me about melanomas?", we send them to the melanoma article. If someone asks, "Do I have a melanoma?", we send them to a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"religious" trolling

I have outright removed a question about the religiosity of these actresses. diff. The question was trolling when it was asked the first time, and it is wrong for ITN in half a dozen ways. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The answer is not knowable by any human. If the question were simply about what their religions were, if any, that could be acceptable. Asking whether they're "saved" is between them and God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's none of anyone's business and would be even if the question weren't patently offensive to anyone not sharing the IP's implied theology; including insulting to us editors, the subjects themselves, and believers in other religions. (I'd love to hear Jesus's answer to the OP, which would probably something about not casting stones, the right and the left hand, and the beam in one's own eye.) The fact the IP is back asking the same thing after the detailed responses given last time is also insulting. Then there's the whole humanly impossible to answer part.... If there's a general "we removed your answer, seek a forum" template I'll add it to the IP page. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We could answer whether if we know an in-world reliable source said she was saved. In this case saying she was Orthodox probably gives a good enough answer to the questioner in their in-world terms. Or should I call it out-of-this world? ;-) It is a bit much to be asked the same question twice though. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Orthodox churches don't talk about individuals being "Saved by Jesus" this way; it's a concept of some Protestant churches. I read a book on Islam that mentioned Protestant missionaries asking Muslims--Turks I believe--whether they had "Jesus in their hearts"? This was taken by the disconcerted Muslims to mean Christians underwent an operation in which little plastic Jesus idols were inserted in a believer's cardiac tissue. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't rule out the possibility that the Muslims were making fun of the missionaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this was a bestselling book written by Muslims meant to explain to Christians the problems they may face in intercultural contact with Muslims. It was an extreme, but real example. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that Muslims now or of any era wouldn't understand the metaphor of something being in their hearts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dmcq, I believe the expression is "not of this world". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I understood this as a legitimate query as to whether these persons were on record as having declared their accepting (? not sure of the phrasing) Jesus as their personal Savior, for which the answer would be sought in published interviews, publicity website, etc. During the 1976 U.S. presidential election campaign I was visiting in Israel, which at that time had one state-national TV channel. As an American and recent college grad, I was often asked by locals the significance of candidate Jimmy Carter's being a "born-again Christian," whether frequent praying to Jesus was a form of consulting with a supernatural power and liable to affect U.S. foreign policy (for example), whether a believer was obligated to uphold certain tenets of the Protestant Church, Southern Baptist or what-have-you. Media and information access in those days being far more limited than what we have today, inquiring minds seriously wanted to know. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The same question was answered in the negative, at length, and in good faith the first time it was asked weeks ago, with a lot of effort. It becomes a little less easy to assume the same food faith when the question is cut-and-pasted a second time. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pub opening times

I'm no fan of unnecessary hatting, but this offering from the current convoluted-language-and-bizarre-questions OP cannot be answered by anyone with a reference. None of us can confidently state what times Scottish pubs (which ones?) will open the day after next year's referendum. - Karenjc (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We could (presumably) say (without speculation - and with solid references) something like "Obviously we can't know how the referendum will turn out - but if it passes then pubs will open at X otherwise Y. The current polling numbers suggest that the referendum will have Z% of the voters in favor of the change." Actually, I presume that the referendum only informs the government on what law to pass - I doubt that it has force-of-law behind it directly - so the day after it passes, the law won't yet have changed, and pubs will open at the usual time...which might be a useful thing to investigate and report to our OP.

At any rate, this is a question that doesn't violate our rules - and it's certainly possible to provide a decent, factual answer that would be useful to the person asking it - so there are no grounds for hatting it. You may decide not to answer it on the grounds that you don't like the OP's posting style or history of dumb questions or because you've decided to avoid troll-feeding - but unless some admin has sanctioned the OP, then there is nothing wrong here and deciding whether to respond is up to the individual editor to decide.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The referendum has nothing to do with legislating on what time the pubs will open. The referendum is about whether or not Scotland will vote to become independent. The OP is speculating that there will be a "helluva party" the next day, assuming the vote will be yes, and is asking us to tell him what time Scottish landlords will choose to open their pubs to accommodate the presumed revellers (they do have a choice, incidentally). We cannot answer this question with any kind of reference, even one based on a guesstimate of which way the vote will go. The only possible response would involve opinion and/or unsourced prediction, and the rules at the top of the page clearly warn that we do not provide either. I am all for answering questions we can answer with a reference, even when a poster is attempting to troll, and for ignoring questions we can't or don't want to answer. But I honestly cannot agree that this question does not violate the rules. -Karenjc (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But look - you just gave us a perfectly decent answer! The answer (evidently) is "The referendum has nothing to do with legislation covering the time the pubs will open."...tadaaa! Nobody said that your answer has to be one that the OP will like. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so do we amend your flowchart below so that when "Does this question violate our guidelines." is answered "yes" in cases of requests for opinions and predictions, the response is "Tell the OP that their question can't be answered" rather than the hatting option in the current version? The OP in this case knows perfectly well that the referendum is about independence and not pub opening times. His question was intended to make people first waste time figuring out what he means and then provide a load of unreferenced opinion and debate around the potential reaction to a yes vote in response. The idea behind hatting it (which incidentally I do almost vanishingly rarely) was to prevent the inevitable depressing pile-on from people who just can't resist offering opinions and predictions when they see an unanswered question for which they cannot supply a referenced answer. I actually think there's a lot to be said for your flowchart below, as far as it goes and with some caveats, but if you are going to offer a process on how to respond to questions that infringe guidelines, you need to be more specific about which guidelines. The basic (unanswerable) question here was "What time will the pubs open in Scotland on 19 September 2014". That question on its own I wouldn't have considered hatting, because there is no invitation for debate and speculation. But you yourself proved above that even experienced Wikipedians could be duped by the actual wording into wasting their time trying to provide answers that weren't appropriate or relevant, based on a set of false assumptions about the subject in question. - Karenjc (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

toronto troll

The toronto troll, who starts off asking sincere seeming ethnological questions, then gets down to calling you a "negress" with a low IQ is back: see these three now deleted unsigned questions with the ethnicity/morality theme: diff

That Toron-troll's running "negress" joke is getting a bit stale by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure they're the same person? The posts you deleted look to be the same stuff we've been getting for the past few years relating to ethnicity, race and religion, particularly those connected to Islam. They once went by the User talk:Donmust90 account which they mysteriously abandoned, and never seemed to learn to use a search engine, or that no one can really be bothered answering many of their requests for detailed information on various random subsets or juxtapositions and for that matter, often didn't even seem to take in what they were told, sometimes to the extent of asking very similar questions with the same mistakes, but I've never been sure they were a troll. Beyond the more obvious trolling, the 'negress' troll seems to have a different writing style, perhaps this is intentional but I wonder if we're just confusing two different people with slightly related questions (or non questions in the case of one of them)? Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is an open question whether these are two separate trolls or the same one. The negress troll was nevertheless from greater Toronto and started multiple questions about ethnic groups with the same judgmental implications. You'll note I was happy to assume good faith, but klaxons started pealing with the second and third immediate unsigned edits in a row. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand. To be clear, I wasn't intending to contest the deletion (and yeah I know appear to be using the same IP with similar geolocation, forgot to mention that). I've believed for a while that even though Donmust may not be a troll, there's no harm in telling them to 'move on' as we eventually did with Bowei Huang and possibly others I can't recall at the moment.

P.S. OT but I'm reminded of them by Donmust90: I just realised Freewayguy aka interracial marriage questioner (aka planet colour questioner?) is still active occasionally. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 2#Pew Center Research for interracial marriage. I guess that means since we haven't heard, they don't yet have any happy news to report on the success of their goal.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

archiving note

For those wondering why the desks have been getting LLAARRGGEE: I've been (a) traveling, (b) scandalously busy, and (c) without my normal computer, but I've finally patched together enough of my environment to get some piecemeal archiving done tonight. Full, normal archiving will resume on Sunday. "We apologise for the inconvenience." —Steve Summit (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your sterling and so-easily-taken-for-granted service, Steve. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Me too. (Wow nothing relevant? Okay fixed, we did have an article which was redirected after the info was parred down and moved to list article, probably correctly as the first article was very poor [26]. But the target was then changed to the disambig Me Too so the linkage to the new location Glossary of Internet-related terms was lost. Redirecting Me too to Me Too probably makes sense as well but we need some sort of linkage, as long as the glossary covers it. So I've added something to the disambig.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

wickwack

Given the attitude and the IP I have hatted this edit. I see the same close range was hatted in the last day or so. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I think the IP should realize there are those of us who'd prefer he just register and not cause us to hat him on sight. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And I would assume the IP-hopper couldn't care less what we think - it's more fun for the IP-hopper to get us to scurry like ants when he turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath considering the nonsense in the above thread from the IP about WickWack. (Their history also suggests they don't want to be accountable or to allow their posts to support themselves, whatever they may say about their experience.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement by 60.228.254.73 and possibly others far above in the thread that it is a bad practice to find and provide a referenced answer when you are not an expert in the subject. If someone ha a college education in science or engineering, then he has passed college level courses in chemistry and physics. Someone with liberal arts degree might have a general college level knowledge of the Renaissance and literature. They can find and provide useful references to a questioner without being a specialist in the one discipline within which the question falls, out of the dozens of subject areas they are acquainted with. A real life reference librarian is absolutely not an expert in every area in which he assists library patrons who seek information on a subject. He just leads them to the relevant books and articles. He doe not then read them and explain them to the patron, although that extra step is common at Ref desk. "Wait for a real expert" may turn into quite a wait indeed, when the questioner's needs may well be satisfied by a link to the relevant Wikipedia article, or to a Google Book passage. Further, we usually have no way of verifying credentials. If an answer based on some reliable source is incomplete or if the ref desk volunteer misinterpreted something or overgeneralized, there is typically someone who chimes in with additional insights or with corrections. I recall a motors question where I was pretty sure of the answer, but I emailed a frequent and informed contributor to the electric motor article to check what I aid, and he came to the Ref Desk to verify and extend my answer, even though he had not contributed to Ref Desk before. Such a practice can pick the brain of specialists within the community and perhaps add to the RD work force. We are specifically not in the business of providing professional advice on matter where there would be risk to someones life, health,or legal status. Edison (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about refdesk trolling

I've spent very little time at the refdesk, but found myself responding to a couple questions. In looking around, there seems to be an awful lot of Yahoo Answers-style trolling. Baseball Bugs, for example, responded to a question I also responded to simply to call the person asking the question (or perhaps it was the subject he/she asked about) "arrogant," and then responded again, adding "elitism" and "nose-in-the-air" (aside: if that's "elitism," what are you even doing on a humanities board?). Looking at his/her edits, most of them (the recent ones I looked at anyway) contribute about the same. I'm not trying to treat a talk page as ANV, just trying to get a feel for how the refdesk operates outside of the basics specified in WP:Reference desk/Guidelines (which seem to require talkpage-like tolerance, which I don't really understand). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have the fortitude to plough through "Time to change the Guidelines" above, you'll understand the current situation (which isn't really as dreadful as it might sound, to be honest). In short, a number of users consider the current guidelines to be too loose (especially as regards "trolling", widely defined), and a number of users consider them to be too tight (especially as regards "medical advice", whether defined by Kainaw's criteria or otherwise), and we all enjoy arguing about it without much in the way of progress being made. I think it's safe to say the written guidelines do not reflect how the desks are actually run - whether, and, if so, how, this is to be changed is a matter of permanent debate. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's only part of the problem, Tevildo. Rhododendrites is referring specifically to the posts of Baseball Bugs, and identifying a problem with them. --Viennese Waltz 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What's ANV? I don't think Bugs meant disrespect, but was trying to convey the idea that if books could not be "about" a subject, such as the law, and thus held to convey no meaning, then that could be considered arrogance (and with the law, contempt, if carried to the extreme by a kangaroo court). Obviously the question was too vague to limit answers specifically to literary works. --Modocc (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's also note the longstanding feud between Viennese Waltz and Bugs, whom he criticizes at every turn, yet which Waltz doesn't seem to find worth mentioning in the spirit of full disclosure. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(a) There is no feud (b) I was deliberately neutral in my post above, simply drawing attention to an aspect of the OP's post that Tevildo had missed. --Viennese Waltz 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the question is "How does Bugs (specifically) get away with it?", I can't suggest an answer. The problem, as I see it, is that "it" is not well-defined, and there are many regular contributors who get away with "it" far more egregiously than Bugs (IMO). If we had a better definition of "it", we could make some progress. But we don't, so we can't. Tevildo (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It would help a great deal if people only posted to (a) answer the question, by providing a referenced answer, or (b)asking for a question to be clarified, if necessary. Almost anything else is off-topic, and doesn't belong on a reference desk. At some point, I suspect that this is going to have to be made a formal policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We could do with clerks and also with a feedback mechanism. At the heart must be a culture of self-discipline. If you don't know the answer, don't answer. Unfortunately the refdesks attract a lot of people who feel the need to prove their own importance. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In general the reference desk of late has developed a bad vibe. Editors seem more concerned with snipping at each other than giving factual well-referenced answers. Newcomers are bitten on sight. It's not a place I like to spend much time on anymore. 82.44.76.14 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Borrowing a joke I heard about trumpet players, Q: "How does one Ref Desk volunteer greet another?" A:"Hello. I'm smarter than you." Edison (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet, if you block Bugs, you'll be the one dragged before the Arbitration Committee! What a world. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

When has that happened? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is dot all you got? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)