Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 95

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

Archive 90

←

Archive 93

→

Removal of question

I am starting this thread if anyone has any questions or wishes to comment on my removal of a question here: [1]. I fully believe that the OP had no ill will in asking the questions, but good intentions aside, the video linked and asked about has the potential for real harm to a private person. I know the video is widely availible, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs participate in publicizing it or adding to the embarassment the subject of that video may be feeling over its publication. I believe this to be in line with Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, at least in spirit. Please discuss. --Jayron32 01:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of BLP (and I think it looks staged) it is simply not something an encyclopedia can deal with. I'd have hatted it, but I have no problem at all with the deletion. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions that feature embarassing youtube clips aren't RD material, unless there's some phenomenon that needs explaining. (idiot sitting on exploding airbag, guy losing his hand because he turned a black match into a quick match by waterproofing it, etc..) Even then I don't mind if privacy issues take precedence. And I'm no fan of links to sites with view count ratings. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless the video in question happens to be notable (doubt it), I agree that this wasn't RD material. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not refdesk material, whether staged or not, and removed in a respectful way towards the OP. Good call, Jayron. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a really funny video, and the Refdesk has no appreciable impact on its viewership, nor on the subject's overall embarrassment. The last thing we need are more "ethics". Accidents happen... :) Wnt (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How should we treat unsupported health-related content?

I deleted this content:

"There's also the need to warm-up and cool-down before and after exercise, to minimize the risk of pulling muscles, having a heart attack, etc. This would be difficult to do if you run sporadically throughout the day."
"Rope jumping, 15 minutes each day could be more than enough." and
"Rope jumping is only useful to get fit if you are a couch potato, or if you're over 60 years old. Otherwise, you should do fast running for at least 30 minutes, 5 times per week, exercise on a bike or on a hometrainer. You are fit if the power you can generate for half a hour divided by your weight is higher than 3 Watt/kg. So, if you weigh 70 kg, you should be able to do at least 210 Watts for half an hour. My power to weight ratio is above 4 Watt/Kg. I routinely exercise at a power of 240 Watts for 40 minutes and I only weigh 60 kg. Since this is just exercise, I could do a lot more is pressed to the limit, but I don't want to do that."

With this edit summary: "Removed uncourced assertions per WP:V. There's some other dubious content, but it's framed as anecdote. That needs watching too." and it was restored with this edit summary: "Revert. WP:V applies primarily to mainspace. Yes, these comments might be inaccurate and providing sources is better. However, we don't generally edit / truncate other people's comments on discussion pages like this."

I'm coming from the point of view that WP:V and WP:MEDRS apply just as much to this public page as any other public page on Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It toes the line, but in the past, consensus has held that the refdesk guidelines which prohibit medical advice don't usually apply to health and nutrition. I'm not sure why, so don't ask me for a justification or an explanation, but questions (and answers) related to health in general terms, as opposed to medical treatments, aren't under the same restrictions as outright medical advice. Note that this is not an endorsement of the above posts, nor is it an invitation to debate me over the wisdom of said practice. I am merely reporting what is, without passing any judgement one way or the other over what should. In other words, the above examples are under the "shitty answers we don't delete but we do refute with references ourselves" and not under the "prohibited questions and answers we delete outright." --Jayron32 04:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A reference librarian would not answer a request for information by providing his or her own opinion or experience. In a sense the ref desk is our "librarian" and a place to find input on a RS and that's all. While exercises might be health related, exercise and its effects on the health of an individual ie heart rate and heart health, may slip under the umbrella of medical advice. So, on two counts I'd hat the comments. This is a ref desk not a talk/ opinion page, and the information borders on medical advice and may fall under WP :MEDRS. Safety first, better to be too stringent than too lenient when it comes to this kind of advice.(olive (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC))

Nothing you say is wrong. However, that does not mean we remove bad answers. Instead of deleting or selectively removing answers we think are bad, we instead provide references which show the correct answers and refute the bad ones. The question is not over what are bad answers to give on the reference desk. The question is over how to deal with them. Deleting them isn't approrpriate except in limited cases. Instead, we refute the answer, either by pointing out that the answer lacks reference (a less-than-ideal but acceptable response) or by providing our own references which lead to the correct answer (the best response). Except in carefully ennumerated situations (medical or legal advice or blatant trolling or vandalism) we don't delete good faith questions or answers. --Jayron32 05:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As Baseball Bugs reminded us in another exercise-related discussion, isn't almost the first thing every provider of fitness programs says "Consult your primary-care provider before undertaking any exercise program"? Bielle (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, simply editing and removing other people's signed statements is not the way to go about it. It makes it appear people said something different than they actually did, or responded to content that is different than they responded to. When necessary, problems with medical content is generally enforced by either hatting the offending content with an appropriate explanatory note or by removing the entire section and leaving a reference to WP:RD/G/M in its place. You did neither of those, nor did you reference WP:MEDRS in your previous action. Since this is a discussion page, as noted by the fact that everything is signed, we don't generally apply WP:V here and don't use it as a cause to edit other people's statements. People disagree about where WP:RD/G/M applies to health advice, but at least that is an issue with some merit. That said, editing other people's signed comments is generally a no-no and shouldn't be done without at least leaving a clear explanation of where and why for the other people following the discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I remove bad medical content all the time from articles and I am never challenged. What makes this page different? What makes it OK for you (plural) to say wrong stuff here (or even true unsupported stuff) and let it stand? Just learn to do what all the rest of us do all the time, back up your contributions with reliable sources or suffer it being deleted. Just because you sign this stuff doesn't make it sacrosanct. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would remove dubious health advice off of the talk pages of articles, without worrying about it, FWIW. Biosthmors (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

True. It happens all the time to signed dubious health-related content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes if text within an article is unsourced and likely wrong I simply remove it. But this is not the main space. I agree that people should support their talk statements but they typically do not.

By the way this page is strange. They call it a ref desk but much of it is just people adding urban legends / personal opinions. Not sure how it help people write an encyclopedia which must be verifiable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Article and discussion pages are different. This is far more a discussion page than an article, though the reference desks are not entirely the same as either. If you are editing parts of signed comments on talk pages, without leaving any explanation, then I would revert that too, as an example of WP:TALKNO. Many people do watch these pages, and the reference desk has a set of community norms about what is acceptable, what isn't, and how to respond to unacceptable content. If you think there is a problem you can of course ask for help here, but edits like this [2] aren't generally acceptable at the reference desk. Dragons flight (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for input at WT:MED and WT:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes references should be provided here or else it is not a "reference desk". If people are just adding their unsource opinions it is of little use IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any idea that "health and nutrition" can be separated from "medicine" [3] is deeply flawed and would need to be reconsidered, imo. MEDRS should apply to all questions regarding links between health and lifestyles, environments, traits etc. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The US government, for one, has gone out of it's way to separate the two, with health and nutrition products and services not requiring anywhere near the same level of regulation as medicine. I tend to agree. If you tell people to go see a doctor when they ask how to thaw a chicken without getting sick, that's not very helpful advice (even if they went, the doctor probably wouldn't know). StuRat (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a national government regulating the commerce of dubious health products. Rather, our policies exclude endorsement of pseudoscience, urban legends etc. If I'm not mistaken, the health implications of articles regarding medical matters form an important part of the the rationale for MEDRS. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

StuRat, that's because doctors don't get involved in food preparation. Those who do have to have training in safe food handling. Cooks simply provide what people ask for, and do not get into whether they should or should not be eating it. That's the personal responsibility of the eater or their parent/guardian. In this age of massive worldwide obesity, diabetes etc in developed countries, to suggest that what, how much, how often and why we eat is not intimately connected with those pandemics, is blinkered in the extreme. If you have one of those conditions, it's a doctor who treats you. The general advice about what, how much, how often and why we should eat comes from the medical fraternity/sorority, maybe filtered through the dietetics community.

MistyMorn, I agree. It's as flawed as the sections in supermarkets called "Health Foods". All the rest of the food in the supermarket is presumably not so crash hot for you. That's obviously not the case (except for some things), so it boils down to a problem of nomenclature. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As JackofOz implies, the name "Reference desk" is a misnomer. These messageboards bear little resemble to a library reference desk. Answers given are usually the opinions of individual editors, rarely accompanied by supporting references.

Don't exaggerate. Answers are usually accompanied by supporting references, and are rarely the opinions of individual editors - for a certain value of "rarely". (The usual form of reference is a link to a Wikipedia article. Of course that would be no good in an article, but here it's OK, because if this is supposed to be like a library reference desk, Wikipedia is like the library.) Card Zero (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The boards already have the declaration "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions." The problem here seems to be a dispute over what constitutes "medical opinion". Perhaps create a list of potential answers to "medical" questions and gain a consensus from the community as to whether those answers should be acceptable? That would create a framework of acceptable & unacceptable answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The text at the top of the page is aimed at people about to ask questions, and rather clouds the actual guidelines (which have been linked to five times on this page already, but here's the link again: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines). See also the sub-page about medical advice Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice, and User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion, and (if you can stomach it) a million old debates in the archive of this talk page. Card Zero (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted part of one of Wnt's posts recently in a similar way. It was some opinion about medicine, without references, and you mentioned WP:V in the edit summary, and apart from that didn't tell anyone you'd done it. This amounts to treating the ref desk as if it was an article. Obviously, that would be a radical change, and you shouldn't start doing it unilaterally. Card Zero (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're saying you (plural) can publish unsourced, dubious health-related claims on this page for our readers and I'm not allowed to remove it. Is that right? That contradicts WP:V and WP:MEDRS, and is inimical to the Wikimedia ethos. It's harder work to find real sources, or at least cite a Wikipedia article or point the reader to PubMed, but it'll be more fulfilling for you and much, much more valuable to the reader. The current ethos is holding this reference desk back. What you're doing is offering something the reader can get anywhere else on the net. If you followed our policies, you'd be offering them a very precious resource, reliable information. Mouthing off they can get anywhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We're saying there are ways of responding to dubious claims that don't also violate WP:TALKNO's prohibition on misrepresenting other people. In many cases, simply replying that something is dubious / unreferenced is sufficient. In the rarer cases where outright removal is justified, a statement noting the removal should be left in the discussion so as not to confuse readers who may have already seen or replied to the previous content and so as not to make it appear that editors said something other than what they did say. Dragons flight (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See further up the page where you have that little ... civilised debate with Mingmingla? You assert that the talk pages of medical articles rarely contain unsourced medical opinions for long. Then you express some unsourced medical opinions of your own as part of the argument. Mingmingla calls you on it, turning things around and asking you for sources on your assertions, and you say:

The assertions just shouldn't be there without recent, authoritative sources. Can you please get over the fact that I had the temerity, on the talk page, to assert, in passing, that I know they're false?

- because it's annoying when WP:V is applied to you while you're trying to talk. So you seem to retreat to a position which agrees that, yes, there's some freedom to speak your citation-free mind on talk pages, but not on the project page, dammit. I'd agree with that, while also agreeing with Doc James when he says the ref desk is "strange". It's sort of like a talk page, and yet not. It has its own guidelines instead of, or shall I say augmenting, WP:V. Ideally everything is verifiable, but in practice it's just the important things that matter to the question that we care about, and it's down to the conscience of the answerer, and while we might complain at each other about standards - and I think there isn't a decent enough tradition of a mechanism for complaining in a polite and helpful way - we only delete in emergencies. Because this isn't a page where other people's text is edited. If it was a collaborative effort to write one piece of text, like an article, with no ownership of the words, that would be different (and perhaps better).

Er, and in answer, just to be clear: what Dragons flight said. Card Zero (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You've described the ethos here. I disagree with it. I can see you all resisting conforming to WP:V and WP:RS on the project page, and I understand that but have no respect for it. Take that attitude to Answers.com. As for Dragons flight, the project page is not a talk page. That's the problem: you (plural) think it's a talk page and apply WP:TALKNO, and don't apply WP:V or WP:RS, which makes it a chat room or a suppoort group or something, not anything remotely aligned with the Wikimedia mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarify something (just to be clear): you agree that links to Wikipedia articles - which themselves have sources - are suitable sources to support ref desk answers, don't you? Card Zero (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the reference desk does pretty well on average, not great but generally good (Journal of Documentaton, Signpost discussion). Also, per WP:TALK: "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." Dragons flight (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That study you cited (Shachaf, 2009) found this desk was no better than the average reference desk, and the average reference desk (55% right) was soundly criticised for its poor performance in the study Shachaf cited. Read Shachaf, and read the study she cites for the average performance at a reference desk. It is something to be ashamed of, not something to wave around with pride. And anyway, I don't care how trashy and loose with the truth you are about turtle wax. Just stay away from health "facts". It is permitted to remove dangerous or prohibited comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There's a reason the Reference desk is in Wikipedia-space, not Article-space. Many such pages exist, especially noticeboards, that contain unsupported opinions and are signed by editors, much like talkpages. I'd rather see the erroneous advice contradicted (with refs) than excised: that way it's clear which editors are labouring under misconceptions and which are simply unwilling to learn. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't happen like that. In many of the examples I listed above health lies stayed on the desk, unchallenged. It's just morally wrong, when we have a simple mechanism for offering our readers verifiable answers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthonycole: I don't believe you have been reading any of the posts in any of the previous threads where a fairly substantial amount of us are actually agreeing with you, at least in principle. Most of us seem to feel that we are sorely lacking in the very things you are complaining about: reliable, legitimate references for our assertions. The only people who have insisted that references are not needed have been lambasted by everyone else. As for deleting other posts that contain wrong or misleading information, that's not helping. If you want us to get better, help show us where we went wrong (without insulting our intelligence) by given a proper refutation (with links, please). Don't do it by deleting. This isn't an article. We sign our contributions, and they are made in good faith. Suspect response should rightly be called out and corrected.

Another suggestion (that I would rather not see implemented, mind you), one that is ugly, but might be satifying: if an answer proves wrong, perhaps it can be "~~struck through~~". That way it can be obvious how the conversation progressed, but still indicates that the info is no longer valid. Mind you, this requires agreement on the part of all editors as it is strictly speaking editing someone's post. Mingmingla (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read every word. You (plural) all tut tut and wring your hands and the health-related lies pile up on the reference desk. I really couldn't care less what you say about anything except health. Ban off-the-top-of-the-head health-related assertions. Insist that every health-related utterance on the help desk is supported by a strong source. But you won't will you? You'll just wring your hands and fret about hurting the feelings of dangerous bull-shitters. Good luck. I hope you don't mislead, confuse, kill, maim or poison too many people in the process. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When little reseach is done, urban legend is often far more reliable than what medical sources say. I can cite the statement that 3 minutes all out sprinting on a home trainer per week is effective (20 seconds per time all out sprinting a rest of a few minutes then again repeated 3 times, and that 3 times per week). But I can also cite that you need to run for at least 30 minutes at a fast pace, 5 times per week.

Thing is, if you go to the doctor and were to ask this question, you would get a answer based on his own personal opinion, it wouldn't be more correct from a scientific point of view than most of the answers given here. Medical science simply isn't a rigorous science as e.g. physics is. Take e.g. the medical advice given to people recovering from a heart attack. It wasn't that long ago when they were prescribed absolute bed rest. Today you see them exercising in the hospital's fitness room.

Now where did that advice of "absolute bed rest" come from? It couldn't have been well establsihed research as we now know this is the opposite thing you need to do. There never were misleading research results, so it was all based on the unreliable intuition of doctors, personal opinions of some promninent experts etc.. Only much later when the relation between exercise and heart healt was better understood did the medical establishement change its opinion. But the problem was that the old medical prescription of "absolute bed rest" was nevertheless the official advice and it was presented in all medical sources as if it was established fact. This attitude of the medical profession makes medical science inherently unreliable.

Another example. Ask yourself how we actually know that eating vegetables is healthy? It is quite uncontroversial that this is the case, but if you only look at the primary medical research, you'll have a difficult time reproducing the simple fact that you need to eat a few hundred grams of vegetables per day. The only thing that is well established is that you need to eat a small amount to prevent scurvy. But anything more than the small amount to prevent scurvy is not well established using the methods of medicine. The problem here is not that the advice of easting a few hundred grams is questionable, rather that the conventional methods of medical science are not adequate to address such questions. Count Iblis (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've cherry-picked a few egregious examples of bad science in medicine (and there are others, without a doubt - efforts to improve medical rigor continue). There is good science in medicine, too (e.g. treatments for HIV/AIDS). Gross, simplistic generalizations aren't very scientific, btw. -- Scray (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a general problem in medicine. Of course, there is good science in medicine. However, the way problems are approached in medicine makes it unsuitable to a whole class of issues. The focus is too much on disease prevention, general health is often not considered. But health is more than the mere absense of disease. This leads to ridiculous conclusions like the recent IoM guidelines for vitamin D which set 800 IU/day as the RDA. The reason is that there is no evidence for any health benefits for larger doses, but then "evidence" is narrowly defined as proof using double blind tests that some known disease must be shown to be prevented by using higher dosages of vitamin D. Never mind arguments from biological plausibility, e.g. that you easily get 5000 to 10,000 per day from the Sun if you don't sit in your office all day long, or that babies would be vitamin D deficient (by the IoM's own standards) without vitamin D supplementation, unless the mother gets 5000 IU/day (which she could easily get from the Sun).

And there is a lot of evidence that taking 5000 IU/day or more does have health benefits, but because this is indirect evidence and also often has to do with things like increased physical fitness and not more easily measurable things like lower risk of cancer, it is not considered. Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have pretty specific axe to grind. I wish you luck with that. -- Scray (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the deletion in one of my responses. I strongly object to this. First, I was not giving medical advice, but merely refuting the OP's original assertion on which all the answers to the question were based; second, it is actually information that was already in the article I Wikilinked. And third, even if it hadn't been, people should know I can sometimes find a reference if asked. I find this to be an example of the bias I've noted from those against herbal medicine - I don't feel like this person even considered that what I was saying was plausible, simply because Marinol comes in a pill. Wnt (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mingmingla's idea

On the end of the thread "What's wrong with this question", Mingmingla suggests (unenthusiastically) that a separate, protected desk for medical questions could be created. Is that a good idea? Card Zero (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Our guidelines against providing medical (and legal) advice are in no way particular to "the Reference Desk" or some sublist of various pages (that is, the underlying logic doesn't rely on "because this is the ref desk"). As such, no "other location" on Wikipedia appropriately circumvents them. — Lomn 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lomn, I never suggested the desk be for advice. I don't support it, but focusing the debate into one desk would be less disruptive overall to the other desks by having all the deletions and edits and hats cluttering up only one page instead of three or four as it is now. I will say again, though: Medical advice is different from medical information. There aren't many of us who are suggesting medical advice should be allowed, and most oppose it when it does come up. If medical information is forbidden on the reference desks, then thousands of pages in Wikipedia's mainspace should be forbidden too. Mingmingla (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical information isn't banned on the reference desks. Unsourced lies and bull-shit off-the-top-of-the-head pronouncements are. Just verify health information on the project page. That's all. WP:V and WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How would it look? Presumably questions would be answered: what questions, in what manner? Card Zero (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mingmingla, in response to your last, let me note that I said nothing about prohibiting or removing medical information. As for the unsightly clutter, I agree, but I don't think "separate desk" fixes it. You'll quickly see the same sort of hat/note/debate about where and why what thing got moved off the traditional RD page, just as you currently see the hat/note/debate about things moved off the RD now. Appending in a reply to Karenjc below, I don't think you'll find any standard of removal straightforward enough that four regular editors won't be able to promptly hop on the new "was that medical enough" game. — Lomn 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My first thought was oh no, not another desk; let's not complicate things even further. Then I wondered. Direct all medical/legal themed questions to a Medical/Legal refdesk, and move any out-of-place questions on the other desks straight over there on sight irrespective of whether they seek advice, information or are borderline. Then triage them according to whether they merit a response, a hatting or total removal. Would it help to concentrate such questions away from the other desks to a place where everyone was aware of the potential extra pitfalls in answering, and where (maybe) the title would discourage drive-by responses of poor quality, as already happens to an extent at Computing and Maths? Or would it just provide another opportunity to argue about what is medical and legal, and what isn't? - Ka renjc 20:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're planning to actually answer those questions, you'd be turning one argument into two, and the new argument would be over a much broader/borderline set of questions (however far you want to expand it per your proposal). Increasing the trouble two-fold at bare minimum, more likely 4-fold. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Health advice bad; health information OK": Why is it bad to tell a reader they should drink 40ml of lighter fluid, but OK to tell them it is safe to drink 40ml of lighter fluid? Why is wrong health advice bad, while wrong health information is OK? Can someone explain the reasoning behind this distinction? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Both of those would be "bad", IMHO (but I think we're talking about a straw man). There are non-advice questions that ask about impersonal medical facts that could be stated and backed by with references; such questions can reasonably be answered on the RD. I do wish people were more circumspect on RD/S - good questions can be answered in a verifiable way, but it does take some time to get the right source. I gave up long ago on the other RefDesks - they seem much more like chat rooms to me (certainly a risk for any RD). I've gone to many WP articles to make improvements after answering a related question on the RD/S - I do think the RD helps engage editors (and readers) in WP content. (btw, I think some of your comments here are becoming so strident and repetitive that you are undermining your own message - just my opinion) -- Scray (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the lighter fluid is that you're not getting the point. We need to be able to discuss freely what the LD50 of lighter fluid really is - and acknowledge that at the LD50 there's still a 50% chance you'll live - without somebody claiming that we're telling people to go out and drink it. (I don't know what the LD50 really is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it indeed is something that sounds instinctively unwise; note also that semantics may lead to misunderstandings, e.g. Charcoal lighter fluid can mean something alcohol based in Eastern Europe where it is consumed by some) The whole point is, if we say it's safe, we're saying that as a statement about scientific evidence, but we're not saying to go ahead and do it. When you say those two things are the same, you've extended the policy into something much worse even than what it has been. Wnt (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could have a separate medical questions desk, just like maths has. Would we get anything near the quality of the answers in WP:RD/MA? Or to put it another way, would mathematics as part of RD/SC result in the situation we have with medicine, non-maths people answering and mathematicians criticising and deleting (that may be a false impression, only recently been visiting this talk page). Health questions seem to receive more personal opinions than other categories, I admit. And refusing all questions for medical advice, as the rules say, should be applied more strictly. But that does not include requests for information. We don't assume that an OP asking about ²³⁵U enrichment is building an atom bomb, nor do we refuse questions regarding Franklin's idea of catching lighting with a kite. And the impact of RD answers is a lot smaller than of WP articles, mostly limited to the OP; someone looking for medical advice is much more likely to read articles or talk pages than to search the RD archives.

Regarding the fitness advice issue in the previous section: the OP asked whether any doctors had studied that kind of lifestyle. That's as specific as you can get. Pointing out some of the likely dangers is fine, recommending some type of exercise/activity isn't. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Insults on the RD

It is one thing for RD discussions to get light-hearted and even a little off-topic. But was it really necessary for μηδείς to post an insult at the end of this section? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly appropriate to post the same information several people above you have, and to mark it off with a line drawn above your response as if it is somehow a separate section. If Anonmoos wants the special recognition, he can ask for a star. My offering it is hardly an insult. If you have a problem with my edit, you can come to my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Anonmoos's response was, at worst, gilding the lily. Your comment, in my view, was unnecessary and rude. It's a matter of etiquette. Why should the discussion, if it goes on, be anywhere but here? Bielle (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, the last time I took an issue to your talk page, you said I should have kept it here. What's it to be? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your revised version is still unnecessary, and more than a little snarky, but no longer rude. Why not just delete the whole thing? Bielle (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to remove my comment if the my-answer-is-special bar is removed. I figured doing so myself was inappropriate. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

A horizontal line (whatever it means) does not mean "my answer is special".
AnonMoos's answer, to my reading, is not a repetition or a gilding of the lily; it provides new information.
Medeis needs to lighten up. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why, in the case of an edit conflict, does your later comment go above my earlier one, Steve? It makes me entirely unwilling to take your comments seriously as advice on etiquette, especially given it avoids you having to acknowledge, as I already pointed out, that AnonMoos's own opinion is that his answer was indeed special, read the dif in the answer below that preceded yours. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal, but: my comment was in direct response to the one above it, and yours was in response to I-wasn't-sure-what, so rather than spending time figuring out how to rewrite my comment so that it might make sense if not beneath the one it was in reply to, I took a chance and inserted it in the expediently-conveniently place.

As for AnonMoose's comment, I commented on it in isolation, so your vendetta against AnonMoose, or something later he posted, don't change my impression of it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as I said, Anonmoos actually "knows" things [4], while others who say the exact same thing before him--with external links--are just "ranting" about things they have little specific knowledge of. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a deliberate misquotation and you should withdraw it or correct it. I say deliberate because nobody as smart as you could have misread it. AnonMoos referred to "your common practice of ranting about things you appear to have rather little specific knowledge of" (my bolding). The "your" and "you" referred to you, Medeis, not to any of the earlier posters, and there's no way you can make it be about them. Argue on the facts, not on things you dream up to patch over an indefensible position. It makes you appear to be a hopeless debater, and a liar to boot. I'm sure neither of those is actually the case, so if you want us to have that impression of you, do nothing. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone hatted the exchange, so I simply deleted it as I suggested above. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you also deleted part of AnonMoos' content, which was not suggested by anyone else above, nor was it a move likely to help resolve the drama stirred up here. As you also suggested above, that sort of action is inappropriate. — Lomn 18:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, per MOS section divisions do not belong to any party. My deleting it before would have been seen as arbitrary. At this point Anonmoos has made his motivation quite clear, it is in itself rude and ownership behavior. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, you had courses of action here that included "do nothing", "withdraw silently", and "withdraw gracefully", among others. Instead, you selected "I win" -- despite any actual support for your position. That said, I'll be happy to enforce your idea of removing "rude and ownership behavior" among your nonproductive RD contributions from this point out. — Lomn 19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. Anonmoos has a long history of declaring that his is the only rational answer and berating and insulting people over it. A simple search for his username and "don't know what your talking about" in the archives brings up this thread, where he has decided that something I am saying is wrong, although he can't quite identify it in my own words, and here where he repeatedly insults User:DuncanHill for not knowing what he is talking about when AnonMoos' own statements are mistaken and ill informed. Explain to me how my answers, with an external link, and confirmed by other users about how to draw the letter ash above AnonMoos's in the last thread amount in his words to "ranting" about something I don't know anything about, or how my merely deleting an inappropriate deprecated and unowned section break to solve the current teacup tempest amount to an "ungraceful" action worth having my edits stalked by Lomn? While we're at it, I might also ask why these two comments "Stupid comments like that make me lose the will to live" and "Do you really want an explanation of why fan-boi pedantry does not benefit the RD?" don't amount to actual insults, while my deleting an inappropriate and bad faith section divider is subject for all this clucking. But please don't start a new discussion, or harass the other editor. Just leave the deletion of the section bar stand as an eloquent solution to this as is. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Steve, thanks for your considered response. I am sure you will understand if I think it counterproductive at this point to continue a thread about asking a hostile editor who declares his is the only valid response on the ref desk if he wants a star to go with his deprecated section break. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

cannabinol prescriptions

I have found out the answer to my question on cannabinol prescription http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2012_September_14#Cannabinol_in_NJ.3F, but the question has already been archived. The archive page doesn't say not to. Is it alright if I append the answer there? μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say so. We don't want to have ongoing discussions there, but a closing post like that should be OK. StuRat (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Formal Rules Template suggestion

Could somebody whip up a template that says something to the effect of this ?

"Strict Rules"

"The Original Poster of this question requests that all Ref Desk Guidelines be strictly enforced here, and that any responses which are off-topic, unreferenced, jokes, or opinions be immediately deleted."

We could also have the reverse:

"Relaxed Rules"

"The Original Poster of this question requests that a relaxed enforcement of all Ref Desk Guidelines be followed here, and that we should be tolerant of any responses which are off-topic, unreferenced, jokes, or opinions."

I don't know if they will catch on, but it would be nice to have that option. StuRat (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as one cannot contract out of the law, I don't think we should be able to contract out of the guidelines. (And, yes, I know that the guidelines are not laws etc. etc.) I suggest, instead, that anyone who wants to choose "relaxed" should just be sent to Answers.com, and anyone from the Ref Desk who is interested can follow the question there. Can't you just imagine the idiocies, from conspiracy theories to x-wing cant just fulminating under the "relaxed format? How much more relaxed would we want to be than we already are? That some complain about the degree of relaxation will always be the case, wherever the line is drawn. Do we want it so far down the beach that it is gone before the next high tide? Bielle (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We basically already follow the relaxed rules concept, so perhaps we only need the strict rules template. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Stu, your question puts the cart before the horse. Sure, a template is easy to do, but the question has to be whether we want to bifurcate the Ref Desk into strict and relaxed in the first place. I, for one, very definitely do not want that to occur. The relaxed version would not be a "reference" desk at all, except by pure chance and only once in a blue moon, I suspect. There are already zillions of such places out there. If you want to create yet another, be my guest. Just, not here, please. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't like to put the strict rules template on any Q's you ask ? StuRat (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want a "strict rules template" to exist at all, Stu. We already have our rules and guidelines and policies. How strictly they're adhered to in any given case is a moveable feast, and also a cause of some debate, as we've been seeing particularly over the past couple of months - but there's always been debate back here and always will be. Those debates will continue for the Strict Ref Desk, regardless of what happens with the Relaxed Ref Desk. And that is no solution for the problems of the current ref desk.

I'd prefer we take a much closer look at some of our guidelines and come to agreement about what they mean and whether any of them need to be rewritten in clearer language, less open to individual interpretation. Or in some cases scrapped, and perhaps new ones introduced. These would include matters such as under what circumstances do we hat or remove responses; what exactly do we mean by "medical/legal advice"; is it ever OK to accept an invitation to debate, speculate etc; how far off-topic do we allow discussions to tangentiate; are there any questions we do not permit at all; et al. That would be looking at the root of the issues. Your suggestion is not that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We do not need any "strict" or "relaxed" templates. I ask you to recall your experiences with real-life reference librarians. In my experience, the procedure in RL has always been "relaxed" as you call it. You don't just submit a question and wait around for an answer. There is always dialogue, and occasionally the RD person will confer with a colleague. And if another patron should overhear and have something to offer, he or she will sometimes join the discussion. That type of process seems to work well here as well. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what we in the library industry call a "reference interview", where we ask questions to clarify the question, combined with a sort of doctors' "consult" where they ask other doctors for input on diagnosis. It's an effective way to narrow down difficult questions. It frequently involves positing wrong answers and elimniating them to eventually focus into something close to correct. Mingmingla (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you conduct that conversation on the talk page, and only post stuff on the project page that has solid sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of the questioners are not as familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia, such as talk pages. Also, that would mean coming to this talk page, which is intended to be for discussions on talk page operations and procedures, not for elaborating on reference questions. It would be akin to asking a library patron to go into the back office to discuss a question further, rather than keeping the discussion at the reference desk. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Because that's not how a reference interview works. Our method is not a one way street: we like input from our OP, because they are the only ones who know we are on the right track or not. Doing it on the talk page removes them from that process and is inefficient since it splits that process into two parts. That's why you don't see librarians going to hide in the back to talk about the question. As for your solid sources issue, I can't see what more we can do to satisfy you: this is a collaborative project, and if you find something lacking, add the sources, or provide sources to refute the wrong stuff. This isn't article space. If you don't know if it is right or wrong, nothing is preventing you from politely asking for them. Mingmingla (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One other thing you don't ever see RL librarians doing is arguing among themselves, calling each other names, or other personally pejorative language. They remain professional even in the face of the most intense provocation. If one librarian has really strong objections to, or is even personally offended by, what another librarian is telling the client, they'll:

(a) tell the client what they think the real story is (probably with a degree of non-verbal and/or body language), and let them make up their own minds, and
(b) have their discussion with their fellow librarian behind closed doors (WP = their respective talk pages) or outside work (WP = by email).
(c) If it's something the whole staff should be across, it's raised at a staff meeting (WP = the Ref Desk talk page).

It doesn't quite work as above here, because there's no such thing as an on-Wiki conversation that nobody but the 2 participants can see. And, we're sadly lacking in the body language/non-verbals here. Those are never any reasons not to maintain our professionalism or maturity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What he said ^^^^ --Jayron32 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. StuRat's been banging this particular drum for more than half a decade now. From the archives, in November 2006 we have StuRat proposing the creating of a separate 'serious' Ref Desk where we follow our guidelines and try to act like adults, and a 'regular' Ref Desk that can be used as a chat room: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 15#Proposed "Serious Ref Desk" Test. When that failed, he endorsed, used, and edited a {{strict}} template in December, which posters were to be required to add to their requests if they sought to receive an answer free of unsourced speculation, jokes, and profanity. Unsurprisingly, this template was deleted at TfD by the end of December. That deletion discussion pretty accurately sums up the problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Dehatted the zit popping question

The question didn't ask necessarily for opinions or predictions of future events. As can be shown by someone who at least attempted a good-faith answer, it should be possible to turn up decent references. We shouldn't close questions because they are squeemish or unseemly. Either answer the question in good faith with good references, or leave it alone. Medeis, yet again another misapplied closure. I implore you to please stop doing this. --Jayron32 23:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to the question being discussed. hydnjo (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The question asked for opinion and debate, which I assume you also read, but chose to ignore (forgive me for quoting policy so fully you could imagine an exception): there is no evidence this is based on anything factual, or has any possible reference desk response. And neither have the resonses so far been factual, or hinted at an such possibility. I am rehatting this. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The continued policy discussion of this on the ref desk itself is inappropriate. The fact that someone prefaces a statement with "why" doesn't make it a valid ref desk question any more than we should ask why

offensive examples
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
republicans are such bigots, why democrats are such liars, why gay men like to lick each other's asses so much, why lesbians love dildoes and getting fisted so much if they don't like penises, why black people smell so bad, or why orientals are such bad drivers.

This is simply beyond the pale. That we have such a lust to answer such questions and without any objective source shows a real sickness in this subcommunity. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's face facts here. It was a pretty stupid question. It was based on an assumption for which I've never seen any evidence ("women like blowing up other people's pimples so much"). Anyone asking such a question has a very narrow perspective on life and the world in general. They seem to somehow assume that their own narrow experiences reflect the whole world. It was the SCIENCE Desk. We have every right to try to be precise and pretty demanding of evidence in our answers on that desk. I don't think Medeis' point about it asking for opinions was valid. After all, if there was any truth to the assumption that "women like blowing up other people's pimples so much", then there could equally be a known scientific reason for it. But there probably isn't any truth to that assumption. It was just a dumb question. There question under discussion here should be, how should we respond to dumb questions on the Reference Desks? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are whole scientific fields dedicated to why animals including humands behave in the ways they do, Behavioural genetics, Ethology, Behavioral sciences, Evolutionary physiology, there is a LOT to be discovered by examining trends, habits, instincts, etc... Just because YOU found the question frivolous, offencive or "stupid", I don't believe the question is in the wrong category. Further, looking at the OP's edits, they haven't been a "serial offender" for frivolous questions which is more reason to assume good faith. Anyone asking such a question has a very narrow perspective on life and the world in general This IS just offensive, I actually think you have egg on your face. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has ever had a girlfriend would have "never seen any evidence" to support this claim. If you still don't believe me, google it! And YES, as I have already said, it MIGHT be a misconception, but if it is, it is a VERY common one, in which case the OP is not being a troll, or narrow minded, they are being genuienly and IMHO appropriately curious. Vespine (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never hear of this allegedly VERY common misconception. Maybe it's cultural. (I think we live in different countries) but how can we answer a question based on what's at best a misconception? Is this another culturally centric question? And I'm serious here. I see a question that seems like nonsense. (And I still believe it is.) What do you believe is the correct response? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Medeis: This is how you answer the question correctly. Can we put to bed the idea that the question could not be answered in the proper reference desk way? It is growing wearisome. --Jayron32 03:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you googled it like I suggested? Is it just possible you have not heard of some things? Again if you are disputing the premise of the question as nonsense, I think it's YOUR turn to support your position, the above seven links took about two minutes to find. Vespine (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Medeis? Because it isn't clear. If you aren't addressing the person directly above you, Vespine, it helps to name them in your response or to put your response directly underneath theirs, because it looks like you are criticizing me, and yet we're clearly on the same side of this discussion. --Jayron32 04:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes my reply was to HiLo, I have one more indent then his post, I get confused about the proper etiquette when these things get "mulit threaded".. Vespine (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should have to search for anything? It was the OP who was living with a misconception. That I had avoided it is presumably a good thing. I don't think anyone should be expected to be aware of silly misconceptions held in different parts of the world. We ARE talking about the Science desk, where facts should override everything. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can’t follow that, HiLo48. Others have to come up with facts, but you’re exempted from providing any evidence to support your position? How scientific is that? Previously, you said you’d never even heard of this supposed belief. Now, anyone who believes it is labouring under a misconception. Why? Because you say so? Jayron and Vespine have provided some facts, or at least some anecdotal evidence. What do you have to offer?

Speaking of things that are beyond the pale, the question has been tampered with mercilessly. The original question was:

Why women like blowing up other people's pimples so much? [5]

Then, Medeis changed it to:

Why [do people, especially, perhaps, women, pop] other people's pimples...? [6]

Then, Medeis changed it to:

Why do some people pop other people's pimples? [[7].

This latest version came with the edit summary: retain OP's verbatim question, provide neutral wording per talk page policy - but it is NOT the OP’s verbatim question. I certainly won't be hiring Medeis to proofread my next book if that's the level of their commitment to accuracy. Just as we don’t edit other editors’ posts, we don’t change OPs' questions. By all means let us debate whether a question should or should not be answered or even tolerated, but please leave the question alone while that discussion is going on, as it needlessly confuses an already tempestuous scenario. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a matter of fact, I did more than provide anecodtal evidence. I provided published studies in scholarly works. Or, exactly what the mission of this desk is to do. --Jayron32 16:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I should point out that my original post in the thread, which came immediately after the OP's question, was "Where's the source that says they do?" Unfortunately this is now in the hatted text, so most people don't see it. I see nothing wrong with my qeustion. If it had been allowed to be answered, none of this crap would have occured. You can see from that question that I was happy to have this claim demonstrated. The whole thread has been destroyed by the hatting, and Medeis' other meddling. HiLo48 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that, particularly the last sentence. I was, however, responding to your previous post on this thread. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the original thread should be dehatted with a clarifying note and restoration (original OP phrasing and modified version). hydnjo (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The "arguments" for removal/hatting seem to boil down to "I think it's an offensive misconception that nobody could possibly answer with references" and "I've never heard of it so it it doesn't exist". Both have now been disposed of with a bit of research. As for refactoring it and claiming it's done "per policy" ... sheesh! - Ka renjc 15:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If the OP knew it was a misconception, they wouldn't have asked. They don't need to prove anything when asking. Mingmingla (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But, if the question seems strange and based on a possibly (probably?) untrue assumption, we have every right to ask why they're asking. It can help clarify what the real underlying question is. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. In a previous thread I mentioned the "reference interview", and that's what you're talking about here. A softer tone would be more appropriate. But that's different from what I said. Clarification on a confusing question isn't the same as asking for proof of a premise they hold honestly. Mingmingla (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people believe misconceptions, especially in science. That does not make their questions invalid, because they are asking about something they believe to be true. The best answer in such a case is to explain that the OP's viewpoint is a misconception, and point them to references that help them learn the facts about the subject. Our goal is to educate. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's if it is indeed a misconception. Some women obviously do this, because we have the anecdata (my Mum used to do it to me when I was a teenager; my Dad never did). It's the sort of thing you're much more likely to find evidence for, than evidence against, which might skew the question of how prevalent the practice is; but that it happens is beyond question. I'm sure some men have been known to do it too. The question is why do they enjoy it, which is an assumption. That's much harder to pin down than whether or not it happens. It may be true for one pimple-popper but not another. I suppose all we can do is get testimony from the ones who do enjoy it, as to why they enjoy it. Those who do it but don't enjoy it, or don't do it at all, are irrelevant to the question. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is where it gets philosophical. We have to parse the meaning of the question, and sometimes what people say isn't quite what they mean. Jack's right. We aren't likely to find out in any studies why they might enjoy it. It could be that the OP assumes that they do and that's how he chose to phrase the question, but it's just as likely that he is aware of the phenomenon and assumes they enjoy it, since it's gross and why would you do it if you didn't enjoy it? Mingmingla (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When the Ref Desk works...

...it really works! Based on this, (someone could change the link to a diff so it stays permanent, 'cause I don't know how), a new article was created. I'd've thought everything existed by now... Mingmingla (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You can tag the question and the article talk page with tags from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, which was set up to facilitate and recognize exactly the kind of work you're talking about. Tag the article talk page with {{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration}} and the question with {{WPRDAC attention}}. Instructions for useing them are at the Wikiproject page. --Jayron32 17:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What new article was created ? StuRat (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If I read correctly this history, Glacial Lake Mcconnell Mingmingla (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I broke it! Can anyone revert it or whatever? Mingmingla (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's your bad edit: [8]. I fixed it. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Solicitation of legal advice

I have removed a question about how the OP can obtain the rights to other people's work and a good faith response to it as giving explicit legal advice in this thread: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#how_dual_licensing_works. Here is a diff showing the question and its response:diff. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think explaining how multi-licensing works in broad terms constitutes giving legal advice, or explaining what licenses are and how they work in the context of Wikipedia, either. We have articles on all of these things; they are not legal advice, either. The entire point of Creative Commons licenses is that they have already been gone over by lawyers so that the common man doesn't actually need a law degree to use sensible legal copyleft license. I think saying that you need to talk to an intellectual property lawyer to make sense of how to dual-license your own website is a bit overkill. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a general question, but as asked and answered it was specific legal advice to him, down even to suggested verbiage. I think we can safely provide general links below the deleted question as it now stands. And I thought your answer was quite good, actually. But that opinion is worth what you have paid me for it. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a question does not exactly lead other people to post answers to it. Deleting my answers doesn't exactly make me want to go through the trouble of re-writing them for your approval. So there it stands. I don't care enough to argue about it any further; I'm done with it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to sympathize with you that no one else has rendered an opinion here, one way or the other. I don't take myself as the sole arbiter, which is why I started the thread here. But I do stand by my original action and judgment that the OP solicited specific advice which was actually legal in nature (how to obtain the rights to other people's work at his website) and you gave a very specific answer down to verbiage he could use. As I said, the thread itself wasn't deleted, and you could have provided general links and still can unless the question's so old it's been archived. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the Guardian Scandinavian?

I have asked a linguistic question about what happens to be a political question. I don't want comments on politics. Why do I have to keep fighting to keep the political debate on the language desk closed, when all I want are linguistic comments about a language question on the language desk? Why do I feel like Nancy Kerrigan? Why? http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=514769261&oldid=514768867 μηδείς (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel like Nancy Kerrigan ? Is it because you get way too much attention for suffering a relatively minor injury ? StuRat (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In a collaborative system without strict sanctioning, what you want is only one input into the system. If others want other things, its hard or even impossible to enforce your view. Trying to do so creates unnecessary friction and stress. Just try to live with the fact that some things don't go your way. The probability of substantial damage to any one person is minimal. "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said that (besides you) ? StuRat (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson (the emphasis is mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The first responses tried to address your question and then got a bit sidetracked. It's a difficult question; about not grammar but semantics; interpretation of charged political discourse is involved (or might be, depending on what the question means). Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Medies' idiotic hatting is this. The question asks whether the Guardian is Scandanavian, in the context of a youtube video of a talking head banging on about how bad the Grauniad is w.r.t. Israel. Analysis of the question necessarily involves discussion of whether or not the guardian is antisemitic and whether or not scandanvia is antisemitic. Medies, for some reason, sees this leg of the answer as "political". Well duh. Discussion of a political simile involves an unerstanding of whether both legs of that simile are sound or not. I'd be grateful if the hat could be moved to a more sensible place - such as hatting Bogs completely off topic contribution. Further, I invite Medeis to explain here exactly why discussion of whether the guardian and scandanavia share the same characteristics is not relevant to a discussion of whether the guardian is scandanavian. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Idiotic"? Well fuck you, tagishimon. I am not interested in your politics, and I did not invite you to debate politics, or hat others because of their politics, which is what started this policy violation in the first place. And if you or anyone else continues with politics I'll take it to ANI. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the simile is sound or not, it only matters whether it's correctly understood. Analysis of the question doesn't require establishing whether or not the newspaper or region is anti-semitic. V85's statement "whether such a perception is justified is, obviously, up for discussion" leads the analysis into more excitingly controversial territory than is necessary. It would have been better to say "whether such a perception is Pat Condell's is, obviously, in need of investigation", because that's what the question was: "what does Pat Condell mean". Somebody could find out what he has previously said about Scandinavia, and I expect that will reveal the answer. Card Zero (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Before taking anything to ANI you may want to review WP:BOOMERANG. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "hat" as there is significant opposition to it here. --Jayron32 13:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, lets get into a political debate, against policy, with one editor hatting another's political comments while posting his own. That's exactly how a reference desk is supposed to work, right? Bullshit. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"with one editor hatting another's political comments while posting his own" Hypocrisy much? (sorry, I'm too lazy to search for diffs, but I will if necessary).

But seriously, I think it's time either Medeis finds a hobby other than being the proclaimed drama queen of the refdesks, or someone should indeed take this whole shebang to ANI or whichever venue seems appropriate - I've been following the refdesks and their talk page mostly as a passive reader for the last couple of months, and the ratio of useful content vs drama caused by Medeis is getting ridiculous. Am I the only one who feels something needs to be done before Medeis ruins the refdesks for good? -- Ferkelparade π 23:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, let me be even more blunt: I am an (as of yet) uninvolved admin on Wikipedia. You (Medeis) have caused an unbelievable amount of unnecessary drama on the refdesks in the last couple of months, and I don't even want to start to count the number of valued refdesk editors your antics have driven away (myself included, for varying definitions of "valued refdesk editor"). The next time I see you hatting something for spurious reasons or creating drama for no good reason, I will block you for being a troll, consequences be damned. Seriously, I think it's overdue someone shows you the ropes here. You have been singlehandedly responsible for pretty much all of the drama on the refdesks in the last couple of months, and it's high time someone tells you to stop. Consider this your final warning. (I am fully aware that you have the chance to turn me from a mostly uninvolved admin into an involved admin by replying here and provoking me into a response, in which case I won't block you. But seriously. Take a step back and think about what you're doing here.) -- Ferkelparade π 00:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and I've been weighing similar action (though I'm further along the uninvolved-involved spectrum). I'd hoped that Medeis' "what the hell is going on?" moment earlier this month would prompt some self-modification of her activities here, but apparently it didn't. — Lomn 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you paid any attention here, Ferkelparade, Tagishimon started this by hatting Bugs' political comment as off topic. I simply expanded that hatting to include all the political comments on a linguistic question on the language ref desk as off topic. Tagishomon insisted that no, his own off topic answers were relevant but that other's comments should be hatted. I suggest there's not a single seriously considered comment above, yours especially. We've got an explicit policy against debate on the ref desk. But by all means, threaten me for wanting a language question I asked on the language desk to be limited to linguistic answers. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My question about adjective use for reference, and the five political comments that followed it, which I hatted as a whole as debate, after Tagishomon had hatted Bug's response as off topic

Well, I am definitely not looking for a discussion of the politics. My main concern is, how would one linguistically describe the difference between the adjectival uses here? One could interpret Scandinavian as merely an idiomatic modifier of intensity, as if Scandinavians were typically intense, as in "He always plays the car radio Scandinavianly intense; the volume cranked to 11." (Although I have never heard it used that way.) Or one could assume, which seems the consensus, that analogously he meant the Guardian's intensity on the issue was similar to the intensity of Scandinavians on the issue. How might one describe the two different ways the adjective is being used in these examples using linguistic terms? It reminds me of Zulu, which has a small closed class of real adjectives for size and color, and has to use what are more like stative verb phrases along the lines of which-is-Scandinavian elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't wan't to get into a political debate here, but your^{[clarification needed]} description of the situation for Jews in Sweden is nothing like how it is generllay perceived. It seems you have been watching a "documentary" or read an "article" that had no interest in fair or unbiased reporting. ~~The Guardian~~Condell is probably right in that there is comparatively strong anti-Israel sentiment in Sweden, though that doesn't automatically mean there's antisemitism, as the supporters of Israel always seem to want to imply./81.170.148.21 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What we have: Antisemitism in Sweden, Antisemitism in Norway. Not pretty reading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That kind of coatrack articles never are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How clever you are, 81.170.148.21. First stating that you don't wan't{ [sic] to get into a political debate, and then doing just that. I have now added several main-stream media sources to your 'citation needed' request; it seems pretty clear that the Jews who have been asked have experience what they themselves would term 'anti-Semitism'. The point here is that while 1 in 3 Jewish children are harassed for being Jewish, compared to only 5% of Muslims, 'islamophobia' receives a lot mot attention than anti-Semitism. V85 (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to "support" Hamas and/or Hizbollah when you don't have to live next door to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Medeis, you asked a question that made the discussion of the political situation necessary, since the way the term "Scandanavian" was used was loaded. That said, the comments after Saddhiyama's were fishing. Mingmingla (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between my saying someone is a troll and should be blocked or banned from wikipedia, and my saying that I am interested in linguistic answers to a linguistic question. Especially after I clarified the question as in the collapsed section above, editors should have refrained from offering political answers. Anyone who actually paid attention to the thread would see that a fight broke out between Tagishomon and Bugs, which they actually continued on their talk pages, with hatting and unhatting on the thread. That's debate. It has nothing to do with the fact that I asked a grammatical question about sentences that had political words in them. And to see that I am accused by an "admin" (!) of trolling because I want to shut down a political catfight on a language thread question about language makes me think that at wikipedia the word admin means "inmate". I trust you, Mingmingla. Should I regard myself as the troll here? μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should, because I agree with you here. That's what I was trying to say: this question was legit, but the likelihood of debate was high, given the circumstance of the usage of the term. All I'm saying is you shouldn't be surprised that it devolved so quickly. The reason you are being accused of trolling is that you do frequently close things that are occasionally not so much violations than in this case (where I agree with you). I refuse to take the harsh tone others have with you, since I can see where your coming from, even if I don't generally agree. Mingmingla (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical advice question removed

[9] --Jayron32 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good removal. I added a link from the Q to here. StuRat (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not asking for medical advice/diagnostic. Can I ask the following: "Can a ganglion cyst be found on the arm or forearm far from the wrist? can you provide pics or descrption of such cases?".

I do not provide any personal info and not asking about myself so there is no one to diagnose or to give him advise. Eleshow (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this line in your original post means it was a medical Q: "I've a small bump there (0.7cm) and it feels like a ganglion cyst, and looks like this in the ultrasound scan". So, we can't answer any subsequent Q about this topic either. StuRat (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you hadn't posted that last bit it could legitimately have been answered as a hypothetical request for information. As ever, the way to get around the rule is to depersonalize the request. --Viennese Waltz 05:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. If the OP's concerned, he should see a medical professional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the "damaged goods" school of Refdesk censorship. Our knowledge about the poster should be irrelevant - we should not discriminate against people with medical conditions. That should be as fundamental to us as not discriminating against posters by race, religion, or sexual orientation. I see no reason whatsoever not to answer "Can a ganglion cyst be found on the arm or forearm far from the wrist? can you provide photos or descriptions of such cases?" when this person asks it, any more than we should tag posters as "diabetic" and refuse to answer their questions about carbohydrate metabolism. Indeed, I would have answered the question anyway, except... I haven't figured out an effective way to search for an answer. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- The guy described his own condition and asked for advice on the subject. That's a request for medical advice. Your disdain for the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  - This faux distinction between medical advice and medical facts is ridiculous. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The free legal advice we've been getting on this thread is worth less than we've paid for it. Seriously, do we need to give medical advice to a person who wants to tell us whether he has a joint disease in the middle of his arm? Presuming to dispense medical advice with any sort of authority opens you up to civil liability. Wikipedia has to have such a policy, or it can easily find itself liable--google "free medical advice" if you doubt me. Or better yet, ask a real lawyer. (There's also the moral issue, not that any of us have morals.) We can safely point to references which speak with their own authority about general factual questions. Even then we must meet WP:MEDRS. Once again I have to say I am shocked how important it is to some people here to be able to offer medical advice, etc., under every possible circumstance. This lust to tell fools who want to seek medical advice from people who might be preteens or psychopaths how reword a question about their serious medical condition is perverse in the extreme. Start your own blog under your own "name". If you want patients get an effing medical degree and become a doctor and stop wasting your time playing one on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion of this policy has found that Wikipedia is already covered by a medical disclaimer and that the sole justification given for it is "ethical". Such "ethics" as are displayed at [10] depend solely on which side the bread is buttered on; doctors will cheerfully endorse practices that kill patients, spread disease, deny care, deny medication, and deny education as long as they increase the bottom line. Wikipedia has a right to cover biology, a right to cover medical conditions, and here on the Refdesk I have the right to solicit help in putting together a diagram for the article of what spots on the body frequently, occasionally, or never develop ganglion cysts, which I anticipate I'll be using shortly. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Lord. What are you doing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Once the new thematic organisation, Wikimedia Medicine, is up and running, we can commission some expert opinions on the legal liability of editors who publish dangerous medical misinformation. The next round of funding to chapters and thematic organisations gets disbursed in about a year, I think, but this is such a critical question that I hope they will find a way to fund that advice earlier than that. Personally, though, I think we should strictly limit all medical assertions on-wiki to those supported by MEDRS-compliant sources on moral grounds, regardless of the legal ramifications. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between "publishing dangerous medical misinformation" and freely citing interesting data from the published medical literature, or indeed, other interesting folklore from appropriately labelled sources. If someone wants to prosecute people for doing that, the appropriate response is jihad. Nor does Wikipedia need some as-to-be-yet-established outside organization to tell it what its general disclaimer means. That's a really basic part of Wikipedia operations. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, for the slow ones at the back of the class, would you explain this: "If someone wants to prosecute people for doing that, the appropriate response is jihad"? There is no meaning of "jihad" I know that would fit here. Contributions from others are also welcome. Bielle (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wnt has made it clear on many occasions that he hates medical professionals and also hates rules. He's entitled to that opinion. If he wants to start his own "free medical advice at your own risk" wiki, that's up to him. But he's not entitled to use his dislike of doctors and of rules, as justification for violating the "no medical advice" rule here. In this particular case, the guy said, "I think I have this condition." Any response to that question other than "see a professional" is a violation of the rules here. And dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a better response, which is to spend less time on this troll board playing Survivor. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

<Stares blankly and subtly points his finger at the door> --Jayron32 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a particularly sensitive topic because a quick perusal of PubMed will reveal that ganglion cysts are frequently confused with malignant tumors, especially when they are not immediately adjacent to a joint. Any response which does not consist of asking the questioner to see a doctor is quantitatively and qualitatively mistaken. —Cupco 03:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And if we didn't already have the question removed and the poster told to FOAD already, maybe you could provide that response. People want the questioner to be as ignorant as possible, then wash their hands of it when, in ignorance, he waits until it is too late to get help. The fact is, most of the important medical decisions happen before the tumor starts to hurt, before your blood sugar causes obvious health effects, at times when no normal person is going to go to a doctor and where he's not going to get any useful help even if he does go unless he knows exactly the right thing to mention. Which he won't unless somebody, somewhere has the cojones to give him some medical information. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to say "see a doctor because those are often confused with cancer" than just "see a doctor," but a map of where they are likely occur would be worse than either. —Cupco 05:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The only "cojones" needed are the ethics to tell the questioner to see a professional. Anyone who would accept medical advice from an anonymous body on the internet needs at least two kinds of doctors: one to review the physical symptoms; and the other to review the patient's sanity. If someone is asking for advice about some specific entity, why doesn't he just put it in the search box? I think the reason is that the user is actually looking for "comforting" advice, for someone to tell him that everything is going to be OK, rather than seeking a professional who might tell him some unpleasant and scary truth. Playing into that is highly unethical, and in the worse case could result in someone's death because they waited too long to see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Facade, garcon, cedillas, therefore, and therefor

OK, so I hatted this bit of palaver on the Language desk, because it was utterly unrelated to the foregoing, which was about the meanings of jail, gaol and prison, which then diverted to a sub-question about whether there any English words besides "gaol" and "margarine" where "ga" is pronounced like "ja". That sub-question was clearly related to the main topic. So far, so good.

What happened next was a complete break from any of that. Medeis wrote "Facade, like garcon is supposed to be spellt with a cedilla, we just don't bother anymores."

I did respond with a quote from an earlier question, but preceded it with a query as to the relevance of this new topic. My next foray into the thread was to again question the relevance to the topic at hand. That produced a sub-header, but it was stuck in mid-conversation, which by that time had diverted even further, away from cedillas on facade and garcon, to whether there's a "therefore" symbol on keyboards. This was not even a 9th cousin 5 times removed to the primary topic of the various meanings of jail, gaol and prison. So, I hatted the whole sub-thread, with the message "No evidence of any relevance to the question".

The hatting has now been removed, with the edit summary: "the section has its own head, people are entitled to ask followup questions"

Well, it doesn't have its own header. There's a header stuck in mid-conversation about "therefore" symbols. But I queried the relevance of cedillas on facade and garcon, and that's where any sub-header should have gone, because that's where the completely new topic was introduced. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how it was related to the primary topic.

Yes, people are entitled to ask follow-up questions, which is what Baseball Bugs's post was, which was answered. But the next post, from Medeis, was (a) not a question, (b) not at all related to the foregoing and therefore in no sense a "follow-up question".

Colour me befuddled. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

By way of a follow-up question, what do we think about follow-up questions? A follow-up from the OP Is one thing, but shouldn't regular responders usually open a new thread instead? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If this question were asked separately, it would be entirely unobjectionable on all grounds. It should stande as a subquestion, with a subhead, of the prior question, to maintain contexte. If there were really some problem with it on other grounds we'd have heard that, no? Evene if maintaining contexte were unimportante, the proper action would be separating the question, not hatting it. But separating it is not necessary in this case--unless perhapse the original questioner objects? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I am fairly certain there were two valid followup questions, (1) are there other words with soft c's and g's before the letter a, and (2) are there keyboards with a therefore sign? μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that your post about cedillas was not a question, I agree with your first sentence. But where is the contextual linkage to the existing topic? I have asked twice, and I'm now asking a third time. Where's the connection? Why was a comment on the dropping of cedillas at all relevant to jails, gaols and prisons, or the spelling thereof? What happened after that will never legitimate an irrelevant post. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Adde or change the header if it matters, or even move it to a separate threade. Just don't rehat it as if there were some sorte of unwarranted heated ideological debate or unlicensed medical advice going on. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But why does it deserve a separate thread? There was no new question asked. You just started abruptly talking about something that had nothing to do with what we had been talking about. Nothing. Not even vaguely related. Which is why I queried the relevance of your post right up front; and when no explanation was forthcoming, why I queried it again; and when still no explanation was forthcoming, why I hatted it; and when you unhatted it with a mystifying edit summary, why I brought it here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah Jack, you're getting(?) old and inflexible. Let your mind wander more, and follow unmapped paths taken by others. Anyway, I've just discovered that my spell checker (Chrome) doesn't like cliche. It insists that I change it to cliché. Isn't that amazing! HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that Henry VIII had 6 wives and that Beethoven went deaf? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, your comment "old and inflexible" strikes me as quite rude, but because it also strikes me as not your usual style, I ask for an explanation rather than a strikeout. Bielle (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am fairely certaine the proper worde to describe Hilo's commente is jocular, not rude. μηδείς (talk)

I wasn't offended, Bielle. I saw it as HiLo's subtle and gentle dig at Medeis's irrelevant and still-unexplained post about cedillas on a thread that had nothing to do with that subject. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack and I are both mature aged gentlemen living only a couple of hundred kilometres apart in the same part of the world. He is welcome to fire age related barbs at me if he feels it appropriate (and thinks he can score with them). HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your call, Jack. I am content. HiLo is off the hook. Bielle (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Jack above, "deserve a separate thread"? Seriously? That's bizarrely controlling and meta. There's no requirement that someone ask permission here before asking a question. I refuse even to entertain the notion that petitioners here have to prove they "deserve" to be able to ask a question that doesn't break the no medical/legal advice or debate rules. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't ask a question, and I have zero idea what the rest of what you just said is about. Again with the irrelevancies that completely avoid the issue at hand. Who is talking about anyone needing to ask permission before asking questions? Certainly not me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly going nowhere. I've added an appropriate header to the sub-thread in question. Done. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fête

[Fête]'s feast of questions is starting to get annoying. Most, if not all, of them can be answered with a simple Google or Wk search. Note: Fête got blocked in the French Wk. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, they're easy enough to answer. Yes, they could be answered using Google, but he's not asking the questions here in bad faith, so I don't see why we have to chastise him. People who are trying to find answers but unskilled in finding them other ways need some help the first few times. Once he learns how to use Google and Wikipedia properly to answer these questions, he'll ask fewer of them. --Jayron32 19:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlike recent questions asking how we might find out whether Protocols of Zion deniers are buying up Christian orphanages, I don't find his questions posed in bad faith. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I adjusted the volume of a couple of the sound files, and have been receiving requests to do several more on my talk page. I really haven't got the time now (more because uploading is a hassle than because the job itself is so time consuming). But with the amount of requests, he would be better off learning to do fairly elementary audio processing himself. Of couurse, if someone who happens to have more time on their hands would like to try, feel free - the links are on my userpage. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be moving posts here, especially without discussion and redirects. We don't have second class questions or editors. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hatting

I did some hatting at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Terri_Schiavo - someone requested as much, and I think it's obviously off-topic to the original question. If you want to discuss definitions of murder and so forth, at least give yourself a chance one of those philosophy/ethics geeks at the Humanities desk will drop a pile of hard-core sources on you. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You are hatting a two day old discussion because you view what is expressed as an unpopular viewpoint--it's reffed and reflected by Congress. I have no intention of continuing to add material. If you want some other discussion to continue you do that by adding material of your own, not censoring others. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Popularity of a moral standpoint is not relevant to my objection. Instead, your comment (start of hatted portion of discussion) sent a science-y discussion sharply into purely moral areas--out of scope for RD/S in general and definitely not helpful to a discussion of the question being asked--and you said as much when you edit-summarized that there was a "difference between legal and scientific judgment". As a long-time participant at the ref-desks, you should well recognize when a response is not contributing to a "good answer" to an OP's query. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to discourage you from discussing the Schiavo case. But please, respect the OP's wishes and try to settle the basics - what is life, and when did she lose it - not whether that is a good or bad thing. If you want to argue bioethics, I know the Schiavo case was a huge issue in those circles, and if you go to the Humanities desk you'll get some actual references about it. But right now, the hatted section is like you were arguing how long neurons can survive without glucose on the Humanities desk - just not the right place to get the best help. And not the help the OP asked for.

Incidentally, I'm not so against you on the Schiavo case. I remember back when she was alive (?), having a jpg of her brain scan and one of the brain scan of a man who walked into a doctor's office complaining about memory loss, and they both had the same hugely expanded ventricles. I have a fairly open mind about this stuff - I don't think you can just look and see, either way. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CLScam

I have closed this req: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Could_this_be_a_Craiglist_scam.3F It amounts to a solicitation of legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a request for legal advice to me. The OP wants to know if there is a way of making an apparent payment on PayPay. That's asking for information on how PayPal works, not the law. I'd re-instate the question. Bielle (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there that looks like a request for legal advice. It looks like somebody worried about being scammed, even the part about paypal, which is not central to answering it, is at most asking about paypal policy (which about 3 tangents later could start to involve legal stuff, I guess)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the hatting. If something arises to worry us, we can always put it back. Bielle (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Fraud' is a legal accusation of crime. We are not qualified to give advice on that. The OP has asked us to predict whether someone might commit fraud against him. How can we answer that without making predictions, which are forbidden, without giving legal advice, which is forbidden, and in an encyclopedic manner, rather than in reference to him as if we were his counselor. At this point the OP has asked nothing we can answer, and no encyclopedic reference has been offered to him. UI am going to rehat the matter. If people have general non-predictive non-legal advice they should feel free to add it outside the hatting. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, sometimes, in my less charitable moments, I believe you haunt the desks looking for ways to get Ref Deskers to rise to your bait. There was nothing in my response that was predictive or even vaguely suggested legal advice. You do need to stop jumping onto questions with your own, idiosyncratic interpretations and seek some consensus. To this point, no one agrees with you. Please remove the hat. Bielle (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is "Am I about to get ripped off? Does this smell like a known species of Craigslist scam?", not "Could this stranger be successfully prosecuted?". It's possible, at least in principle, to cheat someone without breaking the law. —Tamfang (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone other than Medeis thinks my response wanders into prediction or legal advice, speak up. The hatting is, in the view of everyone who has responded to it, unnecessary. I have provided a reference about shipping carefully. Please, Medeis, leave it alone. Bielle (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem that requires intervention at this point - agree with the unhatting. -- Scray (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I am disappointed that I have been accused of trolling here because I recognize that accusations of fraud are defamation per se. Especially by Bielle who knows I contribute a lot of good work to this project. There seems to be a total ignorance of policy and law here. Fine with me, I won't be sued for expressing my concern that we not defame third parties. Good chance WP won't be sued for this either, but google defamation national review mark steyn and see what comes up when such words are tossed about. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wickwack posting unreferenced, wrong replies to questions

I'm sorry I have to bring this up on the talk page. I tried to argue with Wickwack in the refdesk question "Cancer: cause and lack of cause" (science desk) because he is supplying unreferenced, clearly wrong statements about cancer. Either he is not getting my point, or he doesn't care. What is the apropriate behaviour? I would be very disappointed if the topic would stand there only with Wickwack's over-simplified, muddied replies, but if he doesn't stop and introduces more wrong concepts (biological design, genes as defects, to name a few), this really undermines the purpose of the refdesk, doesn't it? I know, I'm also missing references in my replies, but it's really hard to find references for such basic things as the non-existence of design or the differences between defects and genes. Another problem: He doesn't seem to have a functional user page, so I can't talk to him directly to sort out the problem. Any ideas? --TheMaster17 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly happy with the replies to the thread in general but felt I couldn't add sufficient reliably sourced info to help out. However without commenting on the main issue, I would note Wnt was the first person mention design. The term isn't ideal in a biological context since it can easily be misunderstood but I would note both Wnt and Wickwack seem to have tried to explain what they meant by it. In terms of problems communicating with Wickwack, they are entitled to use an IP/not register, their IP appears to be highly dynamic which does make problems communicating directly, I would suggest either post a note to one of their IP talk pages or to your own page and link to it from the thread, not ideal but communicating with IPs can sometimes be tricky. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I invited him now to my talk page, perhaps we can sort it out there. I did never want to imply that something is wrong with "only" using an IP-address, I just felt that a direct approach is more complicated by this and didn't know how to proceed. --TheMaster17 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

libelous remarks

Looie already redacted this nonsense. It was restored, and I have removed it. Accusations of bad business practices are defamation per se. Couching it in terms of "I heard" does not protect against legal action. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable removal. I question whether it's "libelous", but it appears to have no valid sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Do read defamation per se#defamation per se. The important thing that most people don't realize is that saying "allegedly" (or "someone else said") is not a legal defense against libel. I cannot find a good on-line source for this, but see http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=allegedly+libel&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ehow.com/about_4567679_libel.html μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In the US, libel is generally limited to statements about living persons, I don't think it could be libel per se. Reasonable removal anyway, as there was not likely to be any encyclopedic responses. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My only comment on this is to wonder whether we're competent to make such decisions. None of us is a lawyer, but even if we were, the law varies from place to place. Just as we don't make medical judgments about the matters our OPs bring to us but instead refer them to doctors, we should not be making legal judgments about the things our OPs, or anyone else, say. If statements made here offend against our own rules, policies and guidelines, then certainly we're justified in taking action. But if they do not, I doubt it's up to any of us to decide they're legally dubious and need to be redacted. A link to a WP article or some external source does not give us the right to play the prosecutor or judge, or indeed the saviour. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better link to the Q, prior to removal: [11]. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy requires that we err on the side of not defaming. Even ignoring that overriding policy, I don't think we really have anything of encyclopedic value to address with this question. (As I have said a dozen times before, does it possibly harm? Yes. Does it serve a good purpose? No.) Remember, the ref desk is supposed (however much fun we have with it) to serve encyclopedic, not chat or personal or internet purposes. And yes, American law is laxer than other law re defamation. But the project has apparently held itself to a higher standard. Frankly, morally, holding ourselves to a higher moral standard than US law doesn't bother me. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that this thread had little or no merit, I canot agree with defending its removal on the grounds of a "higher moral standard". To have moral standards is certainly laudable, but achieiving consensus for action on Wikipedia requires a more objective benchmark than personal morality. Specifically, the problem is that one person's moral standard is another person's censorship. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "morality" figures into it. There are endless jokes in pop culture about fast-food joints, so that's not really at issue. It's more about the "ethics", and also the practical issue of trying not to get wikipedia in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw this thread earlier on and agreed with Looie's redaction but decided there was no point trying to argue for a deletion once it was reversed. However we need to remember BLP specifically excludes corporations and says so. There is some gray area in cases where the distinction between individual and corporations or groups isn't clear, but as the policy mentions this is generally in cases where the group is a small set of readily identifiable individuals. You're welcome to take this to BLP/N if you disagree but I'm sure you'll find there's consensus accusing a large restaurant chain of dubious practices is not a BLP issue. Accusing specific persons in the large chain, e.g. the CEO or accusing a specific outlet of the large chain or dubious practices may be a BLP issue, but this wasn't done here. This doesn't of course mean it's acceptable to defame the organisation although bear in mind defamation laws vary greatly between country and that BLP actually is only minorly concerned with defamation (in that while we should never defame people, BLP aims for a higher standard then would normally result in defamation in many countries). I do agree with Gandalf et all here, I think we need some degree of better consensus and agreement how to go about it if we're going to apply 'higher moral standards'. Personally I actually feel accusing two courts of 'judicially murder' for their rulings in a specific case, when the identity of the justices involved (and their rulings) readily available along with effectively accusing another identified individual of being the instigator of this murder much more of a BLP issue and much more morally questionable (and suspect I'm not the only one) but it's apparent μηδείς does not agree so we already have a problem when applying such a standard. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read this before, but from Googling I suspect that the OP heard a somewhat garbled version of a current news story. Someone filed a lawsuit trying to force Taco Bell (not Del Taco) to not call their tacos "meat" because they say most of it was other components and so didn't meet the formal criteria for "beef".[12][13]. This isn't "recycled" meat, but I'm not quite sure what "recycled" meat is, since you don't give it back to them after you eat it. But Taco Bell pushed back, running ads that their meat is 88% ground beef, not the 35% the lawsuit alleged. [14] I haven't tried to come up with an opinion about it. Wnt (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize this is a dead conversation, Nil, but be aware there is an absolute guarantee of political free speech in America, with no restriction on criticisms of Supreme Court decisions as such. Quoting notable liberal and conservative writers calling the court decision judicial murder is in now ways problematic. Repeating unfounded criminal allegations against private parties is. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Judicial murder" is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. "Judicial murder" would be the lawful unlawful taking of life. That doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the murder of a judge? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Manual archiving

Okay, folks, I've archived all desks and debulked the pages to a week's Qs. If I get some more time in RL I'll create the indices, but please consider chipping in - this would be so much easier if more of you gave a hand. I've created rudimentary instructions here, feel free to improve them. -- Scray (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. StuRat (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many thanks (and to Steve Summit as well, or we'd have to do this all the time...). Matt Deres (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so, I can see that the archives up to the 20th are in there, but threads as far back as the 17th are still showing up on the desks with the result that we're showing ten days of threads. Can we simply delete that material since it's been archived? Or will that somehow break things since the archives are still transcluded? I will give a few hours for someone more knowledgeable than me at this stuff to comment (i.e. virtually everyone) and will then be BOLD and try it out. Matt Deres (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the others to help reduce load times. If I get a chance later, I'll try my hand at making up the new transcluded archives. Matt Deres (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've completed the archiving on all desks (and the talk page), though I haven't made up any indices. It's not that hard once you get a rhythm down, though I would hate to be trying this during the week rather than a Saturday afternoon; the edit conflicts would be maddening. I added some examples to Scray's useful page, in case the code-speak was unclear. If we all pitch in, we can keep things afloat until the bot gets fixed. Matt Deres (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've archived manually again. Doing a single day took me about twenty minutes, though it would have been less if I hadn't tripped up on the Computing Desk not having the 25th as a separate day. That's not too bad, though again, that's without indices. My time through the week is often unpredictable, but I'll try to keep up for the next week or so and see how it goes. If anyone is looking for a pain free way to help out, I would appreciate someone making sure that each day has its own date header, even if there's nothing for the day (as is usually the case in the Math wasteland). It should be done anyway, and it reduces confusion. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, so much for that. I will probably be without internet for a couple of days. I'll get back to archiving on the 1st of Nov. Matt Deres (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I picked up where you left off (nice work!) and have created archives of all RDs through 28 Oct. Now all anyone needs to do for the next few days is to trim a RD to one week's content is delete the earliest excess transclusion template(s). In a few days it'd be great if someone could archive again. -- Scray (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Brilliant! I wish I'd thought of pre-transcluding the other days; well done. It's probably not the best permanent course of action (I think people find it weird/scary to find themselves on an archived page when they hit "save"), but it's a nice workaround given the circumstances. I see we're up to nine days now, so I'll do some trimming. Matt Deres (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I pre-made the archives for November. By doing it for the whole month, it only required me to do some find/replace copy/paste. Is there a shortcut for all that boilerplate at the top? I just copied and pasted and changed the month links. Hopefully, there's nothing much else in there. :) Matt Deres (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The toil is over! See below. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith is an illusion

What is everyone's problem with this question? (Permalink). Professional physicists have discussed this very topic. Suggestions that the OP is suffering from some kind of mental health crisis for entertaining this idea is simply baffling to me. Slightly less baffling is the suggestion that the context of the question or perhaps the question itself is proof of trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I just assumed the OP was making up the part about alien abduction. His actual question is technically unanswerable, but there have certainly been published opinions about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't even think she might be talking about aliens. I thought she was saying she'd been kidnapped (by a human). Someguy1221 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be helpful if he elaborated, but I didn't think your conventional kidnapper would be likely to get into a discussion about parallel universes. An extraterrestrial might, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that the OP is female? Comploose (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistically speaking, it's the slightly safer assumption. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the question. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the preamble about an abduction detracts focus from the meat/point of the question. Questions with preambles are hardly unknown in these parts, but they're usually by way of important information that helps us understand the question when we finally get it. Talking about some unexplained abduction, hardly a common-or-garden event like a conversation in a pub on a Saturday afternoon, is guaranteed to divert our attention before we ever get anywhere near the question. And that makes me wonder what the OP's true motive in coming here at all was. All we needed to know was that the OP had a conversation with someone about this subject of the perception of time, and who, where, when or whatever else does not matter. But they made it matter by mentioning it first. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Alien abduction might be of help here. Some people indeed believe they were truly abducted by aliens. If that's the case, the OP would be acting in good faith, wouldn't he? Comploose (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not in the flippant, off-hand way he alluded to the abduction. It was written as if it happens to everyone, like puberty, and needed no further commentary. It had zero relevance to the rest of the post, so what was the point of mentioning it at all? The very fact we're talking about it back here proves it was attention-seeking behaviour. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like there are too many people here looking to put people down. We should assume good faith. We have people talking about the Fermi Paradox all the time, and one of the simpler answers is, the aliens choose to communicate with people only on a one-by-one catch-and-release basis, just as our own wildlife biologists communicate with most animal populations that they study. I don't really believe it, but let's be scientific - I don't know it's true or it's false, so why go out of my way to assume bad faith on the part of the poster, or try to make medical diagnoses which are very obviously outside my ability to make based on both my own personal competence and the limited data I have to work with? Let's just play the ball as it lies and see where it goes. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if we're to be scientific about it, we first of all don't assume it had anything to do with aliens. His question was prefaced by "Back when I was abducted". That's it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

True. But that doesn't change my preference for a good-faith response, which is why I didn't go into it. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The more common term would be "kidnapped". The term "abduction" in colloquial usage is more likely to refer to extraterrestrials. And I say again, how likely is that a garden-variety low-life kidnapper would suddenly launch into some deep philosophical discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And I say again that this issue is a complete red herring in the context of the actual point of the question. It seems to have been put there deliberately to get us off track and waste some time. And it has succeeded magnificently. I'm done. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't know what I typed, but when I auto corrected the misspelled words in my question my attempt for: "Back when I was at school..." was saved as abducted. Sorry for any troubles. I appreciate the relevant replies to the multiverse theory, especially the ones with links. I have a follow up, related question concerning Free Will that I would like to ask, but I don't want to cause any more problems. What should I do? 46.229.161.232 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just go ahead and ask someone. Worst that will happen is your question won't be answered. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Worst that will happen is he'll be referred to ANI for blocking as a liar and a troll. Why other editors who aren't his sockpuppet would want to encourage him is another thing. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you were at least able to assume I'm not his sockpuppet. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an honest mistake, very funny indeed. Just go on with your question. You could also create a user account.

PS: ignore μηδείς. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Automatic archiving returns!

After a too-long hiatus, the RD archiving bot is finally working again. Thanks for everyone's efforts doing manual archiving in the meantime. Details to follow. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! Matt Deres (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from this computer incompetent to you, Steve Summit, and to Double sharp, Matt Deres and Scray. Bielle (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What Bielle said. Thank you, archivers. - Ka renjc 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Further echoing the thanks. — Lomn 03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Awwesome. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Like --Jayron32 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

spam you might wanna delete

I have hatted this WP:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#I_don.27t_know_what_academic_major_I.27m_fit_for._So_I_have_a_solution._Is_this_the_right_solution_though.3F. Given it is spam disguised as a request for opinion it should probably be dleted outright. If anyone agrees they should do so with my blessing. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

People aren't allowed to ask for opinions on websites now? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What part of "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead" is above your pay grade? And do you seriously think this isn't just a way for the OP to spam the website? What reference is this guy asking for? μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are the one who started the "good faith" thread above. Never mind. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people shouldn't ask for opinions at all. But labelling this as spam is a fairly brutal approach. When a user blows in from nowhere, posts a bunch of details and links to a website/app and then asks a token question about it, it is probably spam. But when it is an editor who has been asking questions on the refdesk for a few months and has even created a completely unrelated stub article, then perhaps it is time to assume good faith. It is particularly adorable to think any one particular editor's "blessing" matters one whit. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This time I'm with Medeis; the "question" smells about as genuine as "Is it true that FooCo can lower my car insurance bill by as much as 22%?". —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, someone did just now post obvious spam that exactly matched my example criteria above, almost as if the criteria were mistaken for a how-to guide. I've removed it and I believe that this is the second time this particular spam has manifested itself here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Support the first removal. Good-faith but inappropriate request for opinion is just as valid a reason for hatting/removal as spam, whatever your view of the OP's motives. As for the second, somebody certainly wants to promote this app, whether it's a panacea for single women (last time) or autistic people (now). Let's hope they get the message this time. - Ka renjc 12:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Overzealous closing?

I think that hatting of WP:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#24 Hour Fitness - New York is a little over-zealous. The questioner asked where the information in a quote from the 24 Hour Fitness Wikipedia article came from. (note the whole second paragraph was a copy-paste from the article, which has since been removed by the first RefDesk responder) It was closed with the claim that the question was a request for opinions, and the comment "If there is a reference you need please ask for it." - granted, the original poster didn't use the word "reference" or "citation", but isn't "I’m trying to figure out where the information below was obtained" functionally equivalent? -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Urgh. This is standard behavior for Medeis. The OP was clearly asking for a reference. I have dehatted the discussion. It should not have been closed down. Medeis frequently closes discussions for spurious reasons, and yet again we have a bad closure. I urge her again to please stop. She has demonstrated repeatedly her lack of ability to make good judgement in this area, and yet she still continues to close down discussions for bad reasons. --Jayron32 00:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been (partially) re-hatted. Matt Deres (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussion

I have closed another attempt at a discussion on Palestine/Israel. Comments welcome, but after two of these questions, I can already hear the quacking. Matt Deres (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely some axegrinding going on here... Good closure. --Jayron32 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

<sigh>Agreed! </sigh> -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

5 days shelf life on this desk vs 7

All the other desks have shelf lives of 7 days before the question's section is archived. Maybe this should be moved back to 7 days.Curb Chain (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? --Jayron32 01:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain just said why: consistency with other desks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Let me elaborate. Why do we need to be consistent with other desks? --Jayron32 02:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not even why, but what? What is being proposed? Can we have some full explicit premises here before we get to complaining about the entirely unclear conclusions? Please? μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. Curb chain is asking that we change the rate at which we archive questions on some of the reference desks. He has found that some of the reference desks leave questions up for 7 days, and others as few as 5. He is asking to make all desks archive at 7 days. I am asking why there is a need to be consistent. Jack also asked for a clarification of my question in there too. Does that catch you up to the current state of affairs? --Jayron32 02:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense than thinking the OP wanted to change them from 7 days to 7 days because other unspecified desks (perhaps the help desk?) have 5. Apparently the OP didn't realize that this talk desk serves all the various ref desks when he referred to changing the settings of "this" desk. But I see that at least one desk currently has 6 days of listings. Well, in any case, I am in favor of 10 days for all desks. I've seen good answers take a while to get posted and people miss answers because they get archived to quickly after they are posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the recent archiving problems have clearly established that 10 days for some of the desks ends up with pages that are way too long. It's no use trying to stop people missing answers by leaving questions on for longer if people end up missing all answers completely and perhaps never even post a question because the desks get too long. People who leave answers when a discussion is no longer showing up on the RD are free to leave a message to the OP if they feel it is necessary. There's a fair chance most people who are checking the desks regularly enough for it to make a difference will know how to use the archives. And many of those who don't know how to use the archives will never be back. So even if the archiving time is longer they're still not likely to see the answers, so notification may be wise if people feel their answers are that important regardless. (Really the biggest problem is perhaps those with limited experience but who don't check back often even after asking, so they ask a question and come back in 9 days or something and can't find their question any more.) Note that because of the way the bot operates (generally once a day), under normal conditions there is likely to be about a day variance in the number of days so if some desks are 5 days then they will have 5-6 days of questions. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to gear archiving to how recently a thread has had activity? For example, archive all threads after five days except those with activity in the last 24 hours? μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's how the talk page is archived, so I assume it's possible. To be honest, I wouldn't be a fan of having that on the desks. My concern there is that question threads which have degenerated into conversations would constantly remain in view. Under the current system, we have a few days to diverge onto endless tangents and then we're cut off; the system you propose would remove the "cut off". If a thread legitimately is still producing fruitful replies after five or seven days, a "new" question can always be asked, though I question how often that has ever happened. Matt Deres (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done it a few times and seen it done a few times. I have also had to message people to let them know an answer was finally posted but archived before they could see it. My dream setup would be threads last for seven days, but if they have been active in the last 24 hours they last up to 10 days, at which point they are archived no matter what. Have no idea how difficult that would be. It would help save some of the late bloomers but also prevent endless debates. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed them all to 7 d so you can see how they look this way. Those which were originally had less than 7 d (e.g. Science) look very full, whereas those that originally did have 7 d (e.g. Mathematics) don't, so I can see the rationale for making things inconsistent. The problem may be that people who see questions up from 7 days ago on another desk may start wondering why their question was apparently "deleted" after 7 days on, for example, the science reference desk. Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the templates should be changed to specify that questions will be archived after seven days where it says that users should check back because it may take a few days to get an answer? μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"How segregated is Iraq and Israel?"

I don't think the question in the header, elucidated in the main question text, is asking for opinion or how-to advice, but is asking an interesting question about whether the different communities in those countries stay apart or not. --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the hat. This falls under the classification of "Questions that make Medeis uncomfortable so she hats without regard for any standing policy to hat it". It happens once a week or so. Sort of an expected event at this point. --Jayron32 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly fair to say that anything at all makes me uncomfortable except for extreme heights. I hatted (not deleted) the discussion based on its utter lack of encyclopedic sources--and I note none have been provided. I have also not unhatted the busllsh!t, given tow editors have disagreed with me, regardless of the total lack of relevant content. Have fun with the tarbaby. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal

Here. I submit to criticism if consensus is against the removal. Apologies to BBugs who asked an appropriate question in reply. -- Scray (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Good call. --Jayron32 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. I still haven't the vaguest idea what the OP is trying to ask, but it has the ring of a medical question (or maybe pseudo-medical), and we're not supposed to be doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the point was probably that, although the word chemotherapy is used primarily these days to denote the treatment of cancer by drugs, the word also has a broader definition which denotes the treatment of any disease by the use of chemical substances. By the broader definition, treating a streptococcal infection with amoxicillin is chemotherapy. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that in the OP's comments? If you understand it, maybe you could give us an English translation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As the original comments were not terribly coherent, it's more a matter of intuition than anything else. If someone asks what "other" diseases are treated with chemotherapy, he is possibly asking about what "other" drugs are called chemotherapy. - Nunh-huh 23:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What're you all talking about? I did not touch the "chemotherapy" post. Check the diff link ("Here" above) again (it was about OBL and homeopathy). BTW, we often use the term "chemotherapy" when talking about treatment of infections (i.e., antibacterial chemotherapy) to distinguish from drainage of pus, for example. -- Scray (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Silly me. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. The OP in that link never mentioned chemotherapy. He was talking about homeopathy and Osama bin Laden swimming in the ocean, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear the OP is trying to say that if we accept homeopathy, the dumping of Osama bin Laden's ashes in the ocean means it has been contaminated and going to make (some) people who contact the ocean become terrorists. I don't know if the OP is being serious or just having a dig at homeopathy supports but I agree with the removal. For starters, since homeopathy is not a science, the question doesn't belong in the science desk even if it were a legitimate question (as the science answer is homeopathy is nonsense so nothing like that will happen). More importantly the OP doesn't even seem to have taken a basic read of the homeopathy article. Anyone reading it will know even if homeopathy supporters feel the water memory of Osama bin Laden in the ocean is going to have an effect (which I find unlikely, my understanding of homeopathy is poor and of course as with most pseudoscience it's not likely to be particularly consistent but I don't think someone's body is the sort of thing alleged to have an effect and particularly based on what sort of person they were), it would be to reduce the likelihood of people becoming terrorists not increase it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for translating. Most likely an attempt at humor - poorly constructed, but a funny idea. I'd give him an E for Effort. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I understood all of that. Didn't choose to honor it with bandwidth. -- Scray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Maybe astute + abstruse = obtuse. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We should create a RD/Joke questions. Comploose (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. It could start with questions trying to link OBL's remains with homeopathy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comploose: your "joke" was neither funny nor appropriate. Please don't abuse the RD by asking questions that you don't really want answered. -- Scray (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Maths Desk

I would like you to note that there are not enough questions on the maths desk. Can you remedy this? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How many are enough, and why?

—Wavelength (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you have us do? Point guns at the heads of random strangers and threaten to kill them unless they go online and ask a question on the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Change it to Math and Sports Statistics? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Math and Homework? hydnjo (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Math and Free Porn. --Jayron32 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A Google search for math porn yields over 11 million hits. Ah, Rule 34... Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Only 1,550,000 for a verbatim search. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Still about 1,449,999 too many if you ask me. But whatever fills your sails... --Jayron32 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So, you think 100,001 is just about right, Jayron?

Okay, I have the definitive suggestion. Mathematics and who blindly supports Israel? Or can we at least start a separate Palestine, The Jews, and who's eviller? desk? μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You might consider merging math and computing - after all, literally, to compute is to sum numbers. Wnt (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To compute is more nuanced than just summation, at least in today's lexicon. Very little on the computing desk is math (or summation) related. I'll stick with Math & Homework. A place where OPs needn't disguise their questions and we can supplement their effort to learn or else chase the rascals back for an earnest attempt on their own. hydnjo (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't seriously suggest they're the same, but there should be some people who know both - they seem closer than, say, law and literature. Wnt (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I just need you to advertise it a bit better and try to gain the trust of other people 92.0.110.196 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? And again, how many are enough? --Onorem ♠Dil 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A minimum of 1 question per day, and please use adverts for it 92.0.110.196 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Advertise where? And how do we force people to ask at least a question a day? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need us to do this? As long as any questions you might ask get answered, why does it bother you if there are not as many other people asking questions as you might expect or like? Why do you care? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am just concerned that the maths desk may be forgotten and may have to close down due to lack of demand 92.0.110.196 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Advertise it on the home page 92.0.110.196 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would it have to close down? You make no sense. If people have math questions, the desk is here. If they don't, the desk is still here. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If no one asks questions, will our pay get cut? -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are fewer than 1 questions a day, your pay will be reduced by 46% and/or your firstborn. There is a deductible if you go with firstborn. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians do not get paid. I believe that saving server space is essential. Therefore, any unused stuffs should be deleted. The maths desk is heavily underused, so maybe it is time to let it go. Also note that an advert for the maths desk can be inserted onto the front page and other places. 92.0.110.196 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not our concern, and not a reason to 'close down' the page. Also no to front page advert. There is nothing special about this page to warrant that. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A page that is not used does not consume progressively mere space simply by sitting there, and deleting a page does not save space (as you probably know, page-histories are still available and even deleted pages can be undeleted). DMacks (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly merge with computing or science? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Now for a serious response: I feel the {{dyoh}} template is a bit unfriendly. It should emphasize that we are glad to help with homework, provided they show us their work so far. Also, I've noticed that people with basic math questions (including homework) are sometimes mistreated at the Math Desk, by people who find such simple math beneath them. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Should the maths desk and other desks merge into one super desk? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

People think the math desk is under-used? As for me, I have been stunned that there are so many math questions being asked. I did not think so many people would be interested in math issues to the extent that they occasionally needed the help of a reference desk.How is it there are that many math people with interesting questions? (Apologies to the OP for using the American-style "math" instead of "maths" but it is what I say.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible for all the desks to become one super desk? Should the maths desk be simplified a bit? I don't understand half of the questions? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm going to assume good faith and suppose that you are merely extremely confused. Your posts in this thread give the impression that you think the questions on the desks are somehow generated by Wikipedia for your education. That's completely false. The questions you see on the desks are just whatever folks like you and me decide to ask; there's no mechanism for anyone to simplify the questions for you, nor is there any need. If you don't understand the question because it's something you're not knowledgeable in, just ignore it - or, better yet, check out the replies and see if you can improve your knowledge. As for the "super desk", that's what we had here originally, but it was broken down into separate, smaller, desks to promote ease of reading and quicker load times. There is no need - at all - to reconstitute the old style single desk. If you want to see what that might look like, however, you can check this page out. Matt Deres (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Background information: Before July 20th, 2006, computer science questions were supposed to be asked on the maths desk, see here. Computing was split off because computing questions tended to be asked all over the place. Discussion here. --NorwegianBlue^talk 14:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So, could the maths desk be advertised on the main page of this site. If not, then why not? Where else could an advert be posted? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not going to be advertised anywhere. Please drop it. Matt Deres (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Even to you non-pilgrims

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You missed by a month, but I appreciate the sentiment. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. Mingmingla (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My snotty comment was in jest, BTW. I really do appreciate the sentiment. Mingmingla (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Canada has to hold their T-day a month earlier, because by now the entire country is, as usual, covered by glaciers, and the frenzy of curling season dominates the headlines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ever wonder why Canada is so clean? In Canada, sweeping is a sport. Mingmingla (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, happy belated. Hope you had pecan pie. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish! I love Pecan Pie, but my dad is allergic so we couldn't have it around. Mingmingla (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well then, I certainly understand why you can't have your dad around any more, but calling him "it" is a bit rude. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bummer! It's too bad he couldn't have been allergic to rutabagas or something. No, it had to be pecan pie. :( So, what specific ingredient is he allergic to? The pecans themselves? Or something else? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pecans, allegedly. Mingmingla (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Shame, that's one of those imperialistic american exports that should be forced on everyone. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yum. Yes please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And Happy Friday! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hundreds of arrests, and an earthquake was triggered shortly after midnight in NJ (although that may have been related to the Stephen King novel), but fewer than a dozen dead at this point. μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop being so fucking selfish, and start letting us Scots celebrate thanksgiving!92.0.110.196 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to, so long as you are prepared for the earth-shattering chaos that starts the following midnight. We in America could do with a boxing day in exchange. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "Black Friday" often does turn into a boxing day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with Scotland? Why can't we do Thanksgiving or St Patrick's day? We, as a country, just want to have fun 92.0.110.196 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What's stopping you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, you get all the fun two months from now. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Of the parents of all the people I went to high school with, The Daly's (Dalies?)--Mr and Mrs Daly--were the funnest ever, she from Glasgow and he from Edinburra. Watch So I Married an Axe-Murderer if you want to see a molecularly accurate impression of them. Such fun! μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your query, surnames are pluralised by adding -s (or -es for names that already end in -s or -z or -ch or -sh or -x or -ć or -č or -ś or -š or -ż or -ž or anything pronounced like that; unless they're silent, in which case revert to -s), and no apostrophe. Never convert -y or -ey into -ies.

So, Daly --> Dalys; Casey --> Caseys; Bliss --> Blisses; Jones --> Joneses; Andrews --> Andrewses; Obama --> Obamas

Foveaux --> Foveauxs, because the -x is silent; if it were sounded, the plural would be Foveauxes

Slavic -ic names add -s if -ic is pronounced like -ik (Bernard Tomic's parents are the Tomics), but -es if -ic is pronounced like -ich (Radovan Karadžić's parents were the Karadžićes)

Chao --> Chaos; Kudo --> Kudos; Medei --> Medeis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Plese STOP this discussion about surnames, it is off- topic!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.110.196 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 November 2012‎

Didn't you read the flag right above saying that this section has permission to stray from the topic? μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't have to, as he's the one who posted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There would have to be a discernible topic before something could be declared off it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if the plural of Daly is Dalys, wouldn't it then be pronounced "dales" according to the prior discussion? μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Who's "playing the sophomore par excellence" now? No, those weird pronunciations apply only to the singulars, which extends to the singular components of the plurals of those singulars. Pepys = "peeps"; the plural Pepyses = "peepses". Simply adding the plural marker -s or -es does not change the core pronunciation of any English word I know of. (Except house ("hows") --> houses ("howzəz" etc.)-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the rules I was taught, words ending in "y" (but not "-ey") are pluralized "-ies". I am not satisfied either way, which tempts me to the barbarous "Daly's", or as you smartly suggest, the "Dalyses". I should see them at Christmas, so I'll ask. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Those rules don't apply to surnames. Have you ever seen a reference to "the Kennedies", or "the Kennedy's"? If you have, you'd have been reading the scribblings of an illiterate. I never said the plural of Daly is "Dalyses". If there were such a surname as Dalys, the plural would be Dalyses. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your second warning, if you do not stop being off-topic, then I will have to alert the admins. 92.0.110.196 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What warning? That's the second time you have said we may stray from the topic. Or is that how Scots have fun? μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The original topic was Thanksgiving. It somehow changed to surnames without advance warning. 92.0.110.196 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

By what method should advance warning be provided? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid this is my fault. While I was originally typing "Happy Thanksgiving", I was mouthing "Now, how does one pluralize the surname Daly?" I do that alot. μηδείς (talk)

*(off-topicity, stupidity, pedantry, inanity, and general nuisance warning)*. Did you see Hanuman's footprints while you were there. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This sure got weird in a hurry. Mingmingla (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you telling me that's the first time you've come acrost alot, Sluzzelein? Wait til you see some of my other favorites. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's how I used to often spell it along with "sofar", and occasionally still do. Then I once looked up both, and am now able to remember (most of the time) that they're spelled separately. Now, thanks to you, I learned something new, though I guess I'm sticking to "so far" instead of "sofar". (I did post a stupidity warning :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say that I care about this alot. Ferkelparade π 02:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this ([15]) certainly counts as the funniest thing I have seen this moth, and becuase of that, Ferkelparade, you will suffer a ref-desk best marquis. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Geography Section - Reference Desk

There should be a "Geography section" added to the Reference desk if it hasn't been. So then people could ask question related to geography --RossSLynch (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping them from asking now. They might wonder where to put it, but that's why we have a "Miscellaneous" desk. What you could do, though, is to go through the archives and see how many geography questions have been asked in, say, the last 3 months, compared with the total number of questions asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping people from asking such questions now at, say, the science or miscellaneous desks. But, although it is perhaps one of my favorite Jeopardy! categories, it generates very few questions. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a geography question, you can ask it at Humanities, Miscellaneous, or Science and I don't think anyone would raise a credible objection. The desk titles are not supposed to prevent you from asking good faith questions of any sort. --Jayron32 17:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Questions dealing with exploration or political boundaries, like where the most nations converge at a single point, would go to Humanities, while questions dealing with natural features, like the saltiest lake in the world, belong on the Science Desk. A question on use of a GPS device for navigation might go to the Computer Desk, while Q's involving the projection of maps go to the Math Desk. We could even get the Entertainment Desk involved, say for a Q on the game "Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego ?". StuRat (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And here I was thinking Math and Geography as a solution to the previous problem. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Although there are some connections, Geography is not really Geometry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times, in fact I'm surprised not to find it listed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/How to create a new reference desk. Maybe someone would like to add links to the various discussions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, none of our current desks is swamped, and a dedicated geography desk wouldn't likely attract a huge amount of traffic. So it's fine to ask the question wherever it is deemed most appropriate. Again, there is still no problem in asking a good faith question on Geography in any desk the asker things will get them the best answer. --Jayron32 04:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Begging to differ in part: if none of the desks "is swamped" why am I always looking over my shoulder at the relentless (Poe- or broom-like) advance of the archive 'bot burying my carefully-considered, painfully-sourced and/or ponderously-composed answers, or the question I was just belatedly researching, or truncating slow but still active unfinished discussions, or else causing mysterious edit conflicts in mid-edit? ¶ As for categories, one could do worse than look at the ones at Sporcle. The Ref Desk is certainly not a quiz or trivia game, but if we and the questioners had no fondness at all for trivia, the desk would be a far less productive and informative resource, as well as too dull to attract interest. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As Sturat says, there are different kinds of geography: political geography comes under humanities and physical geography comes under science.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And it still doesn't matter, people should ask the question where they think it stands the best chance of getting them the answer they are looking for. --Jayron32 14:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

problem with searching archives

I used the search archive function at the top of the lang ref desk and looked for "yan tan" and "sheep counting" expecting to fin this link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_November_19#Non_PIE_forms_of_sheep_counting but it came up neither time as a result. This seems to be a glitch. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions about problems with the search function are best directed at WP:VPT or WP:Help Desk depending on the type of question or if you have enough info, file a bug report via bugzilla, as the search function is wikipedia wide and baring a glitch in the set up of the search box, there's little we can do about it. In this particular case, I'm pretty sure the problem is simply that the index has not updated recently. Per Help:Searching#Delay in updating the search index, the search index should update about every day, and if it's more then 2 days since an update this is likely a problem worth reporting. The archive page has existed since 24 November so it's probably been more then 2 days. However a quick look finds Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 140#Search list not updating it's already been reported albeit with no comments yet. (Although I'm a bit surprised the search engine doesn't find the main RD page if it was last updated 22 November.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops I just remembered my comment above was a bit stupid, the search archive function only searches the archives by design so will not find stuff in the main RD. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've searched it again, and it's comed up, so don't worry. There seems just to be some sorta lag period. I can deal with that (although others may be confused). μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes per the discussion in VPT the index updated about 2 days or so. The lag shouldn't normally be so high at most about 2 days which means it should generally be found by the time the discussion has disappeared from the main RD page it was on. However it's not clear from the VPT discussion why the index suddenly took so long to update or if the problem was fixed or it just updated again for some reason. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

request for proof independent countries are independent because they've not voted in favor of palestinian observership

I've closed this again: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#With_all_the_due_respect.2C_can_we_say_that_these_countries_are_not_completely_independent.3F. A "question" that begins with "with all due respect" and asks for proof of good faith from nations that have supported Israel is a request for opinion and debate and nothing else. Please don't reopen it without consensus. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with the closing, though I think the replies did a good job of answering the objective portion of the question. Matt Deres (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The same question could be asked about countries that DID vote in favor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Either your reading comprehension is lacking, or mine is. Where is the question asking for a "proof of good faith"? It's asking a legitimate question about the independence of certain small UN member states, triggered by the fact that they voted a small minority position that was, however, advocated by a power that has major influence in these countries. And the answers are generally useful, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That kind of US-bashing question needs to be countered with a question of why so many other nations fell in line behind that terrorist base like little green tin soldiers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ask such a question yourself. Also feel free to not complain when it's immediately hatted. Getting into such rhetoric back here is just as inappropriate as doing it out there. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did raise that issue. And in any case, closing it was just fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Neptunekh94 removing questions

Can someone tell the user that it's not OK to replace answered questions with completely new questions, or to remove them at all? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be in good fiath, I have tried to explain and have restored both neptune's new question and the previous answer. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, I said good fiath. I didn't mean to. But I typed it, and it stands. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This thread isn't about me, and I can't imagine why you'd go off track to make it about me. Thanks for your restoration anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Neptunekh__ users have been known to ask questions that indeed seem to emanate from the outer solar system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are they the planet colour guy? Some of the behaviour seems quite similar. Though, to be fair, there have been a few users with similar behaviour and I have no specific reason to think they're all the same person, so it well be coincidental. Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying there have been multiple Neptunekh__ users. I don't know that any of them are blocked. My guess is that the user forgets their password and creates a new user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I knew about the multiple Neptunekh accounts, I was referring to this user's habits of continuing questions on individual talk pages in a particular way that struck a memory with me. The planet colour guy started that way and ISTR another account that was obsessed with certain animation programs and voice actors/actresses that did the same. Matt Deres (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It does sound familiar, maybe from some time back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Nintendo questions person, too, but that's just speculation. Mingmingla (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have some doubts the Neptukekh is the same person as planet colour guy. AFAIK, planet colour guy was linked to Freewayguy. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 63#Planet colour guy. There was some evidence based on questions asked and IPs that they lived in or had a strong connection to the US [16]. Based on questions and comments Neptunekh seems to live in Canada or at least has a strong connection to there. While it's not impossible both are true, it seems strange someone would change from one to the other particularly since IIRC Planet colour guy never made much attempt to hide who they were under multiple aliases. Also I can't remember Planetcolourguy being particularly interested in actors etc. Neptukekh does remind me more of the seccond person Matt Deres mentioned who is the person who claimed to be blind and that their 'friend' was 'hacking' their connection. IIRC and a quick check at the history Special:Contributions/204.112.104.172 Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 79#WordGirl/Justin Bieber concurs with what Matt Deres said, that they had an interest in voice actors and appeared to be from Canada and had a habit of asking questions on the users talk page. However Neptunekh has been on wikipedia since before that editor was blocked and their interests even far back don't really seem that similar, Neptukekh's interest seem a fair amount more mature. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Neptunekh, User:Neptunekh2, User:Neptunekh94 are either the same person or someone pretending to be the same person (British Canadian, autographs, NeptunekhXX name). OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much a given. And although they haven't declared these as alternate accounts, which is a rule violation, it's about as obvious as the nose on its face. Weird character, but not necessarily blockable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, per the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (and a quick read confirms with my understanding), linking alternative accounts isn't required just strongly encouraged. In other words, provided you aren't doing something with the alternative accounts that is in violating with policy, failing to link them isn't going to get you blocked i.e. it can't be called a 'rule violation'. Failing to link accounts can cause problems when your edits come under scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If so, then there's no known problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you figure that multiple questions of rather intricate detail that might be better suited to a specialist forum for autograph hunters is a problem. Dismas|^(talk) 13:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference Desk Etiquette

Is there any appropriate method that I can use to promote one of my old threads to today's section so that someone else besides the person who originally tried but failed to help me can attempt to resolve my original inquiry?

BCG999 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be no problem as such, just restate the question and provide a link to the old one. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree -- did you look at that question? If BCG999 can restate the question clearly in no more than one or two paragraphs, go ahead and try again. Otherwise there is no point in cluttering up the desk with a restatement of a question that nobody can understand. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't about to go searching for what post the OP was referring to, which is why I said "no problem as such". Of course certain questions are themselves problematic. I also took the OP's comment of an "old thread" to mean one that had been archived, which is why I said provide a link. If it's still live it shouldn't be reposted. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if a thread is still on the RD, there's no acceptance of any need to 'promote' it. If no one has successfully answered, there's a good chance promoting is not going to make much difference. If you wich to clarify some aspect, clarifying it in situ is usually acceptable. Reasking may sometimes also be okay, particularly in TLDR situations provided your new version is sufficiently better and you mention the previous question. Similarly, even once a question has left the RD, if it's just recent posting it again without significant changes is often frowned upon. If you need to clarify or reword it, asking it again would generally be acceptable (while linking to the older question) because there's a fair chance it may no longer be see. If it's been several weeks or months, it may be okay if you link to the previous question, to ask it again even without rewording but if you find you need to do this more then once it's likely time to give up. Similarly if you often find yourself wanting to reask your questions after several weeks or months you likely need to consider whether your actually likely to get a better answer. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

six days only?

I notice the miscellaneous desk is archiving rather quickly, with only six days active at this point and hardly that many questions. I thought we were going to go to seven days for all desks? Given I cannot change this myself, can someone either lengthen the age-til-archiving or explain why it's a problem? Thanks. (And I do appreciate the work involved!) μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I just yesterday and today independently asked the following at User talk:Ummit, who is in charge of the bot:

The math reference desk for 28 November was archived on 01:16, 2 December 2012 while discussions of 28 November threads were still going on. That caused the most recent edits to not show up in the reference desk's history. This was way too soon to be archiving. Please reset the bot for a lag of at least a week. Thanks.

and

What I don't understand is why the things that have been archived remain on the unarchived page for a few more days. (I don't know anything about computer site management, so I apologize if I'm asking about something that should be obvious to me.) But it seems to me that load time of the refdesk page is not going to be held down by archiving something while leaving it on the refdesk page. For example, right now the November archives for the math desk go through Nov. 29, yet November 27, 28, and 29 are still on the math refdesk. And when somebody posts something on a Nov. 28 thread, the post shows up on both the Nov. 28 section of the refdesk and the Nov. 28 section of the archives, but does not show up in the "history" section of changes to the refdesk. So someone like me who checks the history section for recent changes is misled into thinking that no recent changes have been made to a Nov. 28 thread of interest.

You can see his replies on his talk page. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, there are sort of two questions here:

What's the right size/date range to keep each desk archived to, and
What are the reasons (if any) for leaving an archived page transcluded onto the main page for a few days?

(I wasn't sure I knew the answer to (2), but now I might be remembering: while an archived-but-transcluded day doesn't help with the load time of the page while viewing, it does help with the load time while editing.)

For reference, the current archiving intervals were set down after this talk page debate, with also this later followup. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the suggestions made in that discussion about archiving intervals was that a date could be archived 3, or 4, days after it has last been edited. If technically feasible, I think that's a good idea. Otherwise, once a date has been archived and transcluded, the refdesk's edit history doesn't show when someone has just edited an ongoing discussion. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Steve, is it technically feasible to archive a date's refdesk section after 4 days but no earlier than 3 days after the last post to any of the threads on that date's section? Duoduoduo (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Not with the current RD-archiving bot.

One bot that does work that way is MiszaBot (a widely-used bot that archives, among other things, this talk page). —Steve Summit (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)