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.
There have been (at least) two recent threads ("Japan Revenge and World Domination" and "World trade") which seem a bit open-ended and "forum-style" conversations. Obviously there is a trade-off in that regard with most Reference Desk questions, but since these ones are on particularly political questions I wanted to know what people think would be the best way to handle them. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the poster's talk page? Looks like a call to spar debate to me. I guess you can direct them to the "not a soapbox" cite at the welcome box (then put your fingers in your ears). Julia Rossi (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Permanent links to the current threads on Japan Revenge and World Domination and on "World trade". My personal view too is that we shouldn't be encouraging questions that are loaded or seek debate.
And yet, in general there are acceptable ways to handle these questions without removing them. One way is to focus on the "referenceable" part (for example: socio-psychological studies on Japanese perception and public discourse of WW II, or an essay by Japanese author such and such ... literature sometimes has more succinct answers to offer than science ...). Alternatively, if you're familiar enough with the topic, (i.e. someone who knows what they're talking about, and there are such editors), it can also be be helpful and edifying to address the question directly, false premise and all, and give an well-rounded and informed but not necessarily page-referenced answer. What isn't that great (again in my opinion), is when people start opining and speculating with only a very superficial grasp of the matter. Still, I don't think these questions should be removed (not that I'm implying you suggested otherwise). ---Sluzzelintalk12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I posted a response at the "World trade" thread which hopefully stops a rambling debate usefully while not pre-empting a transformation into a legitimate question-and-answer thread. I'm not big on American politics, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to answer a specific question, but I'll defer to greater expertise if I get over my head as User:Sluzzelin comments. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Asking for clarification is never bad. I've often misunderstood good-faith questions the first time around, and annoying soap-boxers are swiftly revealed when obliged to specify their question. But I admit I still don't understand the World Trade question, even with its first clarification. ---Sluzzelintalk12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think that we should tolerate questions that ask for the answerers' opinions. However, questions that ask for notable opinions are acceptable, imo. So "What opinions do major economists have regarding whether US interest rates will change?" is okay but "What do you think . . . ?" is not. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Many times questions are phrased that way that don't require an opinion, like "What do you think the largest bone in the human body is ?". StuRat (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add to the guidelines to the top of the computing reference desk page. It would say that if someone provides a solution to a question you ask, you should let them know whether it works and thank them if it does. I've found it frustrating when an original poster fails to reply. It feels like you wasted your time. You also worry that they may not have even read your solution. I've noticed that the responses on this forum are more detailed and accurate than on other forums, so the OPs need to say thanks.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) [banned user Primetime]
Well, I don't think we can force people to thank us, but certainly saying whether the problem is resolved or not would be extremely helpful (on most of the Reference Desks, in fact). --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖12:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In an ideal world, yes. Usually it looks resolved, and sometimes the poster makes an effort to let the deskers know if it isn't. Otherwise I don't expect to find thanks it's just a bonus when someone says they're helped/pleased. My pov, but mostly wikidesks are about putting stuff forward rather than much to and fro-ing along the way chat fashion, tempting though it is when you're chillaxin. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a template that does that {{resolved}} - and I agree that sometimes it's annoying when they questioners give no indication that they have received a response that satifies them/does not satify them87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
HInhbIsIcho, you can always request feedback either in your reply or on the querent's talk page, but I think the expression of gratitude is best left up to the individual editors, not to be dictated by the volunteers. As JR perhaps implies, if everyone posted a thank you for every answer, there would be a lot more polite but slightly redundant kB floating around. (And I'll admit that the chillaxing tos-and-fros, when entertaining, are among the reasons I'm hooked to these desks :). ---Sluzzelintalk12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I with Sluzzelin on that. Also feel that the resolved tick takes up kbs and possibly pre-empts further contributions (even an early thanks can do that) so letting it flow and continue to hook us -- oops forgot to finish -- is my take. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like consensus is against advising posters to say thanks. So I can just put a note advising posters to say whether the issue has been fixed. Most situations end up looking unresolved to me and it's hard to contact many of the posters (on the computing reference desk, at least), due to the prevalance of people editing under their IP addresses. Unfortunately, I can't seem to edit the template, though, since I'm not a sysop.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that adding a 'closed' tag to a question also means that incomplete or incorrect answers are less likely to be improved. I'd say that a significant fraction of my edits to the Desks involve the addition of clarifications, details, and internal or external references and citations to existing answers; more than a few of my responses flatly contradict (with sources) previous answers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you've resolved your own issue here Himhbisicho, in that you can ask the OP at their talk page about the status of their post –– you might even get a reply -- ; ) <low res resolved tick here>Julia Rossi (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
What you just wrote makes no sense. I'm the OP, so I should post a message on my talk page? It is also resolved because I already did post a message on my talk page? Could you completely rewrite your post so it makes sense?
Oh, well. It's not that big of a deal. It's not worth any more of my time. I'm a volunteer, in case you forgot. You guys aren't paying me $20 an hour to talk to you, so I'm not going to jump through hoops forever just to let you argue with me.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please cool down. We're all volunteers here and that's not easy to forget. Anyway, I think she was responding to your comment "All I am asking for is an update from the OP...", in which case you're not the OP and it does make sense. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As per the above, I'd like to know why and for how long. If it's been a recent target of vandalism, that's a valid reason, but otherwise it should be available for anyone to edit. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe it was targeted by the Avril Lavigne vandal. If you look at the template's history, you can see that it was protected by Zzuzz as a high-risk template (as a header transcluded to a high-traffic page). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The other thing is that IIRC, we have a lot of templates, including templates transcluded into templates. Tracking down vandalism, particularly for someone unfamiliar with templates can be rather difficult Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. This particular page has been the target of highly disruptive vandalism, through templates generally and the header templates in particular (for some months now). There is an argument that the templates themselves are high risk (read high profile) due to their use on this page, but it's really the established pattern of vandalism on this page by one particular vandal that is the direct cause of the protection. The current protection period is that of indefinite not forever, but the risk has not diminished significantly enough to warrant unprotection IMO. I refer you further to my previous comments[1]. -- zzuuzz(talk)15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You also have the right to edit the main page, but unfortunately that is also not possible (for similar reasons). The editprotected template is for specific requests and not permanent unprotection. If you have made a specific request (like a sandbox mockup, or the wording to use and where to put it) then kindly direct me towards it. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
My goodness, I hope all the umbrage isn't heavy. The headers are most decidedly not "obscure", and the threat of additional vandalism is quite real. --LarryMac | Talk17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no one would be able to read the reference desk for a time lasting between minutes and hours. I'll also point out this edit made minutes ago. Simply make your request and it shall be done. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(Rm indent)What is so hard about recommending changes to the templates here? Personally, I wouldn't mind if they were fully protected forever. If I wanted a change, I'd recommend it here, get consensus and an admin could make the final edit. Simple. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing, If the question was however asking "do parrots exhibit sexual feelings towards their owners" then it would have been valid although pretty wierd! Jdrewitt (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1) You should have posted the removal diff here, so we can see how you did the removal: [2].
2) You completely removed the Q. Instead, you should leave the heading and a note as to why the Q was removed. If you don't do this, the original poster will think there was just some technical problem and repost.
3) You should also have left a note on the original poster's talk page telling them why you did the removal (but note that they might not get this message, if they aren't registered and use a dynamic I/P).
4) You should have provided a link to this discussion at both the original poster's home page and the location of the removed question.
5) Your stated reason for the removal seems wrong. The full text of the "soapbox" rule is "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox." This Q does not start a debate or diatribe, so this doesn't apply. A valid reason might be that "Am I the only one who gets unsettled ?" is a poll question. However, I don't believe this is the real question, just a rhetorical form. Much like "Are you crazy ?" isn't really an inquiry into your sanity.
Although I see and agree with your points with respect to housekeeping, I do still maintain that 170.20's removal of this post was appropriate since the question is clearly asking for our opinions / emotions, rather than making a specific request for information, such as what I highlighted above. Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem if you feel strongly that the question should be re-listed. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, your right, I probably shouldn't have just removed the question without asking first, and I'm sorry I didn't follow procedure when doing it. The main reason I removed it was the phrasing, and I don't think the OP's question was rhetorical as he specifically mentions that the parrot in question has these thoughts about him; "namely me?" But I'd be more than happy to add it back if you like, maybe tweaked a little so it's a more direct question, something like Jdrewitt's interpretation "do parrots exhibit sexual feelings towards their owners?" 20I.170.20 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this question totally obviously a joke (quite funny in my opinion), and so the onky reason to put it back would to let others experience the mirth? (I really don't think there is a need for big discussion here?)87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see it as a joke. Getting into the answer a bit, many animals, birds included, have very simple sexual triggers, so anyone making the right gestures or sounds, or having the right smell "turns them on". Maybe this is what happened to the OP. It's similar to how baby birds decide that anyone nearby who happens to be handy is their mother. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who gets unsettled? : When discovering that one's pet parrot not only has sexual thoughts, but has sexual thoughts about humans, namely me? Just to look at a parrot, you wouldn't think it. I'm quite religious and this disturbs me a little. --
I've copied the question here so it can be studied in more detail, I think it's important that we try to retain a sense of the context.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the question here per StuRat's points; it is not obvious trolling and is an interesting topic if taken as a request for information. 20I.170.20 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Speculation
This started as a response to the tooth thing, but I'm just going to turn it into its own rant. This is not intended as an attack on any individual editors nor is it meant to offend.
Whether or not this tooth business was a medical question or not, and I don't feel that it was, I think we can all agree that this question has been a magnet for speculation. Although offering medical and legal advice presents a liability to the wikipedia project, the fact is that on a regular basis members of the forum offer up answers they (often admittedly) are unqualified to provide. Speculation has become, perhaps has always been, an epidemic at the reference desk. I myself am not innocent; it can be tempting to provide an educated guess. But I'm just going to throw this out there:
If you are starting your response with anything along the lines of "I'm no expert, but,"
or "I'm not sure but maybe," step back. Consider that you might be offering weak speculation.
I'm going off like this because I strongly feel that the energy exhausted patrolling the desk for potential medical advice and other liabilities would significantly strengthen the forum if it were redirected to patrolling for speculation. Instead of offering up an uninformed albeit otherwise educated guess, we can direct the OP to WP articles or outside links where they can do their own research. We often do, but I feel that perhaps not often enough. If we just don't know, let's give the OP the tools to do their own research. I'll admit, sometimes speculation is OK and perhaps even warranted, but I also feel that in general it should be avoided like the plague.
I am not trying to claim that the editor's of the RDs don't know what they are talking about. On the contrary, most of the editors seem to be very intelligent and many also limit their responses to questions that cater to their areas of expertise. They set the bar for the rest of us. Still, nearly all of us are guilty of offering up frivolous speculation once in a while, and I think we need to work together to improve the quality of our responses. In general I'm an eventualisticinclusionist, but when it comes to the RD I often feel that a bad answer is worse than no answer. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The immediate problem here is that someone can claim to be an expert and appear to be one without actually being an expert. I recently altered my user page to ensure that everyone knows I'm not accredited or licensed as a hedgehog expert. I've read every book, magazine article, and web page about hedgehogs I could find. I've studied a lot of vet journals about them. So, I know a lot more than most vets (who must focus on all animals, while I just focus on hedgehogs). That has led to others referring to me as a hedgehog expert without asking themselves what truly qualifies me to be an expert. I could have read all that material and ignored most of it and gone on with a belief that hedgehogs are baby fairies that sprout wings when they turn 5 and fly away to Neverland.
As for answering questions on the RD... I feel that it should be, above all, a reference desk - a place to get referenced information. It is not a discussion forum or an opinion poll. However, if it was strictly limited to just referenced, it would be boring. I personally like it when an answer has a little personality. It can have a reference and crack a small joke. It can have a reference and follow it up with funny nonsense. It can have a reference with sarcastic comments about the reference. It is when a reply is a joke and nothing more than a joke that we start heading into discussion forum world. That makes it hard for me to disguise my irritation with users in humor. For example, there was a recent question asking if it was safe to read Harry Potter. Anyone seriously asking that question cannot be capable of putting words together to ask the question. So, barring dumb luck at forming a valid sentence by a complete idiot, the question is obviously from a troll. Instead of giving a serious answer, which the troll wants, I replied with pure nonsense, derailing any chance of serious discussion. My humor doesn't go unpunished though. Just view some of the nice comments I've received at the top of my user page. -- kainaw™03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally I have met someone who would ask a question like that, a very sheltered... etc. I quite like an answer that dares them to the limit of their (un)thinking. It;s something like "give them enough rope..." -- there's a term in behavioural psychology (and advertising) for it and artistes of it were Ali G and Borat. *sigh* Btw, an expert doesn't have to be qualified by an institution, but maybe a professional does, so in my world, you're still the hedgehog expert, and David Attenborough is the professional expert (and still formally unqualified afaik). Julia Rossi (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are a large number of very gullible people who really do believe anything they hear. If they get an e-mail saying it's dangerous to read Harry Potter or that Obama is the anti-Christ, they believe it, or at least it creates enough of a concern that they ask others about it, such as us. We should take such questions seriously and not assume they are trolls. Calling the OP an idiot isn't a good thing to do either. StuRat (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As for being an expert, I seriously doubt if we will get a response from anyone with more hedgehog expertise than someone who has read every book on hedgehogs they can find, so please go ahead and answer any hedgehog Q's we get. It's also useful to get answers from many perspectives. For example, if someone said they just came into some money and want some ideas of what to do with it, a stock broker might suggest a mix of stocks and bonds based on their age, while a financial planner might ask if they have a mortgage or other outstanding debts to pay off, and a non-expert might suggest they buy each of their friends and family little gifts (at which point I would tell them I'm their friend and give my mailing address :-) ). Each response has it's own merits. StuRat (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and our resident hedgehog expert (though he denies it), would no doubt suggest a large donation to Saint Periwinkle's Home for Wayward Hedgehogs. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Julia and Grey. When I said "expert," I didn't mean someone who is necessarily accredited in a field so much as some one who has studied a topic significantly and feels themselves qualified to provide an answer. I'm only asking for the editors of this forum to take a step back before they answer questions, to restrain themselves if they feel like they may be offering speculation where it's unwarranted. Given the nature of this wiki, it would be pretty unreasonable to ask everyone to wave degrees around. This is not scholarpedia. Maybe we could list areas of interest/expertise on that RD-frequent-editors page? I don't know if that would make any difference. Perhaps if a question was going unanswered, we'd at least know who to contact. In response to Stu: although an answer from many perspectives can be good, I think we should try to avoid providing answers from uninformed perspectives just for the sake of providing an answer. In the example you gave, the non-expert's answer is entirely the kind of frivolous response I'm talking about. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Here we get to the core of the issue. You've judged one of the responses to be frivolous, while I, Franamax, Nil Einne (and potentially the OP, as well) see value in it. This shows how we also apply our own perspective when judging the responses of others. Your perspective appears to be more along the line of the stock broker, and that's OK, if it happens to correspond with the OP's perspective. However, unless we ask a lot of questions, we probably don't know the OP's take on things, so would do best to offer many answers from many POVs in the hope that one or more will "fit". Thus, we shouldn't ban non-expert answers, as they are an important ingredient in the whole, as are the expert answers. StuRat (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's my take on this: I try to make sure my first answer is directly relevant and either has backup in the form of an internal or external link, or I know for sure I can back up my answer if challenged (the earth is round, butane comes out the top of a main fractionator, etc.) Then there are the exceptions: if I see a question sitting around untouched for several hours, I'll take a stab at it, just because I don't want the OP to feel neglected; if I see that the responses to-date aren't actually addressing the OP question, I'll venture something to bring things back on track (like the poster asking for free airplane designs who got a stream of places to pay money for airplanes); if I see answers that I find questionable, I'll add my own questions to the thread; and if it's a refdesk-regular asking the question, I assume they know how to parse us all and I figure all bets are off, I'll pitch in with whatever thoughts I have. And it's pretty obvious that I also enjoy riffing on a topic once the serious bits have been dealt with.
I'll generally agree with Shaggorama, we do need a focus on providing good responses. There is a devil in the details though: firstly, if someone asks what to do with their extra money, suggesting they give it away is not at all frivolous, it's as equally valid as recommending a stocks/bonds split - in fact, that poster may be a qualified counsellor, priest, charity worker or just plain clued in to money vs. happiness; next, I do support patrolling for speculative answers - but what do we do when we find them? Remove them? Leave a note "this editor is just guessing"? Especially given that anyone, i.e. IP's can edit here, we can ask for relevant answers, but we really have no way to dictate them; a minor quibble that no-one's effort is "exhausted patrolling for medical advice" - volunteers are free to exhaust themselves in whichever activity they wish. Humm, I think that's it for now :) Franamax (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I was suggesting that we patrol ourselves, not set-up a "speculation task force" or something like that. But I'm glad you raised this idea of OP abondonment. I think it's better to have a perhaps completely unanswered question than a question where all the answers start with "I'm not sure but maybe," or "wow, i have no idea, but my guess would be that..." Providing recliner-scientist answers like this belittle the quality of the desk in general. Periodically I see a question left entirely without responses because the question was so esoteric that quite simply no one knew the answer. I feel that perhaps we should allow that to happen more often and worry less about the OPs feelings. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Franamax and StuRat here, I don't see anything wrong with someone suggesting an OP give away extra money if they simply asked what to do with it, that's perfectly resonable advise, not something I would suggest or do unless we were talking about a multi-millionare but still perfectly resonable. Now if they had specifically asked how to invest their money (which isn't really a great RD question anyway) then it would be going off topic (although still not friviolous) to suggest they give it away but that wasn't the hypothetical example. Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You didn't look hard enough. The 'normal' content was inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, the vandalism inside <includeonly>...</includeonly>. Algebraist13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I often stifle the urge to remove silly threads after someone (especially a regular) has responded - I'd like to remove them but I guess I'm not bold enough. Would it be okay for me to assume that people who reply won't mind the removal of the entire thread (along with their posts)? Note that I'm not referring to valid questions asked by OPs that are later found to be trolls and I won't report the removal here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I would think not in every case; someone who took the time, however misguided, to type up a thorough response to a question only to see it summarily deleted might be understandably upset (I would be). Excersing good judgement and common sense shouldn't steer you wrong in general though. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an EntDesk regular but I think the removal was appropriate. It was a silly question <plus no-one answered with any valuable tips! :).
I may be marking myself out as a hardliner lately (!) but I wouldn't worry about removing replied threads, even if it's a regular who replied. BRD-cycle, if the regular puts it back, don't get bent out of shape; post here; post to the responder talk page and explain; there are many options that allow removal with ongoing consideration. As long as we don't edit war.
I'll ask for consensus here: if anyone (or sub-case, if a regular) sees fit to remove a thread, should we always leave the header with a "removed" note, or are there cases when the entire thread should be excised? Offensive language in the section header shouldn't stay - but should it be removed entirely or reworded to "Question removed"? This relates to courtesy, the difference between just vanishing a (possibly good faith but dopey) question and leaving it there with a note that "we don't answer those questions". Franamax (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If it was asked in GF (like most requests for medical advice), then something should remain but trolling (like this) and other nonquestions should be entirely removed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that whether a question was asked in good faith is very much a matter of opinion. Uneducated people may ask questions that educated people find to be absurd and assume to be a joke, for example. Or a clarification might be in order. For example, "Who is the President of the United States ?" might seem like a stupid trolling question, but perhaps they meant something more like "How do you list the name of the current President Bush so as to distinguish him from the former President Bush ?", which is quite a valid question. This is what assume good faith is about, we should always err on the side of AGF, and not jump to conclusions. StuRat (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This question is silly, but there's no rule against that, at least no rule requiring immediate removal. I'd have left it there with the following reponse: "The Ref Desk is not the best place to seek dating advice, I suggest you try elsewhere". And, when a removal is done, you should always leave the header, removal notice, reason for removal, and a link to this discussion page. If the header itself is offensive, then, and only then, reword it. "Sex" is not an offensive title, so that could stay. You should also notify the OP on their talk page. As for removing the replies, I also would be upset if I went through the effort to write a reply only to have it immediately removed because the question was judged to be "unworthy". Just as the question shouldn't be removed just because it attracts bad answers, neither should an answer be removed just because it's in reply to a substandard question. StuRat (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully others will keep chiming in? To StuRat, I agree with the first part, until notify the OP on their talk page - the OP is either an IP, where notice is of questionable utility, or a reg-user, where we can assume a minimum familiarity. In either case, per your comments, as long as the trace is there on the Ref page, why does it need to be followed up? Presumably the OP will be coming back to check at this page. - Next topic: if the question is deemed unworthy, it may be because it's unworthy. The fact that you (or I) have gone to the trouble of responding does not confer any sanctity or legitimacy on the question. You or I may have just displayed an over-abundance of good faith and got trolled. We always have the option of one revert - but that needs due consideration with the avoidance of thoughts of "you blanked my answer? I had a good answer. By crackey, I'm putting the whole thing back!" And I apologize here to all those whose good faith answers I've removed from Ref pages, I did it for reasons of principle, thanks for not warring over it! Franamax (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that it does indeed confer legitimacy on a Q if a legit answer is provided. That means that at least one person thought it was worth answering, and was able to do so. This can be viewed as a vote to keep the Q. It seems quite presumptuous of a would-be deleter to decide that the person who responded to the Q is wrong (as was the OP who asked it), and that they are right, so they are going to delete it unilaterally. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that threads (i.e. questions that received comments or replies) should normally not be removed. If I recall correctly, I only once removed an entire thread in the past two years, here. I notified users who attempted to give helpful answers, and also posted the removal here, on this talk page. No one complained at the time. On one other occasion, I hid a thread, because the racist trolling went on and on.
Now, as for this case (and I'd prefer to stick to this case, and not extrapolate to analogies that have nothing in common with it)
- The title Sex is not offensive. Of course it isn't. I agree, and it didn't prompt any reaction or removal.
- The question "what is the most comfortable way to hunt britty lady in order to spend one night with me?" was asked by a newly registered account with no other contributions. I'll let the vocabulary of the question speak for itself.
- Then, the same editor restored the question and added "Does 'britty' mean 'british' or 'big-titty'?" and "To hunt a lady one must first obtain her, then you can hunt her at will. Hope that helps."
- Another user added "Search and destroy, my friend. Having some kind of game would also help."
- Finally, a third editor complained "Could somebody remove this revolting denigrating crap?"
Please explain to me how Wikipedia or the reference desk suffered from having this question (not some virtual question about the President of the United States) and subsequent comments (not virtually helpful answers or fictional comments about us not being a dating service) removed. ---Sluzzelintalk15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(note) by "vocabulary" I was referring to the words "comfortable" and "hunt", not the substitution of "pretty" with "britty". (And, obviously, I'm not letting the vocabulary speak for itself anymore now). ---Sluzzelintalk16:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The OP posted in bad faith and this was a good removal. If the post was in good faith then we should be courteous but if it was in bad faith then we should remove (without reporting, imo). If you can't tell then assume good faith. But using WP:AGF to promote equal rights for trolls is hardly the way forward. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it was pretty conspicuous trolling, of the sort that we're hoping to discourage (so we can get on with providing useful responses to people who are interested in our help). WP:AGF doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
archive
It is possible that the archiving bot could, on archiving, replace instances of wikilinks with the correct link within the archive, as well as replacing any instances of 'what links here' eg Pages that link to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk[4] with the archive link?
Can you provide one or two specific examples? Keep in mind that when I say specific, I mean that I might be able to derive a rule and do what you want - but it will only be what you specifically say. No mind-readers at this keyboard! Franamax (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixing up the inter-RD links upon archiving is definitely a feature I've wanted to add. Thanks for the reminder; I'll work on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks totally doable (I could do it IF I knew the computer scripting language you use etc..)
I concur that this would be quite a valuable addition to the bots. I find it intensely annoying when links are broken by the archive process, making it difficult or impossible to follow the original links. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be possible to repair the archive links (in most cases), but again, requires someone willing and able to do it.87.102.5.5 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Per my note of 12:50, 2 August 2008 above: I agree, and I've been meaning to add this. I'm going to have gobs of spare time over the next week or so; perhaps this is something I can work on. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Your going to do both! that's great, I'm out of gold stars at the moment, but you (will) deserve a reward.. Perhaps there's an article you want someone (me) to write?87.102.5.5 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any particular need to remove this. It isn't obvious trolling (and I assume it isn't non-obvious trolling...?), nor is it needlessly offensive. This seems like a good opportunity to discuss topics like the current limitations of genetic engineering. It might also be worthwhile to note that the easiest-to-design flying pig wouldn't have front legs—existing birds and flying mammals have co-opted the bones and musculature of the forelegs to support the wings. Off the top of my head I can't think of any non-mythical creatures that have exactly four legs and two wings (cfcentaur). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Not by any stretch of the imagination. What guideline do you think it violates? It seems like a legitimate and interesting question about genetic engineering. Also please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
OK I just assumed it was silly "pigs might fly" etc - and was wondering if the desk was being super hard line on joke questions..
Well, there probably are editors here who would like to revert questions for being “silly,” but fortunately I don’t think we’ve gone that far yet. :) Generally we try to revert questions that might result in danger to the questioner, or questions which are obviously not intended to be good faith requests for information. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Archive header -> links to other Ref Desks ?
Currently each archive page only contains a link to that Ref Desk. It would be useful to include links to the other Ref Desks, as well. Here is my reason why:
If, during normal edits, I find myself on a transcluded page, I usually take that as a sign that I've gone back far enough on that particular Ref Desk and would like to go on the the next Ref Desk. However, from an archive page I must first go back to the current Ref Desk (and wait for an eternity for it to load), before I can pick another Ref Desk from the header.
I like this idea. Many editors unfamiliar with the Reference Desks might well find themselves in the archive after answering an older question, and wounder how they got there, so a link back would be very helpful. A smaller version of the right navigation panel might work, to distinguish between the archive and desks while providing easy links to the current desks.
I've asked but I can't find an automatic way to bold the link back to the current desk. Looks like you'll have to do it manually with '''. Could the bot be programed to do this? 20I.170.20 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
suggested response removal
I would like to recommend the removal of the responses so far to this thread, as I'm sure the Markendyulu family (and, yes, it's a real name) will be pretty unimpressed if they check back and see that. On a related note, I think it's time I took an extended break. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The responses were getting a little bitey, and while it might have been a good faith asking for feng shui advice, it failed to actually ask a coherent question. If nothing else the personal information should be removed. 20I.170.20 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that this anontalk stuff is coming from the AT. And it's not just the name, I think he used a similar bot (or something) to vandalise my userspace. I don't know about Tor and checkuser, but would it be possible to use these IPs to find potential accounts he may have created? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Archiving
Why do we still have 26 July (and, for that matter, the 27th, 28th...) on the desks? July 29th isn't archived and transcluded, either. Gwinva (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Steve Summit mentioned above some problems with July 29th and 30th but it looks like it's been fixed (Special:Contributions/Scsbot) for the Science and Misc desks at least (which also only go to the 28th or 30th respectively). The other desks still seem to be having problems, perhaps he's still working on it or hasn't noticed the other desks are broken since he's busy working on adding the wikilink function he didn't see the error log? :-) Is there a different archiving period based on size or expected traffic for each desk? Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I thought I might have time to work on the new feature is that I'm out to sea for a couple of weeks, although so far the job I'm out here to do has been something like 120%, instead of the 10% I'd overoptimistically assumed. But, while I do have an internet connection of sorts, its bandwidth is spotty, which is why the ongoing archiving is lagging. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the bots work, but does it have to run from your comp ? Is there a way we could request that Wikipedia run it from one of their servers instead ? StuRat (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, for the duration of this trip, I am running it from another, permanently-connected computer. But it doesn't seem to run as well on that computer (not sure why), and furthermore, lack of bandwidth from here makes it difficult to double-check or clean up after it, as I'm sometimes obliged to. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Definitely well-intentioned but the top of each desk says to only edit "formatting errors that interfere with readability" so I left a note on the user's talk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Zain. I was going to leave a note myself, but wanted to make sure I wasn't overreacting. Still gunshy from some previous incidents, I guess. --LarryMac | Talk20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that, while well-intentioned, fixing the spelling errors of others should be avoided. One reasons is that we may make the wrong guess at what word they were trying to spell, and thus completely change the meaning. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
And sometimes, don't youeven want to leave your own typos to take a break from editing so particularly at all times? Over tampering's not on. (sez I until I swing into mo-ooves.*groan*) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Or have desks such as science, language, help and entertainment been merged with misc -- and is there a leedle leedle loss of morale on the desks that they haven't been redirected? I may be wrong -- been away three days. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
On the Science desk, I find that clicking an "edit" link at the top of a section is opening a different section (sometimes the section below the one I want, sometimes the one above.) This make responding rather hit and miss. Any ideas what is causing this? DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this and also sometimes get "Section does not exist" when I pick edit, even though it still does. I think this is what happens:
1) First I go to (or refresh) the page, which apparently assigns a sequential number to each section. Let's say the section I will edit is assigned sequence number 100.
2) One or more section is added or deleted before the section I'm interested in. This can happen due to archiving, a careless deletion which fails to leave the header, or if a question is split into two.
3) I pick edit, and the editor goes and looks for the 100th section, and either finds another section or none at all.
The cure, when this happens, is to do a refesh/reload of the page, so that the sequential section numbers will be reassigned. StuRat (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
In the past, I've seen formatting problems caused by large images that extend across section boundaries; the [edit] links would get pushed down to the next section headline, and the problem could propagate down the entire page. Sometimes you'd also see sections that had accumulated two or more [edit] links. My understanding is that the MediaWiki software has been tweaked in recent years so that this is less of a problem, but your mileage may vary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and reverted Bowei Huang’s “Claims of Evidence for Eastern Religions as One True Religions” post.[5] This is the seventh time Bowei has reposted this question in nearly identical form. He has been asked before to please desist from this behavior. (Oddly enough two other apparently separate users have also asked “one true religion” questions in recent times, as Sluzzelin discovered in the above link. I’m starting to feel paranoid. haha) --S.dedalus (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Good call. And just to be clear as I believe I've mentioned before, I have no problem with people removing my posts as a result of removing an unsuitable or otherwise problematic question Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That looks to me like a genuine question but spelled and worded very very badly. What mischief do you think the poster could he hoping to stir? Franamax (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It appeared to me as though the OP may have been trying to push people's buttons WRT animal cruelty. Go ahead and restore it if you wish - but it's just one of those questions that doesn't sit right with me... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the decision to restore is yours. The cut off the claws bit raised my eyebrows, but I don't know what sensations of pain crustaceans have. I put my lobsters into the pot headfirst. Perhaps there was an opportunity for education here? Anyway I read it as a genuine question, even if it was a dumb thing to do. Wouldn't rubber-banding the claws work just as well once they actually got big enough to pose a danger? Count your fish every day and when it goes down by one, buy another fish? You may be right that the question of itself could provoke an outcry. As far as I'm concerned though, I'll never restore a question that someone else (regular) removes, that seems to go against what we're trying to accomplish here. It's your call. Franamax (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this open for a while to allow for further comment. I'm pretty sure that the animals would die pretty quickly after having two limbs hacked off (albeit not as quickly as a mammal would in the same situation) and that the purpose of the question was to provoke readers with this in mind. I'd be interested in other opinions on this, as this is only the second (as far as I can remember) question that I have ever removed from the desks. If I've made an error, I'll hold my hands up to that and restore the Q. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Mmmh - I had a 'pet' crustacean and it lost a limb to a bigger fish - interestingly they can regenerate when the thing molts, but losing two limb pretty much makes it impossible for the thing to eat much...
Isn't this just the sort of things 'kids' do - ie cruelty to lower lifeforms - as for the removal(or not) - either way it's ok (from my point of view).... 87.102.45.156 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
My troll-alarm didn't go off, but it is a purely intuitive and unreliable device, and I can see how the question didn't sit right with readers. Apart from its cruel implications, the question also bordered on asking for the kind of advice we cannot give (lives of pets are involved, after all) and lacked important specifications in order to be answered even by a professional aquarium expert or freshwater biologist, but I guess I wouldn't have removed it, personally. ---Sluzzelintalk08:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have left that question in, answered it, and mentioned that cutting off the claws off crayfish isn't going to allow them to survive. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what 'toast rack' tells us - a friend of banned editor 'Light current', or something, or just chance. The edit's have an anal pattern - uranus, sodomy.. grow up maybe?
Asking questions such as 'what is the purpose of toast rack' suggests gross stupidity or just taking the piss, personally I'm sick of these wankers wasting time.. That's how I feel.87.102.45.156 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would have lots of tolerance, we answered the planetary questions even when they got too close to Uranus (nyuk-nyuk) and I also question the possible purpose of a toast-rack. Kurt Shaped Box asks lots of questions here also. But KSB is working on another level altogether, is curious and cares about answering. I'm looking now at this and I have big trouble with this IP editor. Unless I'm missing something, that's block-worthy. The nature of this desk is not like the general encyclopedia where warnings can have an effect. That looks to me like trolling and vandalism, I call that immediate block. Where is the possibility of redemption? Have I missed something? I suppose now I should look at the next IP address... Franamax (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(Note the apparent forgery of Sinebot in the diff I point to above. Again, am I missing something obvious? Sinebot usually makes it's own diff, right?) Franamax (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
'Tis Caliban asking for a Tiscaliban. Yeah, I'd say when you sense we're being trolled and there is nothing else to be learned from the question, in other words when sufficiently disruptive, extract without further ado. No need to inform the IP address or this talk page in these cases, in my opinion, though of course one is always free to do so. ---Sluzzelintalk08:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there was a forgery. The poster wrote the same thing earlier [6] which was of course signed by sinebot [7] and the poster then just copied the whole answer including the sinebot thing as shown above Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok currently 77.86... would it be too boring to have a logged-in "username" with its stable user contribution history while providing a better cloak as to your identity? ;-) -hydnjotalk21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to remove this question because it looks strikingly similar to advertisements (single edit user asking questions on a questionable product, single edit user answers with an answer taken from a sales brochure). --antilivedT | C | G06:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree. That's probably covered by some general WP policy not allowing ads, but maybe we should also have an explicit Ref Desk rule that it may not be used to advertise commercial products and that any such posts will be removed. We often direct querents to external sources, reference books, recommended products etc, and I suppose that could in some way be seen as "promoting" those resources/products; but in that case there's no collusion involved in order to pre-arrange such a mention.
But we have to be squeaky clean ourselves, and so maybe we should also have a rule that respondents who recommend resources/products should not generally have any commercial interest in them, or if they do, they should declare it. No idea how it would be policed, but it feels OK as a principle. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My 2 bits: I thought these "rules" were already implicit for deskers themselves though I can see a place for "advertising or self promotional material will be removed" under no debates or diatribes. There's a risk that telling people not to advertise might cause tempt/encourage? them to put beans up their nose, and it's an infrequent kind of question. It goes without saying when it comes to refdeskers (established ones especially) COI in recommending products -- people are careful and responsible or else they're challenged. I'd hate to see the flow of an answer halted further by more personal disclaimers. As for this question, it's plain manipulation of the desks -- a one-shot type of trollery nicely caught. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Anomynous user 87.102.5.5 / 87.102.86.73 etc wants to say goodbye...
Because of various feelings of disatisfaction with the reference desks and wikipedia in general I have decided to leave. Please note I blame no-one for this not least you who are now reading this sentence.
Before I go I'd like to thank various people (for various reasons) including StuRat, Menirosenfeld, Lambian(not here?), Cliothemuse(not here), Loomis51(not here - banned?), stevebaker(gone), sluzzelin, SCZenz, algebrist, juliarossi(just in), thefatmanwhonevercameback, gandalf, erm.. and many others who I've forgotten or who never had names. If you're not on this list and think you should be - Thanks as well
Tango,happycamper get special mentions for annoying me beyond the call of duty.. Best wishes.
I've been here many years now, previous under a dynamic IP, and at one time even wrote articles; they have grown up now and are well cared for - so no worries there.
If anyone wants to contact me for what ever reason please do so at --email deleted - no longer relevent . I will reply (within a week) if only to say no (or yes)! Bye.....87.102.35.13 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
aww dude (jonathan?) or dudette (carol?) ... you'll be missed. Keep your ears stiff, as we say in German, and you'll always be more than welcome, should you choose to peek in and poke us from time to time! ---Sluzzelintalk02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
awww, jcarroll, sorry to say goodbye to your welcome presence. Things can take their toll so I hope you will recover your spirits soon. Take care and keep that email warm. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
And Ps, I find it hard to keep track of dynamic or other IP addresses because not sure if I'm with the same person or they're dynamic too, which may affect the quality of my reception to anonymous ip's. Hope that hasn't affected you, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Sluzzelin and Julia's comments. In particular, if my own comments above have had any part in this decision you have my sincerest apology (and yes, re keeping the email channel open 'tis I who jumbled your email address above). -hydnjotalk03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Farewell 87.102, hopefully you will be back. I'll second Julia (and Hydnjo who harassed you off the wiki - just kidding! :) that if you could adopt a named persona next time round, we could maybe be much more responsive to your feelings of dissatisfaction, or at least you would be able to express them where we would know it was the same person each time. I too find it hard to associate octets with individual people. Anyway, take care! :) Franamax (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Good luck outside of Wikipedia. I also don't really know who you are, as I too am unable to associate a person with a number. Even in those cases where a registered user picks a number for a name, I still have trouble recalling it. This must point to the way our brains process info, that numbers just don't get linked with personalities. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense answers
I have had to remove a nonsense answer to the entertainment reference desk from a question I asked four times now. Please stop reposting nonsense. Contributing nonsense to an article is considered vandalism. I want a serious answer to my question and not nonsense answers. All serious questioners deserve to be treated seriously. The posting and re-posting of nonsense, only encourages malicious users to post nonsense responses which entirely defeats the purpose of the reference desk. I'm not against humorous responses per se, but an answer that consists of pure nonsense is not helpful to anyone and if it is removed harms no one, and should not be restored. Jooler (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally the response [8] seems fine to me. I presume Cookatoo was trying to respond to the issue being made that assynmetric is more accurate then uneven by pointing out that from a certain POV, uneven was not accurate either. He? did ramble on a bit at the end but I don't think any harm was meant by it nor was trying he trying to make fun of the question. On the other hand, if you feel so strongly about it and given that it was your question, I think the removal should stay Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Imo, it's not okay for OPs to remove comments just because they feel strongly about them. If someone had made that point without being ZooMy, no one would have objected. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If the point on uneven bars/2 bars being even had simply been made without the long rambling point about intoxication, athelete's foot etc, I might agree with you. But since this is not the case then I disagree. From my memory of most previous discussions, there was general agreement that when a poster attempted humour or otherwise went offtopic and in doing so offended or annoyed the OP, its removal or at least the striking out of these posts was justified. BTW perhaps I've misunderstood you but are you saying Jooler is purposely trying to remove the comment because he/she does not like Cookatoo? If so, this is quite a serious accusation and you should provide evidence or remove the claim. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. I was saying that Jooler shouldn't remove the comment just because they feel strongly about the comment, which was in response to your "if you feel so strongly about it and given that it was your question...". And by ZooMy I was referring to Cookatoo.Ergo.ZooM's general eccentricity. Regarding your other point, are we to agree that all attempts at humour or off topic comments (or both) that offend a (perhaps oversensitive) OP should be removed/removable? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What a tempest in our perennial teacup! The fact that Jooler removed it four times (after being restored independently by three different editors) does seem to indicate that Cookatoo's comment upset him a lot. In the interest of harmonious editing, I certainly won't restore it again, and I'm assuming Cookatoo won't mind terribly either. But I'm with Zain regarding ownership of threads. Original posters shouldn't be micro-managing the thread any more than anyone else. This comment clearly didn't need to be removed (not an attack, no dangerous advice, not offensive), but whatever. ---Sluzzelintalk11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I understood your first point, but misunderstood your second point about Cookatoo. No matter, it's resolved now. As for the more general issue, I personally very rarely, if ever, remove a comment because it's likely to offend others/OPs and I don't encourage others to do so(although I didn't make this clear in the first instance, I never meant to encouraged Jooler to remove comments he/she found offensive, just suggest since for whatever reason Jooler was so offended by it, the removal should stand). However if an OP does remove a comment which mostly didn't answer the question, I'm not about to, nor would I encourage others to, edit war it back in. If you feel an OP is being overly sensitive then perhaps try approaching the OP first, explain why you think the 'answer' was harmless and suggest they revert the removal. You may want to also approach the editor who posted the question, mention the removal and suggest they let it be. Alternatively, bring the issue to the talk page here for discussion. To be clear, I'm not supporting OPs micromanaging questions but unless I've missed something, this was only one removal by this specific OP. If Jooler makes it a habit (or has made it a habit) of removing answers then this is something I probably won't support. Or if we were talking about a case where an OP started removing relevant answers they simply didn't like rather then answers which 95% didn't answer the question then this would be a definite case of "no, sorry, you can't do that". And to be clear, IMHO Jooler's behaviour in that thread hasn't been the best, he/she's been unnecessarily argumentative, I don't understand why he/she started the argument on dialects with CC (although I understand somewhat the point on Google News) but of course that's a discussion for a different thread and doesn't mean he/she doesn't deserve the courtesy we IMHO should give all OPs.
To make things clearer, my personal opinion is that humour is general harmless and can help the 'community building' aspect of the reference desk. But we should also take care to not offend others, particularly OPs and remembering that different people take things differently. (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines seems to partially support this). Even if an OP is overly sensitive, unless it's causing major problems to others, it's probably better to just accept the way the OP is rather then unnecessarily causing offense to the OP (just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone tried to offend Jooler on purpose simply reinterating that I see little point preserving the comment which I think we all agree was mostly off topic). Of course OPs don't own questions, but since the point of us answering questions is (generally) supposed to be to help the OP, if the OP feels the discussion is getting off-topic or missing the point of the question, we should try to either come back on to point or choose not to participate further in the discussion. I think we've all seen how an off-topic discussion can take on a life of it's own and the original question can be completely lost. Whether this is because the original question didn't interest anyone/was unanswerable by us or because the off-topic discussion caused people to miss the original question is anyone guess but I can see why an OP might feel the off-topic discussion is distracting from their original question, regardless of whether this is the case. (And if this happens, remember that there is no reason why we can't move the discussion about the new issue to a seperate subheading/question.) And if an OP was interested in a serious discussion about something I can also see why an OP might be offended if they think people are just taking the mickey of the question. I'm sure I've been part of discussions before but I'm lazy to find them where people suggested when an OP asks for serious replies only we should do our best to obey that request.
Or to summarise, humour and off-topic commentary is mostly fine, but when it starts to detract from the main purpose of the RD, which Jooler felt it did in this instance, it's usually best just to cut it out and let it be, oversenstive or not.
P.S. Remember that just because some of us are used to Cookatoo's way of responding doesn't mean others are. I personally although I recognise the name, didn't recognise the style hence the reason for my earlier question about the Cookatoo part. Jooler I presume is not use to the way Cookatoo responds and obviously didn't like it, and while he/she's going to have to accept it if he/she sticks around the RD, I can see how it may be off-putting to at first.
BTW, I was looking through Jooler's contrib history to see if I'd missed any comment removal history. I don't seem to have but noticed he/she was the starter or this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 July 30#Rubber band plane which I recall Franamax saying and from a quick look through I can confirm largely went off-topic from the get go. Now the reason may have been it was difficult to answer the actual question, and all the responders were clearly trying to be helpful, but from Jooler's POV, most of the original responses were useless so it's IMHO understandable he/she's might have been a bit miffed about the way the question turned out. I'm speculating here but perhaps this partly why Jooler tried so hard to keep the question on-topic. And BTW, none of the above was intended to defend Jooler's edit warring and 3RR violation in removing the comment. P.S. Perhaps the reason I sympathise with Jooler's POV is because I have tendency to ramble on be it in forums, usenet or here (as this thread demonstrates) meaning most people stop reading and miss what I was asking and then give answers that are useless. Then of course there are all the times when I clearly specified (I live in NZ/Malaysia) and some idiot comes along and tells me to buy something from NewEgg. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The guidline page for the reference desk clearly states "The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is: relevant to the question, not at the expense of other people, including the questioner, and not needlessly offensive. Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. Some people (for example children and non-native English speakers) may not understand the joke, or, worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement." - Cookatoo should not be allowed to continue posting responses that are pure nonsense. As stated above I'm not against humorous responses per se, and the guideline represents my viewpoint precisely. I'm dumbfounded that people are defending someone posting nonsense and re-instating it. Jooler (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I was the questioner here is largely irrelevant. Posting nonsense answers that do not help answer the question shows a lack of respect to the original questioner. This can certainly be considered offensive, and in respect of this can and should be deleted as per the guidelines which state "Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses."Jooler (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel that you are completely misunderstanding that others may disagree with you. Quote all you want. Rant all you want. It doesn't matter. I see your comments as nothing more than "I'm the supreme master of the Reference Desk and everyone else is an immature idiot!" If, instead of quoting and ranting, you stated that it is merely your view of the response and you understand that others may disagree, this entire event would have gone in a completely different direction. It all comes down to assuming good faith in other people instead of assuming you are absolutely correct and everyone else is stupid. -- kainaw™16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You assume alot, incorrectly I might add. I simply wanted answer to a question, and good faith positive responses. Not a dive into surreality. I think all serious questioners deserve the same. Jooler (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As I have already apologised on Jooler´s user page, I feel that this discussion should be discontinued.
May I therefore suggest - in place of Graham Chapman, who has passed away before reading this section - that we now terminate this Pythonesque sketch as it "has become far to silly". As the entertainment desk seems to be inhabited with dead-serious patients with borderline persecution mania I thereby solemny declare never again to debase the pure intellect of these entertaining librarians with my unworthy drivel.
As a challenge to user;Jooler. I intend to continue to post "nonsense" on other desks (as I have done in the past). You may therefore want to contact the administrative makers of WP´s 613, ore whatever, mitzvot to engineer a life long block / excommunication to eliminate the horrid possibibility of any such offensive drollery pro futuro. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, Jooler seems to believe the Reference Desk atmosphere is formal. It's certainly more erudite than, say, Yahoo Answers, but much discussion still takes place there. Even irrelevant comments can be quite interesting at times. ZooM's post is an example; he provided an insight, and a funny rant, that only an deranged, out-of-his-mind user can supply. :) --Bowlhover (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Jooler shouldn't have removed that post, but someone else probably should have. I don't pay much attention to EntRef, and it was even a thread I posted to - if I'd been following up, I would probably remove it on sight. Fun is fun, but that was a lengthy post making an extended dubious joke about drunkenness AFAICT. If you can't convey the humour in two sentences (max. 4 gerunds, 2 conjunctive phrases and 6 prepositional clauses for all you gramma-lawyers), it's probably not that funny. What was the edit war about? "You don't own the thread"? Sorry Cookatoo, you should first of all try to make sense before essaying nonsense. Franamax (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And to Bowlhover and any others pushing the related points: of course off-topic commentary is fine and of course restoring comments is OK - with the very simple proviso that you just start your own thread, which can contain whatever content it happens to develop. Why bother pushing your views onto someone else's question when you can so easily add your own section? 76.xx extended my SciRef woodpecker answer just that easily. Franamax (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, Jooler didn't like that comment in his thread so he removed it against all opposition and, once again, the exclusionist won. Somehow, responding to attempts to help without a trace of civility or gratitude and criticising answerers for their inability to recognise accents became perfectly acceptable but a relevant and funny post that addressed a different but related issue was so awful and insensitive that it had to be censored. I also don't agree that the comment in question should have been put into a new (or sub) thread (new threads are for new discussions) because we don't generally create sub threads for sub discussions (maybe we should?). The bottom line is that no one could reasonably have been offended by it, even the OP. Yet it remains deleted.
Asking for humorous posts to be limited by number of words (or whatever) is like asking a musician to limit his songs to one minute or asking Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of my study (note that long comments are usually rants which are not good anyway). But I don't think that this one was too long - we put up with much longer irrelevant posts on the desks. But if it is decided that off topic humour is unacceptable then we should remove all irrelevant funny posts from anyone instead of ZooMing in on one of the funnier ones. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Franamax is suggestiong Cookatoo limit his/her humour to a specific number of words, rather that the post in question, wasn't even that funny. I WP:AGF it was rather funny to you (either that or you don't find Cookatoo's humour particularly funny) but I too didn't find it really funny, while some of the parts may have been humourous, it rambled on too much to be that funny to me. Ironically the funniest part to me was probably the only part which was slightly on-topic i.e. the part about how uneven bars is arguable inaccurate. I never mentioned it before because I didn't think it important, it doesn't really matter that much whether Cookatoo's response was funny. Ultimately, what it comes down to is in this particular instance since Jooler found the comment unhelpful, and we all agree it was mostly unrelated to the original question, the removal should have stood IMHO. I for one don't suggest we start removing any mildly off-topic post on sight. As Franamax has pointed out, and I think I did as well, there is nothing wrong with starting a seperate section if you have a followup question, that will ensure both questions get the attention they deserve. Remember the key point is that the reference desk is not about humour, it is about questions. While humour is welcome, when it starts to detract from the point of the RD, then the humour should be the one to go. (And similarly, there are reasons we use subject headings, one of them is to keep things in order and ensure questions aren't missed/lost because everyone is too busy replying to another question) As for Jooler's poor behaviour, the best way to deal with it is to either talk with him/her (or use other means of dispute resolution) or simply ignore him/her. It's an exceptionally bad idea to start inflamming the situation by purposely annoying Jooler just because he/she behaved poorly! I'm not saying that anyone did this, simply pointing out again that Jooler's behaviour is not really relevant to the discussion since we are discussing whether the removal was right, not whether Jooler behaved poorly. If you want to start a RFC on Jooler or another section, then go ahead. Remember in a any dispute, you are always supposed to put aside your personal feelings for the contributor and judge the situation as objectively as posslbe. Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like people got upset because I answered back when responses to my question were mostly irrelevant. If you actually read the answers you will see that I got:
Responses about Wikipedia usage and number of hits on Google News Archive. (Question had nothing to do with Wikipedia usage).
Suggestions that I lived in a fantasy world because the predominant usage in the UK wasn't found on a FIG website.
Repeated comments about not finding the term on Google News, (or its archives) when the whole point was about a change of usage away from the common UK term towards the US term.
People repeatedly ignoring the fact the the Google news archives (whether you go to Google.com or Google.co.uk) use solely US and Canadian sources before 1998.
A challenge to "prove it" regarding the above.
Answers regarding the above challenge that were actually wrong because they didn't come through google news archives.
Responses from Google books, in a discussion about Google News Archives.
Links to search of the FIG website proving the FIG didn't use the term, that were actually searches of the wrong website altogether.
Repetitions of the above incorrect search.
A response that "even the BBC uses uneven bars" - YES that's why I asked the question.
A response disputing my assertion that the IOC use (or at least used to use) British English. In response to which I provided a source to indicate that I was correct.
Irrelevant talk that that term uneven bars was more logical than asymmetric.
A response that hints at an final answer but then trails off in an obtuse manner, leaving it unclear whether the responder was genuine or just taking the piss.
A distracting surreal (and in my opinion unfunny) response completely irrelevant to the question, that the guidelines say can be deleted because (in my opinion) taking the piss out of the question is disrepsectful to the OP.
Three re-insertions of of the above nonsense response.
I am also being accused of bad behaviour because one of my responses was considered arrogant. Regarding accents: In the UK we hear a lot of accents from all over the world and there are large number of British regional accents. We also get a lot of US culture over here. So most Brits can not only tell a Manchester accent from a Cockney, but a New Yorker from a Texan and a South African from an Australian. I'll agree my response in this section was perhaps too brusque. He perhaps didn't understand that regional US accents are not too problematic for Brits to recognise and I perhaps should have understood that national accents are more difficult for Americans to recognise. So I apologise here.
As far as I am concerned what I deleted should have stayed deleted. The guidelines says that jokes should not be posted for the sake if it. How can you police this if you let irrelevant jokes stand? Jooler (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Several points:
1) I agree that you are being rather argumentative and needlessly creating friction on the Ref Desk.
2) Your argument that any response that doesn't answer your question is "offensive" and can therefore be removed is just plain wrong. That's not what "offensive" means. If you are offended by responses that don't provide the answer you seek, then you should avoid the Ref Desk.
3) Any question will likely get many answers, some better than others. This doesn't give you the right to pick and choose which answers to keep and which to delete, only the right to pick which to consider and which to ignore.
4) The OP has no special rights with regard to the thread they started. They don't own it any more than anyone else.
5) You seem to have violated the 3RR policy by reverting multiple editors who authored and then restored the deleted text. You could have been blocked for such behaviour.
6) Keep in mind the part of the guidelines you seem to have ignored: "The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers ...". StuRat (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. But in my opinion I was not arguing as you suggest, but I was clarifying the question and indicating why said answers did not answer the original question. I however did inadvertently offend one of the posters regarding accents because I was of the mistaken belief that a British accent would be recognisable to the average American, and in this thread when asked a direct question about whether I would be able to recognise the said accents I gave a response which was apparently interpreted as arrogant. That was not my intent.
"Your argument that any response that doesn't answer your question is "offensive" and can therefore... " - if this is what you think I am saying then you seem to be having some trouble reading English. This is certainly not my opinion view.
"This doesn't give you the right to pick and choose which answers to keep and which to delete" - irrelevant. I'm not claiming any such right. However, the guidelines clearly state that jokes should not be posted to the ref desk. It also states that offensive material should be deleted. In my opinion taking the piss out of the question is offensive. Whether I was the OP or not.Jooler (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"The OP has no special rights with regard to the thread they started." - I've never made any such claim that they do. The fact that I was the OP is irrelevant.
"You seem to have violated the 3RR policy" - no I have not. I made 4 reverts over a 48 hour period. Check your facts.I also made an effort to explain why I deleted the material to those who re-instated it and finally came here (this thread) again to explain my reasoning. It was not intended to start a long debate about the subject.
You accuse me of ignoring the guidelines, and yet when you quote "Humor is allowed in reference desk answers ..." you trail off there totally ignoring the following clause which states - "... provided it is: relevant to the question" - clearly the response in question was not relevant to the question.
2) When you said "you seem to be having some trouble reading English", you are getting offensive. Someone who is so easily offended should be more sensitive to avoiding offending others.
3) You said "In my opinion taking the piss out of the question is offensive". Converting to US English, I think you're saying that making fun of the question is offensive. I disagree. Making fun of the question poster (or anyone else) might be offensive, but not making fun of the question itself, at least in this case. You need to learn not to be so easily offended.
5) You seem to be gaming the 3RR policy by intentionally waiting to do your reverts outside a 24 hour period. You are ignoring the intent of this rule, that by reverting you, multiple people are trying to tell you your actions were wrong, yet you continue to repeat them. You are doing the same thing here, where multiple people have again told you to behave, and yet you ignore them.
6) I only included the part you ignored, that humor is allowed. You seem to think it's not: "the guidelines clearly state that jokes should not be posted to the ref desk". You are wrong and this humor was at least in part relevent to the question. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I just removed three questions (with answers) from the Science reference desk. Here's the diff. The questions and the OP's responses to the replies suggest he or she is yanking our chain. As does the similarity of the contributions to those from this similar IP address.
Feel free to revert if you think I've overstepped. (But kindly explain your decision here if you do.) - EronTalk04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed I did. It strains credulity to assess that as a serious question, especially as that editor's previous conduct suggested that assuming good faith was not required. - EronTalk04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And what makes YOU the sole arbiter of what is a serious question or not may I ask? And why does it matter anyway: this is not article space --79.76.158.77 (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the removals have been reverted here and here by another 79.76.X.X IP. I recognize that these questions on the face of it could be considered serious. But the overall edit pattern here is of someone who is yanking our chain. - EronTalk13:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you calling me a yanker? these questions on the face of it could be considered serious You worsts they are serious questions. Why is someone not allowed to ask a series of questions without being labelled a yanker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.146.40 (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Posting dumb questions because you think the reference desk needs more humour, and then contesting the removal because they could have been serious questions, even though you have already admitted they are not, is not going to get you anywhere. See, WP:POINT and the reference desk guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Pleas Dont quote the guidelines at me. I was the one who insisted we have them. Unfortunately, they got hijacked by admins. Lots of editors wanted humor to be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.130.174 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Any way whats wrong with a bit of silliness now and again? This is not part of the encyclopedia. It is not article name space —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.130.174 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Humor is allowed, and happens unquestioned all the time. What is not allowed is asking questions to waste everyone's time, rather than because you want to know the answer. If you want to have a dumb conversation, try one of the enormous variety of online (and meatspace) forums devoted to exactly that. Algebraist19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What Algerbraist said. Also, I'm not aware that admins were significantly involved in the development of the guidelines. Friday is an admin as is TenOfAllTrades but I don't think that many other RD contributors are. BTW, you should be aware that even though not part of the encylopaedia proper, we are still a part of wikipedia and if we degenerate into some sort of anything goes place for dumb conversations, we're liable to be deleted or discontiniued as have a number of other 'community building' games Nil Einne (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The thread has now been restored by the OP and I provided an answer. Sorry, I would have self-reverted after reading this but there is now another answer posted and I did not feel I had the right to revert a good faith answer. If someone else wants to take out the whole thread, I have no objection to my answer being removed. SpinningSpark19:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Humor along the way is fine if it's a part of and directly related to the explicit purpose of the RefDesks. Nonsense and things that are not related to that are off-topic. We aren't in article-space, so we don't need proper encyclopediac tone, but we also aren't running an open-mic night. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, my deletion of the thread has now been reverted (in absolute good faith) with a note to me on my talk page that "this is a perfectly serious, interesting and ref-desk-appropriate question, although asked in a slightly humorous way." I wold agree entirely with this assessment of the question in isolation. My concern is with the question as it stands in the context of this editor's other contributions (and those from related 79.76.x.x IP addresses).
It seems to me that once a RefDesk troll reveals itself to be a troll, we shouldn't waste time trying to determine which of its questions are actually legitimate and which are trolling. They come from a troll, therefore they are all trolling. Revert 'em all and let Jimbo sort 'em out. - EronTalk21:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Where have they revealed themselves to be a troll? If you are taking my above comment about the Avril Troll as as being from the previous questioner, you should know that the 79.76.x.x IP address range is from Tiscali UK and covers everything from 79.72.0.0 to 79.79.255.255. Basically every Uk household with a Tiscali connection. 79.75.155.198 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say 79.76 has made it fairly clear in this thread that his/her intention here is to have fun and be silly, not to get answers to questions. Algebraist21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed a question under the no medical advice guideline. Looking at the contribution history of the poster, it is the same individual we spoke of above. Questions from this IP and related IPs - clearly the same person given the way that one of them responds in threads started by another - are all over the RDs, with various answers by well-meaning and AGFing Deskers. I'm not comfortable unilaterally deleting all of these threads, but I think they should all go. We are being played, and it is getting tiresome. Thoughts? - EronTalk01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on a little bit of software I've written, since 19 Jul, the entire 79.76/16 range has made 171 edits to Wikipedia space, all but 8 to RefDesks. Random sampling of those edits shows pretty clearly that, oh yeah, this is a game. Good one 79.76, better find a different ISP - or become rational, whichever you prefer. The mere fact that 79.76 is repeatedly re-inserting their questions and chiding us here about having some fun should be a clue as to their intentions. Ha ha. Franamax (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Good work. So can we go ahead and revert anything from 79.75 and 79.76? Honestly, WP:RBI is the only solution with this one. But as long as we worry about the feelings of GF answerers, we'll never be able to implement it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, close. I said 79.76.x.x. 79.75 is in the same IP block allocation but I haven't seen anything compelling there. Remember that ISP's divide their address space as they see fit. Some open up their whole space to all their DNS servers, some split their space geographically. Based on the last one million IP edits to this wiki, the 79.76.0/17 space is completely unused (that's the bottom half) and the 79.76.128/17 space has made 390 edits, 40% or so are the above-mentioned waste of space. Many of the remainder are troll-y/vandal-y, but no more so than any other set of IP's. There's not enough for an IP range block, but fairly conclusive evidence that 79.76 in Wikipedia space has only one purpose. I'll take a look at 79.75 and the rest of the range next. All I'm saying right now is what everyone has already clued in to - take a good close look at edits made by 79.76.x.x (and check unsigned contribs too) - and exercise your good judgement. I'd also advise that if a regular sees fit to remove the edits, let's question the regular closely but also respect and support their actions. (Email me if you wish to see my data) Franamax (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup, all the problem IP edits from Tiscali's 79.72/13 address space on Wikipedia:xx come only from 79.76.(128-254).x. The rest are mostly Sandbox and helpful stuff. (239 contribs of ~14,500 WP-space edits, back to 19-Jul) Congrats 79.76, you've wasted away at least an hour of my life - mission accomplished. Franamax (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I restored the "Docking in orbit" Science desk thread, so I guess I must be one of those "well-meaning and AGFing Deskers". I'd like to make a small plea for reason in the middle of this latest troll-hunt. I think we should treat each question individually on its own merits, regardless of its source, and only threads that clearly breach RD guidelines should be deleted. There is a good pragmatic reason for this - if a contributer is a troll, then chasing them round and round the ref desks is exactly what they want. There is a saying - "don't wrestle with a pig; you only get dirty and the pig enjoys it". I know I'm in the minority here among all you great troll-fighters, so don't bother telling me that I am naive and libreal and don't know the half of what's really going on - I've heard it all before. Just wanted to put my opinion on the record, for whatever it is worth. Anyway, enjoy your game, and I will do my best now to stay out of your way. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gandalf that each question should stand or fall on it's own, not on who posted it. For one thing, if a seemingly good question is removed, for what seems like a bad reason, I'm also tempted to restore it. For example, I ran into the following question which was removed as being a request for medical advice: "== Confidence boosting == What are the best drugs (prescribed) to be on for combating low confidence ( I m ok so it s not med advice I seek)". Knowing which drugs are deemed to be most effective for treating a particular disorder seems a perfectly acceptable Q to me, which could be answered with appropriate medical studies. The removal comment also stated that the OP was a probable troll, but stating this really isn't sufficient, some proof should be offered. A link to this discussion with suitable proof would be appropriate. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Stu, you're not incorrect, but there is a major pitfall in your suggested approach. As long as people are willing to restore questions based on their own judgement of what is a "good" question, there will always be at least one editor who thinks it's a good question. Maybe even a well-constructed sock-puppet who can argue the "perfect acceptability" of each step in a long-running campaign of refdesk nonsense. I really think the main principle here should be to respect other editors removals, unless some maleficent trend becomes apparent. And in fact, the majority of recent removals have indeed been noted here on the talk page. Rather than ask for a link to be readily provided, perhaps it is more likely incumbent on you to check the talk page before restoring text to the RefDesk pages, and even afterwards carefully consider the various reasoning someone has gone through when deciding on removal. As noted below, we very much need unity of action to keep the desks coherent. Franamax (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that "there will always be at least one editor who thinks it's a good question". There have been many questions deleted here where neither Gandalf, I, nor anyone else has questioned the deletion. However, if there is a questionable deletion, that's what the discussion page is for. Of course, to participate in a discussion we need to first be able to find it, and this page can get huge, so it's important to provide the link to the discussion at each removal location. StuRat (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't say that I disagree with that. Unless it's a case of the most blatant drive-by trolling, IMO it should be standard practice for the user who removed the question to leave a note explaining his/her reasoning here to allow for discussion. I would suggest however that if this does not happen within a reasonable period of time, then then someone should leave a message on the user's talk page, politely requesting an explanation either here or on said talk page and awaiting a response - *before* reverting back. There's really no reason why anyone here should ever get to the stage of edit-warring with another user over the removal of a third party's question. Just my $0.02. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel the OP deserves an explanation for the removal when they next look for it, which could be immediately following the removal. If we have no such explanation, that will leave the OP confused. Not knowing what happened may lead them to repost it anyway, or to just abandon Wikipedia since it seems to lose whatever they wrote. That's why I would undo a deletion until a reasonable explanation for the deletion can be provided. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you at least see the brilliance of this guy's approach? Post a stream of questions just on the borderline of nonsensical; induce a bunch of people just like yourself to decide we should all be "fair"; edit war to restore his content (and when was it so important to get a question answered on the en:wiki refdesks?). Gandalf, you may have just struck a resounding blow for freedom and also told all us stick-in-the-muds the proper way to think - but 79.76 also just placed one more stroke on the wall of whatever prison cell he inhabits (that's not an attack, we each occupy our own personal prisons).
What I would like to emphasize here is that for the RefDesks to work, we need to have a reasonably unified approach. If a RefDesk regular sees fit to remove something, we can always question it here, but I can't imagine why anyone would need to revert the removal to enforce whatever principle. To descend to the level of TLA's, the applicable one is WP:BRD. Bold is the OP adding the post, Revert is the removal of the post, Discuss is what should happen next. Is that model breaking down somewhere? Franamax (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't striking a blow for anything - I just thought Enron had made a bad call on that particular question, and I didn't realise until afterwards that you all had a game on here. Good luck with the pig wrestling. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(after ec)I think that Gandalf's use of BRD is fine. The removal is B, the reversion of the removal is R and this is the discussion. The only problem with your approach, Gandalf, is the fact that the troll will try his best to ask questions that some of us like and some of us don't. The ensuing debate is exactly what he's after. And the answer to his question may not even interest him. Whatever we do to resolve this, it has to be absolutely unanimous or it will just result in more feeding. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And on a side note, here's how you handle a pig: One but preferably more people hold 3-foot pieces of plywood and approach the pig; the pig will make a move for one or other end of the plywood; at that point you jam the plywood against the wall and stick your boot against it - the pig will exploit the tiniest gap; now while the pig is still trying to push its way through, you grab its hind leg and pull it forward (if you pull it backwards, it will kick free); then you grab its front leg and pull it backwards, shove it a bit so it tips over, then pull its feet into the air. Game over. Just in case you ever have to pig-wrestle, that's the winning strategy - no wrestling involved, just out-think and quickly overpower. Apropos of nothing here, once again I'm showing off my farm knowledge. :) Franamax (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, you can delete the troll's question but his ES lives on and this is precisely the behavior that caused this troller to be permabanned. :( -hydnjotalk13:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I was referring to the permabanning of a user who's history is pretty much identical with this IP's history. 'Course I could be wrong but in this case doubt it :) -hydnjotalk13:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, so, there seems to be a permabanned troll here testing our collective patience:
The more attention that is paid well then the happier Mr. troll becomes leading to,
More trolling which leads to,
etc... etc...
If we're serious about knocking this down then we need to (collectively) demand the termination of this activity. So far, after the banning of Light current he has tried to be a good editor as ProperFraction and this new persona has been tolerated by all.
However, his persistently trollish behavior as an IP has gotten many of us beyond tolerance. The rule which we have been lax about says that any edit by a banned user may be rv'd on sight. We've not done that out of compassion or hopefulness or goodwill or whatever and then the troll sees us as weak and unable to enforce our own rules. Screw around with AGF all you will, Lc has exhausted my patience and I'm willing to follow the "rules" hereafter.
You're on notice Light current, ProperFraction or whatever new persona you may adopt. I've had it - can't you tell? So, any edits by you are fair game for RVing on sight.
We've tolerated more than enough of your crap so, settle in at once or face the real consequences of your behavior. You have nothing to gain and much to lose if you continue. -hydnjotalk23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I have heard the name Light current bandied about here and there on the Ref Desk, but I have no direct experience of his activies. And any conversation I have seen has tended to be a bit opaque - subtle, knowing comments from one editor to another that pass right over my head (such as the above reference to "a user who's history is pretty much identical with this IP's"). How am I (or any other editor with no experience of him) supposed to recognize his edits? How do you know it is him?
For example, I've been casting a suspicious eye on these contributions. Are they just inappropriate (Diarrhea on the highway, how Muslims party, and a debate-bait opinion question about South Ossetia) or are they trolling? - EronTalk23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Man, the first thing I see when I log on is this mess! I've protected the talk page until this to-ing and fro-ing calms down. Any passing admin feel free to unprotect after an appropriate period of time if I haven't done so myself... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks KSB. I had an RFPP in, don't need it now. Anyone want to start a pool on where the next disruption will happen? Franamax (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wouldn't like to say if this has anything to do with LC or not (because I simply have no idea at this point) - but feel free to leave me a message if any of this spills over into your userspaces or elsewhere and I'll do my best to deal with it. The Checkusers will do their job - it's probably best just to WP:RBI in the meantime. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course the beauty of this troll is the subtlety of the approach. Divide and conquer. I don't recall now - there was a mention somewhere of an abuse report to Tiscali. Pending the checkuser results, should we renew that complaint? Franamax (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, why not? Lots of keystrokes goin' on here, for what? For what is because we tolerated the reincarnation of a banned user with an abundance of good faith and hopefulness and we the community got screwed. I sure hope that this experience doesn't screw the reincarnation hopes of some future banned user - Geesh! -hydnjotalk01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
A bit of explanation:
The User:Light current, after many many attempts at rehabilitation, got himself permanently banned because of his disruptive behavior.
At first pissed off, as would be expected, he settled into a new persona - User:ProperFraction where he built a store of goodwill such that his permaban was tacitly ignored in the spirit of "don't ask, don't tell".
And then, Lc went off the ranch! (for non-US, he went astray) becoming as disruptive as can be with some interspersion of "good" edits as has always been his MO.
His disruptiveness has escalated to it's current level of unacceptable which he of course disputes, after all, he disputed his aberrant behavior all along.
Lc knows exactly where the boundaries are and his method is to step ever so slightly beyond which of course makes his transgressions subjective which allows even more controversy - that's his style - the more subjective the better.
"Who me???" is his usual response and "why are you always picking on me" is his rebuttal.
My lengthy explanation has to do with exposing Lc's insidious and disruptive editing patterns and nothing else - I consider him individually as a friend. -hydnjotalk03:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If an anon contributor (whoever we think they might be) asks a question that is just over the boundaries of RD acceptability or relevance, the best approach is to post a polite response suggesting that the RD is not an approriate place for their question. If we hit the big red troll button and start deleting borderline questions from the RDs then this (a) provides the attention that some individuals may be seeking, and so reinforces their behaviour and (b) may initiate an escalating sequence of disruption and protection. I understand that some folks enjoy these Wiki-dramas, but it just seems to me to be very boring and a big waste of everyone's time. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha so this was lightcurrent then? I had suspect as much when I read the comment on the guidelines and admins. Not that I'm greatly aware of his? history but he was the only long term RDer who I knew had been involved in the development of the guidelines and I suspect had a gruge against admins and the current state of play of the RD+guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted another question, see the diff here. I believe it is from the same source as the questions removed above. My reasons for deletion were:
Question of borderline validity/seriousness
Unsigned question, as were all the above
Editor's only previous contributions were vandalism on my Talk page during the above events
I don't know whether it's down to the departure of Clio the Muse and others like her, or merely the fact that the only sensible questions that are asked are in some way related to homework (and are therefore not currently being asked as it is the school holidays), but the Ref Desk is becoming almost indistinguishable from Yahoo Answers these days.
I mean, seriously, questions like this are Yahoo Answers material:
What is the plural of hard on?
How often do porn models in US get raped even if intercourse isn't part of their contract?
I was wondering when athletes competing in London 2012 who would give them their medals, would it be HM The Queen, or if she's dead, the monarch?
How do I get a free ticket to Disneyland?
Why do american politicians (eg Condoleeza Rice) hate russia so much?
How can I get kicked out of the Olympics?
When you're being chased by something, i.e. a shark, a crocodile, etc. and there's another person with you, would it be safer to split up?
And yet all of them are answered, despite contravening guidelines such as "Do not start discussions" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". This is taking AGF too far.
The Ref Desk used to be a fairly informative page. Now it's a troll magnet. It's a lost cause. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't see anything wrong with the London 2012 or escape strategy from predators questions. There are plenty of academic studies about escape strategies in animals (herding vs splitting up). Exactly who gets to award the medals is a good question to which I don't know the answer, even after a little research. Dostioffski (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
My solution is to adopt a policy of zero tolerance. Have a look at Fixing Broken Windows.
Stop feeding the trolls; delete discussion-style questions on sight; send people to chatrooms where appropriate. Keep the Ref Desk a place for factual questions only.
Of course, no one will want to do this because everyone's so hamstrung by AGF, so the place will just get worse and worse. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The first three you list above are straight factual questions (admitedly one is about the future, but it might well have been decided already, and in any case useful information about how these things are decided could be provided). The Disneyland question is one of the 'how can I achieve X' questions we answer routinely (especially on Computing), and it certainly didn't degenerate into a chatroom-style discussion. The Olympics question could have been treated as 'what have people been kicked out of the olympics for in the past' and answered factually. I think the only question you've listed that inevitably leads to inappropriate discussion is the Russia-hating one (which I haven't even read the responses to as a result). Algebraist20:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As one of the posters in the thread above says: if we degenerate into some sort of anything goes place for dumb conversations, we're liable to be deleted or discontiniued as have a number of other 'community building' games. For my money, humouring trolls who ask questions about hard-ons and porn models, and allowing bored people to start discussions about running away from crocodiles or how to get kicked out of the Olympics, is doing just that. The Ref Desk is drowning in a sea of effluent. You're welcome to keep it that way if you feel it serves a purpose, but watch out it doesn't get nominated for AFD. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, so despite your remarks above, you are not speaking only against discussions and in favour of factual questions, but also against factual questions from trolls. How do you suggest we determine which of our questioners are trolling? Algebraist21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. I agree that questions inviting discussion should be marked as such and unanswered and that obvious trolls should be reverted. Algebraist21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, the Reference Desk is here to answer questions, regardless of if they meet your personal standards of intellectualism or not. I'd also like to take the time to point out that answers like "You'll get your answers much quicker if you try looking for them yourself" is a counterproductive comment. "Doctor, my legs broken." "Fix it yourself." I mean, the RD is here to answer questions, is it not? God forbid someone asks here without looking on google first! 79.75.155.198 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We also have a Wikipedia policy here called Assume good faith. Instead of reverting questions we don’t like, we should always try to assume that the OP is asking out of genuine curiosity or need. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We should ask ourselves “Is this OP’s history significantly dubious that we would revert there edit on a article talk page?” If the answer is no, I think we should assume good faith. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Zero tolerance really means zero judgement, which is a bad thing. That's how we end up with kindergartners being expelled for bringing a squirt gun to school. StuRat (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
[[11]] "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world." Or, the Wikipedia dicta - "Be bold." If you think the RD is worse for the absence of Clio (a supposition one would be hard pressed to counter), step up. I'm going to try, although Humanities is certainly not my baliwick. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would counter. While she was knowledgeable about the humanities, she was also quite insulting towards many people, and drove at least one valuable contributor away from Wikipedia. If anyone challenged any of her statements she would attack them personally (say by calling them ignorant), rather than providing proof. I would hold out for someone who is both knowledgeable and can behave in a civil manner. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's true. It's unfortunate that there are a few contributors at the Reference Desk who engage in nasty, unpleasant behaviour—doing things like attacking departed editors behind their backs. Not classy at all, StuRat. Clio's already gone; what possible benefit is there in continuing to attack her? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Seperated questions
Bearing in mind the earlier Jooler-Cookatoo issue, I added a seperate subject heading to what was basically a seperate question by a different person here [12]. Since no one had replied to the first question under the second question other then the OP of the first question to re-interate the first question, it doesn't seem to have confused the discussion too much to me. I have also informed the OP of the second question about what I did. Is there anyone who disagrees with the way I handled this? Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done this myself, if an OP asks two entirely different questions under the same heading. However, if they are related, I normally leave them as one. When I do split a question in two, I put the new question directly below the old one, not at the bottom of the Ref Desk page. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Section "2020"
I deleted an entirely promotional non-question section[13]. This meant deleting an instruction not to self promote from Julia Rossi. I hope you don't mind, Julia, and apologise if you do. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Good removal, except you should have left the title and provided a link here, as otherwise the OP may think their post was lost and then repost it. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted a "question" and one reply from the Humanities desk: diff. Looks to me like political commentary masquerading as a question, and unlikely to generate anything but rancorous debate. - EronTalk03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to the removal, but do object to the way you removed it:
1) You should have left the title, or else the OP may think the question was just lost somehow, and repost it.
2) You should leave a note as to why the removal was done there, with a link to this discussion.
(Just a note, as the one responder, I was fine with having it removed. I just wanted something on the record that showed that 1. the question was easily answerable and 2. it was pretty obvious they were a troll.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor mimics a bot and creates a redlink to a non-existent archive? Looks like Cluebot did the right thing. This is my last post for the night though, maybe I'm missing something? Franamax (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Have you seen that IP's contribs? I presumed that Scsbot wasn't logged in (which Steve confirmed does happen) and that Cluebot's reversion somehow prevented it from creating the archive page. I really don't understand this technical stuff and that's why I asked. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Zain's right-- the edits were made by the bot, which had mistakenly lost its login cookie, or something. Certainly ClueBot was right to revert -- a huge deletion, made by an anonymous IP address, has all the hallmarks of real vandalism.
ClueBot didn't "prevent" Scsbot from doing anything; I just had to manually clean up some of the collateral damage.
I need to fix the bot to notice the "You are not currently logged in" text on the edit page, and not proceed. (Or, even better, I need to rewrite the bot to use the API, rather than slavishly trying to mimic a real user on a web page.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Censoring "Drug" use?
It seems to me that this edit by Andme2 is a very poor choice.
Is there a WP policy that requires it? If not then this should not have been done. If I recall correctly then not that long ago there was a lot of drama here about users editing other users' RD posts.
I would have reverted this myself if I was more confident in my knowledge of WP policies and rules. APL (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't see how there could possibly be a need to censor "MSG", it's just a food additive... We don't censor references to drugs anyway, I remember several rather lengthy discussions about cannabis in just the past couple of days. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That seems to me to be, at the very least, an ill informed decision. I will leave a message on Andme2’s talk page about it. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that there was a good reason to trim (or even delete) the header altogether. See the section below, #Accidental snorting question. People are reading the remaining header as if it were the original poster's entire question. Without the context of the poster's remarks, well-intentioned editors are offering medical advice to the poster. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to create a (small) exception in our rule about modifying section titles for circumstances such as this one...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any need for an exception. People who do removals just need to do them properly, which includes providing a removal diff at the Q. Then everyone will read the diff before deciding for themselves if the removal was proper. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify : I understand why the question was removed. What I'm questioning is Andme2 going back and censoring certain words out of people's replies. APL (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
These "jokes" always escape me because I've always been taught to pronounce it "Yuran-us"...as most Brits who were brought up with Patrick Moore's "Sky At Night" TV show do. SteveBaker (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I know no Greek, but I was once persuaded that the strict pronunciation is OO-rən-əs, and they'd have been better advised to spell it Ouranus. Mind you, that suggests joint ownership of a fundament, which is is a rather curious and perverse concept. So perhaps even Ooranus. No matter which way you cut it, there's always an a***hole somewhere. How about Ooranos? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Accidental snorting question
Okay, I'm moving all the meta-discussion from the Science Desk to the talk page – here – where it belongs. Here's everything that I've transferred over:
It strikes me that a previous question, about what happens if you put your hand in liquid nitrogen, is a "medical question" to about the same extent as this one. Where is the line of demarcation? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This one asked for a diagnosis. If the question had been the same as the subject heading it would have been fine. But the question was "I'm bleeding from my nose and eyes; could it have been caused by the msg I snorted?" This guy needs to see a doctor. -- BenRG (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the line of demarcation? If any reasonable person removes a question per guidelines, it would take overwhelming disagreement to restore the question. Better safe than sorry, you can never be too safe. Legal fees eat up a lot of people's philanthropic donations. Lets put the line of demarcation somewhere that is "too safe". As soon as we start trying to come up with a reasonable balance then we guarantee ourself an error rate that corresponds to the choice of line, be it a half-lawsuit per year or even 37 milli-lawsuits per year is not worth the patient's gain compared to our statistically expected EV loss (and remember, we're losing altruistic dollars. Sentriclecub (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You oppose a reasonable balance ? For myself, I will continue to support reason and reasonable behavior, not the "one person can delete anything without consensus but an overwhelming majority is needed to undo a removal" approach. One reason is that this unreasonable approach violates the delete, revert, discuss cycle favored by Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A question may suggest a course of action. In this case, the reference to "snorting" indicates that the substance named may have an effect similar to an illicit drug. I have therefore replaced the name of the substance with "XXX". Andme2 (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This is all so silly. Questions about physiology are not medical questions. "What will happen if I jump off a six story building" might well be answered as "you'll end up in the emergency room", but that's also not a medical question. On the other hand, "I just jumped off a six story building and it hurts like hell; what should I do about it" is something of a medical question, though it wouldn't be a bad thing to say "go to the emergency room". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆01:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What many people don't realize is that the original question isn't just what's in the section header. The original poster specifically indicated that he had done the damn-fool thing in question, and so the removal of his post and referral of his questions to medical professionals was entirely correct.
Since the section header contains an incomplete copy of the question, we've now got people who are under the (mistaken) impression that the question is a (borderline) harmless-request-for-info type post. For reference, here's the original post:
== Is it right that accidentally snorting msg can cause bleeding from nose and eyes? ==
My friend alan gave me something that he said was coke but was actually crushed down monsodium glutemate and although could tell from the beefy taste had already had two big lines and now not surprisingly am bleeding from the nose which i would expect but my eyes are bloodshot and have lately been weeping tears of blood
Seems a clear cut case of a request for medical advice to me... Hopefully a good reminder that people opposing a removal need to make sure they know what they're talking about and people who are bringing a removal to discussion should link to the diff or otherwise show the removed content Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that should have just been blotted immediately as a request for medical attention. It's also pure trollery, of course. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆06:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
As the editor who removed the question originally, I have to say I am surprised that anyone found the removal questionable. The original question was in the history for anyone who wanted to review it. (Frankly, I thought it was trolling and not a genuine question, but as it clearly violated the medical advice guideline that is how I tagged it.) Because the question heading essentially contained the question, I had considered deleting the whole thing; that might have avoided some of the subsequent discussion. However, my understanding is that it is preferred that we avoid completely removing questions (with the exception of blatant trolling) because that can lead to confusion and reposting from OPs who don't know where their questions went or why. - EronTalk12:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
My objection isn't to marking the Q as requesting medical advice, but in failing to provide a diff at the start of this discussion, leading to much confusion, since the Q header had been changed. It's quite time consuming and difficult for each of us to track down anything in the huge histories these desks have, especially when the edits are old, so please spare us this trouble in the future. And I also object to your apparent goal of avoiding any discussion. Discussion is a good thing, unilateral action is a bad thing. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
In general, discussion is good. Misinformed and, thus, pointless discussion like this was is bad and should be avoided. Avoiding it by hiding the issue away isn't the best way to do it, of course. --Tango (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
StuRat, I have to disagree with you. From my reading of the situation Enron did little wrong in this case. My understanding of this situation is that
The OP posted the question, a clear cut request for medical advice.
Enron properly summised the the question was a clear cut request for medical advise & removed it & didn't bother to initiate any discussion because he/she felt (correctly IMHO) none was necessary
Several people started discussing the removal without actually finding out what they were discussing (looking at the subject heading only)!
Andme2 made a rather strange edit to the question
Someone reverted Andme2's edit and discussed it with Andme2 and above
The discussion on the removal was brought here where it always should have been, by TenOfAllTrades who also provided a diff so that people finally knew what they were talking about.
(Point 4 and 5 don't really matter but I include them for completeness.) If my understanding of the sequence is correct, I would have to say the problem here is some people thought it okay to contest a removal without actually finding out what they were talking about! Not only that but they initiated the discusion in the wrong place confusing the whole thing further.
To summarise, it is usually expected if a removal isn't clear cut you should initiate a discussion. And whoever initiates a discussion, should definitely put a diff to show what they are discussing. (And if you join a discussion with no diff, you really should find one and add it.) But I think we can all agree, no discussion was necessary here since it's a clear cut case once you read the question. (This doesn't mean discussion is forbidden simply that if those who opposed the removal had bother to look into the removal they would have realised that Enron made the right decision and wouldn't have bothered to contest the removal). Note that even if someone should have initiated a discussion but didn't, while people are welcome to discuss this with the person in question they still should include a diff when they initiate a discussion with the wider community regardless of the failings of the remover.
(Rm indent) I agree with your point that the person who initiates a discussion should provide a diff but don't you agree that all of this would have been avoided if Eron noted the removal on this talk page and linked to here from the actual desk? The Medical advice guidelines specifies that removals should be noted here but that happens very rarely. We should either follow the guideline or change it but having it and not following it doesn't make any sense. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, I don't think it would have made any difference at all. The problem here wasn't that people were restoring the original poster's question and answering it. Rather, there was a large enough fragment of the original poster's question in the section header that people were answering that. Having a diff of the removed question on this talk page likely wouldn't have helped; most people probably were just firing away at the question on the Desk – ignoring the {rd-deleted} message – without coming near the talk page here. (No one appears to have felt the need to ask Eron about his removal of the question, either.)
I agree with your concern that the guidelines as written don't seem to reflect current practice and should probably be corrected. The vast majority of medical advice questions are removed without controversy or confusion, and we only had a problem here because the header contained a substantial (but contextless) part of the question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually tried to get that into the guidelines and only one person responded so it happened to be consensus. The discussion is here. But no one reads those talk pages so even though we're supposed to discuss there, we should do so here. My only reason for wanting removals to be reported (not necessarily discussed) is the following:
There may be a case that isn't so clear-cut and gets wrongly deleted.
Why should we have to dig through the history to see what it was when this page is so easily accessible?
It prevents unnecessary discussion on the actual desks.
Lets look at each case:
If it is a clear request for advice and
it is reported: You get a bunch of people agreeing with you. No harm done.
it is not reported: The question disappears into the history and anyone who comes across it will agree (but may say so on the actual desk). But you will also have people (like StuRat above) who will argue that the removal wasn't done properly. Small amount of harm done.
If it is not so clear and
it is reported: We have a long debate and the community decides whether the question is acceptable. This is a good result.
it is not reported: We have a GF OP who may have lost the opportunity to ask a potentially valid question. This is bad.
...because I did after all, Heaven help me, give a tip on how to pick up women. I didn't have the good sense to move this to the Science RD (tardy thought) instead of actually answering as I did. I certainly didn't intend to rise to troll bait, but to give an instructive reply while expressing some constructive criticism directed at the OP and likeminded (?) others. Actually I was hoping y'all would/will help get this sort of content off the Humanities RD where I often post (and often as I can, reply to) queries in my fields and related ones. OK, it's 'way early here in the Eastern Mediterranean Time Zone, I won't be online again for a while, I'm probably too fatigued to be using good judgment, etc. Advice? (besides "Control your temper / Stay off WP when tired")? Feedback? -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen far worse, don't let it bother you. We get a lot of questions that suggest the OP isn't the kind of person I would choose as a friend, but I don't think we'll have any luck trying to improve them. It's easiest just to answer their questions and move on. It would have been better on the Science desk, you're right, but it's not essential to move misplaced questions, there are enough people that read multiple desks for them to still get decent answers. I don't think that particular question is going to get a much better answer than mine; I looked for a more reliable source and there wasn't one easy to find and I doubt anyone will devote more time to it than the couple of minutes I did, whatever desk it's on. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What is important isn't what you say the first time, but that you co-operated with other users, listened to them and where open to their views - even if you don't agree on absolutely everything. Look at what you didn't do: there was no soapboxing, no flame war, no incivility even in your first post. Once a mistake was realised, you couldn't have acted better than you did, in what was anyway a good faith edit.
I thought this bit: "the last person to try and purify a genetic line was called Hitler......this is not so far off that....." was funny. How does this person think the dog breeds originated in the first place? -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe poodles were created on the 12th day. Some overzealous editor cut it out of Genesis. - Nunh-huh
The perfect murder?
What happened to that “The perfect murder” thread from August 23? I don’t see it archived or on the desk anymore.
Bowlhover’s statement “don't use any disposal method mentioned on Wikipedia. [in reference to police checking hypothetical methods to solve crimes]” reminds me, the desks are probably being monitored by the NSA, CIA, FBI, MI6, and god knows how many regional police forces aren’t they. We should feel honored at all the hypothetical attention. :)
I have reverted the “Memory improvement” question from the science desk as possible medical advice and so that it can be discussed here. This seems to me a pretty strait forward case of requesting medical advice. The user says he’s a young man who feels his “instincts are getting worse (I'm getting clumsier).” He then asks “What are the most recommended memory improvement techniques for people in my age?”
Now I’m not a doctor but I can think of some pretty serious (as well as completely benign) conditions that have these symptoms. One user already responded with a list of treatments (or “exercises”). This seems very dangerous to me. User:Clarityfiend then respond with a warning that the OP should “see a doctor.” A good response, but it seems to me that this question should have been reverted immediately. Another user then responded that the OP “could just be imagining it” but went on to say that if not he should see a doctor. (It probably would have been better just to add the last part in my opinion.) Finally a fourth user suggested Sudoku. I have reverted all but Clarityfiend cautionary comment. Please discuss. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the doctors you are seeing, but those that I was able to see if I had those symptoms would either think I'm a hypochondriac, use me as a cash cow or, very probably, both. Not giving medical advice as a principle is one thing but making fun (unconsciously, I am to assume good faith) of the OP by suggesting to see a doctor in this case is more of naivety than I can stand. 93.132.180.102 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No one is making fun of you or any other OP. Our policy of not giving medical advice is for the protection of the questioner like you as well as for the legal protection of the foundation. If you have questions about a personal medical problem this is not the place. That you consult with a doctor is the only thing we can recommend. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a thread on miscellaneous that didn't contain anything close to a refdesk question, and to which four of the five responses were variants on telling the OP to go away. Algebraist08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
