Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 43
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
My question deleted
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why was my general question about diet and statins deleted?--TreeSmiler (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Deleted question
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
sorry I had missed all the discussion on my innocent question. If it has caused argument I regret it. However I would like to know the effect of statins on someone who eats a high sat fat diet, so I have reposted my question in a more general manner on the science page. I hope this is satisfactory.--TreeSmiler (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) |
Cheerio folks
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Too much politicking here for my liking. DuncanHill (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For reference, since the open secret of TreeSmiler's identity is now out in the open, I have suggested terms of his parole on User talk:TreeSmiler#Your open secret.... I suspect it's what everyone was already thinking, but since there hasn't actually been any 'sooper sekrit cabal decree' on the issue, I put something in writing. Admins who find those terms of parole acceptable are encouraged to sign on there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that anyone who focuses on the ref desk and is always testing the limits reminds me of light current. Were there ever off-wiki discussions? David D. (Talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here?!? The open secret of a banned editor returning was made explicitly non-secret, and now it's a big drama? Why? This has nothing to do with any secret cabals- many editors (including Ten, as far as I know) are skeptical of using private off-wiki communication unless there's a very good reason for it. There's no cabal-ish boogyman here unless you really go out of your way to invent your own. This happens occasionally with LC socks (and I'm sure it happens all the time with other socks; it's a big wiki.) What exactly is the cause for alarm or upset here? Friday (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
TreeSmiler (and now 79.76.132.44), let me make it absolutely clear that I did not need Ten or Sluzzelin or anyone else to tell me, either on or off Wiki, that you were yet another sock of Lightcurrent. All that was required was a minimum level of intelligence and insight, an ability to read the signs. I suspected it was you from your early exchanges with Rockpocket. A suspicion turned into a certainty as your editing pattern established itself. There it all was; the same tactics, the same interventions, the same mode of expression. You are too, too obvious. But none of this matters. I never had any problems with you in the past, always finding you puerile and impish, rather than malevolent. But you are disruptive; and while I accept the opinions of people I respect, like David and Ten, that you can make some useful contributions, I believe that this is far outweighed by your need to make mischief. I personally believe that Ten is being remarkably tolerant in offering you a lifeline, and not cutting you off as soon as he became aware of your true identity. If I were in his position I would simply have added TreeSmiler to the long list of Lightcurrent socks, and make sure that you did not return in this or any other form. But then I am not an administrator, nor ever intend to be. I do not have the patience of Job. Finally,-and I am sorry to have to say this,-but those, like DuncanHill, who turned this into a silly Wiki drama have done you no service at all. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(Adding something inspite of this section being archived, because I feel it is worth adding)
Please try to forget about all the drama, and continue doing what you all do best. Volunteering, spreading knowledge, helping out at the desks. Like all jesters, Lc is likable enough to the soft ones among us, but he's not worth forgetting why we're here. I wish Duncan returned, I wish I didn't know this talk page existed, And of course I wish we all sat in a circle, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) This is a contribution after the archiving, for which I apologise. I'd just like to make it clear, since it was asked, that I have never discussed any of this off-wiki. I'm pretty sure Sluzzelin's link is the same place I was refering too, although I may have encountered the same sentiment elsewhere on-wiki. Skittle (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
Another one bites the dust
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is my contribution after the archiving, for which I too, apologise. I seem to have been the catalyst (not the root cause) for yet more acrimony and bitterness and editors leaving WP. ALL these sad events, of course, were totally unnecessary and were solely caused by Tens totally paranoid and vindictive nature (on which he should seek professional advice IMO). Since this posting is contrary to Tens unilaterally formulated rules against me, I fully expect the TreeSmiler account to be indef blocked forthwith. I therefore preempt this action by declaring my immediate resignation from WP. I hope now everyone is happy. But just ask yourselves the question: how many more good editors can WP afford to lose before it becomes a complete joke??--TreeSmiler (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
|
Medical and legal advice
The header on each reference desk reads:
Do not request medical or legal advice. Any such questions may be removed. If you need medical or legal advice, do not ask it here. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead. See also Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
According to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice, questions soliciting medical advice or answers giving it should be removed on sight. I'll assume for the sake of argument that the same applies to legal advice.
I often see questions on the Reference Desk that skirt the boundary of seeking or offering medical/legal advice. They're not clear-cut enough to remove, but there is a potential issue. My usual practice when I see this is to note that "The Reference Desk cannot give legal/medical advice" (which I should probably link to the disclaimers) and then ensure that the question is answered as best as possible within the guidelines.
Unfortunately, and this is the issue I'm raising here for discussion, my practice appears to be regarded as inappropriate by some RD responders who reply raising the issue of whether the question or answer does constitute medical/legal advice. Here are some examples (signatures omitted to reduce drama):
- I disagree, this is a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, which does not constitute advice or subjective opinion.[1]
- This is not a request for medical advice. It is a question of fact; no "advice" is asked for. Let's try not to get too trigger happy on these things; it's very off-putting for questioners.[2]
- Asking whether something is legal is not necessarily asking for legal advice.[3]
- Answering incorrectly about whether it is legal for a company to do something is not going to get anyone in trouble. It's not the same thing as someone saying, "Oh, should I just push my neighbor's car out of my driveway?" and then doing it. Don't mistake asking about laws with asking for legal advice. They're not the same thing at all. The questioner was clearly not asking for legal consultation. We can give all sorts of answers regarding laws on the books, common interpretations of rulings, and so forth. We do it every day on all aspects of the encyclopedia—think of all of the legal issues involved in properly tagging photographs! Just because it is legal doesn't make it off-base; it's only a problem if we are advising someone in how to handle their own personal affairs.[4]
Now, if I believed that something was a clear-cut case of medical/legal advice I would have removed it. By instead noting this restriction and then doing my best to make sure the question is answered within policy, I believe I'm signalling that I believe the latter is possible. Notwithstanding, I feel that reiterating our policy in these cases is important — for the benefit of Wikipedia, responders, and questioners in different ways — and for that reason, I fear that explicitly gainsaying or weakening this restriction is potentially harmful.
So, I'm seeking comments on whether I'm right to identify this grey area of borderline questions where we don't remove it but nevertheless ought to be especially careful in our responses. Bovlb (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. There is & always will be a gray area on the borderline. Once noted, we should take care in how we answer. Any possibility we can archive this debate right now, because we've been debating this same tired subject day in day out for the last four years or more; and with the best will in the world, I do not think you have added much to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- But new RD volunteers will always show up, and to them the problem is fresh. The debate will never end. Vive debate, sez me. I've seen Bovlb doing what he's doing, and I thought at the time, "Ok, good enough." It doesn't work to get all dogmatic about the guidelines; if we just take things case by case and apply good sense, we'll limit trouble. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really necessary to rehash the debate each time. (Though if someone wanted to have the debate again, I would point them to my infrequently-updated and not-at-all-canonical list of reasons why we don't offer medical advice on the Desks: User:TenOfAllTrades/Why not?.) We've got archives, after all.
- As Tagashimon and Bovlb have noted, the boundary between advice and not-advice is always going to be fuzzy. We – as helpful, intelligent, responsible people – should be mindful of the effects that our advice could have, and exercise both caution and compassion. For what it's worth, I remember what the Desks were like a year or so ago, and we're doing much, much better at handling requests for medical advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- As two of the responses quoted up there are in response to a question I asked, I must add again that I was not asking for legal advice, I was asking whether something is legal. That is the same as asking, (random example) "is it legal to drink alcohol at the age of 16 in Canada?" Seraphim♥ Whipp 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Another example:
- Bovlb, how exactly does this constitute legal advice? [5]
Thanks to all for your comments. I conclude that I should continue to remind people of guidelines in borderline cases. Unfortunately, I am left with the problem that I get a response like the examples above almost every time I do so. Not only does this detract from the effect of my reminder, but it induces self-doubt in me. Maybe I should work on my phrasing, or link to this discussion, or extend the guidelines. Or maybe I should just ignore such responses. Bovlb (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. I begin to see. You should note to yourself the gray areas, but I think you should hesitate long and hard before placing warnings against questions/answers if you feel they are in the gray area, rather than the black. If you are undecided, let others decide. If you've not seen a warning posted, it's certain that others will have assessed the same question and decided that a warning is not warranted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. I misunderstood what you were doing before - I assumed you were calling for the removal, or at least the ignoring, of those questions. My concern is that the questioners might come to the same conclusion. I would advise you not to place these warnings unless you feel the question does indeed constitute a request for medical or legal advice - I suppose I just don't understand the purpose. (Thanks, by the way, for alerting me to this discussion.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Tag and Elmer speak wisely. The "legal" ones are harder to pin down than the "medical" ones, too. The "Obama" one on the Entertainment Desk is not legal advice, it's someone using Wikipedia to mount a grass-roots smear campaign, and it should be removed for that reason. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the comments. I see I need to change my conclusion. :) It seems that the intent of my terse reminders has been unclear to people.
Given that legal/medical advice, or requests for it, should be removed on sight, a message suggesting that previous posts should be ignored or removed would indeed be pointless. On the contrary, my messages weakly implied the opposite: that I had considered whether the forgoing text should be removed and concluded that it should not. This is why these responses have puzzled me. What I have been attempting to do with these warnings is two-fold (and varies across queries): advise the original poster that any advice received (including my own) should not be interpreted as constituting medical or legal advice; and remind subsequent responders to adhere to the guidelines. Maybe that was too complex a intent to achieve in half a dozen words.
Ironically, (given that the implicit theme of this discussion is the inability of RD posters to read the instructions at the top of the page) I see that the instructions on the top of this page give a better place for this discussion to have taken place. Bovlb (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- You forgot to mention that my assertion if you state that something is legal advice, that statement is itself legal advice, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Frankly, I think people are misinterpreting the disclaimers. The disclaimers clearly state that Wikipedia does not offer legal or medical advice, because Wikipedia is not a lawyer or doctor. Anything that can construed as such advice is not guaranteed and Wikipedia is not responsible. The disclaimers are not there to eliminate such "advice", but to disclaim responsibilty for idiots who hurt themselves listening to strangers on the net. Therefore, anything that's legal or medical can stay. People have just been misunderstanding the purpose of the disclaimers. (Bovlb, you knew going into this we would disagree, so it was very gentlemanly to invite me into the debate. Thank you.) —Nricardo (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I saw that comment. I'm not sure that's true, but I concede that such a claim could exacerbate an existing situation. In any case, I try to avoid stating that things are or are not professional advice except when actually removing them. I'm not sure that your interpretation of our disclaimers is entirely consistent with Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice.
- Regarding my invitation, as Dudley Field Malone once said, "I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me."
- Bovlb (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guidelines are suggestions. They are not binding. I believe the disclaimers were likely vetted by the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. —Nricardo (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I feel like I'm being sucked in, and that's usually a danger sign, but I have to put it on record here that there are some of us who think it's an ugly philosophy that says "We can act as irresponsibly as we like as long as our lawyers can beat their lawyers." --Milkbreath (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guidelines are suggestions. They are not binding. I believe the disclaimers were likely vetted by the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. —Nricardo (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Geesh everybody! What do you mean that I can't play in that part of the playground - I remember plenty of times that what's-'is-name played there and nobody said nothing so, why not me? Why am I labeled a troll just for doing what was successfully done before? How come the rules change over time and how come the rules of 2004 aren't the same as the rules of 2008? If anyone agrees with me about this then we should all quit the RD together. That'll teach learn 'em! --ojndyh klat 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
His Dark Materials Troll
I have deleted his most recent ramble from the Miscellaneous desk. I think the suggestion that a block be applied is worthy. Supporters? SpockMuppet (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with this deletion. --hydnjo talk 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, good move. David D. (Talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletion, but I think a block would be a little harsh. A warning should suffice. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that he's already been warned (User talk:Bowei Huang), and he hasn't done anything since then. I don't see any problem here unless he gets at it again. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed question
I have removed the question at the bottom of this page because it seemed to be asking for legal advice (even though it said it wasn't) regarding spying on confidential information TheGreatZorko (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would help if you took the trouble to complete edit summaries so that people can see that your edits are about; they're few & far between in your edit history. This is a link to the diff of your removal, which is possibly a better way of showing what went. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Most of my edits are on the reference desk, where edit summaries are hardly ever used anyway. I don't really do much actual editing as you have no doubt noticed, and when I do I usually include an edit summary. And I didn't think of using the difference link. TheGreatZorko (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, edit summaries are as useful on the RDs as anywhere else. Agreed, inexperienced questioners will tend not to provide them, but from a quick glance at this Misc history, experienced answerers tend to use them. In this particular instance, I tried to use your contributions history to identify which edit represented the removal of the question, somewhat expecting to see a word like "removed" or RM. Short summaries such as a for answer seem quite acceptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that you didn't read the full question. He asked if it was possible to spy on someone's Verizon phone and email. He specifically stated that he wasn't asking if it was legal. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the removal was inappropriate. As questionable as his motives may be, this is simply a technical question. I'm going to go ahead and restore it; if you still think it should be removed, please explain why here first since there doesn't seem to be consensus on that point right now. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Get him to rephrase the question. We don't need the preamble. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Y'all have been had!
Too bad.
Y'all have been had!
We ought to be sad.
Y'all have been had!
Yet some are glad.
Y'all have been had!
Y'all have been had!
hydnjo talk 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I removed it again. The least we can do is ask him to rephrase the question. If he is unwilling to do it then its not a real question but more designed to garner exactly the response it got. Less distractions on the ref desk would be nice. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? On what grounds did you remove it? If he hadn't explained why he wanted to do this, someone surely would have asked. He is neither provoking debate nor asking for any "forbidden" advice - you disagreeing with what he is doing is not valid grounds to remove a question which explicitly asks about a matter covered by the reference desk.
- This deletion-happy attitude on the RD - this is certainly not an isolated example - is, in my opinion, a clear breach of WP:AGF, if nothing else. I'm not going to restore the question again, for now at least, but I'd really like to know what your rationale is here. It certainly is a "real question," regardless of the "preamble." What's up? -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It will end up being a big debate about morality. Isn't it obvious? Get him to just ask the technical question, the computer ref desk is not Dear Abby. I took it back down because there was no clear consensus to replace it. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. It is probably a troll, and even if it isn't it's creepy, but this is the sort of thing we have to put up with in a free society. The up side is that people like that will out themselves all on their own, reducing the necessity for secret police like me and you. The question has to be left up. Just don't answer it if you don't like it; that's what I do in cases like this. If your concern is for the image of Wikipedia, then answer the OP with a reprimand. You're entitled to get personal—he started it. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since there's clearly consensus to keep the question I've restored it. I would
strongly advisekindly suggest you not to take a step as strong as outright deleting someone else's question in the future without making sure you have consensus (except of course in cases of indisputably blatant requests for legal or medical advice). -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since there's clearly consensus to keep the question I've restored it. I would
- The reference desk inclusionist cabal is everywhere ;) -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{(}}
New template, purely decorative. Also works as {{)}}. I should add that I have no idea why I created it.--VectorPotentialTalk 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- So this: {{(|What does it do?}} and {{)|What does that do?}} shows up as --> { and } What is the idea for its usage, you must have had some idea why you did it? David D. (Talk) 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is he implementing Lisp using wiki-markup {?.—eric 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Template:( looks sad. --hydnjo talk 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is he implementing Lisp using wiki-markup {?.—eric 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why are we notified of this breaking news, rather than for example WP:VPM or WP:ANI? --Lambiam 07:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
{{RD-deleted}}
After a tedious game of "find the missing </div> tag" I have finally perfected my change to {{RD-deleted}}. When using {{subst:RD-deleted}} it will automatically sign for the person using the template. When you don't subst it (this was the tricky part that was driving me nuts trying to get it just right) it produces the familiar boilerplate message surrounded by a gray border in small font, rather than an ugly bright red message asking you to subst it. This way it doesn't break any previous uses of the template that haven't been subst'd.--VectorPotentialTalk 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good work--but I'm not sure that automatically signing the template is entirely a Good Thing. I know that when I use the template, I often follow the boilerplate message with additional situation-specific comments; I suspect that other editors may do the same. Having an automatic signature inside the text looks...odd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- In that case you can use the un-subst'd version, and it will appear exactly as before or you could type {{subst:RD-deleted|reason/explanation/comment}} and it will sign after the comment.--VectorPotentialTalk 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Examples:
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
RD-deleted with sbst: This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis. --hydnjo talk 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)RD-deleted without sbst: This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.
|
One true religion (again)
#Claims of Evidence for Other Religions as One True Religion. This is what, the fourth or fifth time this question has been posted and replied to politely? Many users have answered the question sufficiently before. Should we revert this one as spamming and do the same for any further incarnations of this question that the OP posts? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I went ahead and removed this. He's already been warned (see above), and I've gone ahead and warned him again. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Now we're not allowed to give opinions on living people when asked?
There was a question which pertained to the veracity of a statement by Kevin Trudeau. I replied that he had been convicted of fraud before, is often in legal hot water for making false claims, and, in my opinion, makes his money by being a snake-oil peddler, selling the idea of hidden "natural cures" to things like cancer and AIDS to desperate people. This was removed by User:Corvus cornix as a violation of WP:BLP. I think this is a little silly. For one thing, everything of a strictly factual nature that I've pointed out is actually in his biography, plus my own interpretations, of course, but I think those are fairly obvious. For another, if we're asked questions about the veracity of people, are we not allowed to reply, "Sorry, I wouldn't believe them on this" and point to reasons why not? Maybe we should put a rule at the top along with "legal" and "medical" advice that says "we will not answer any questions about living people that they wouldn't be happy with"? Have we sunken so low? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about the man, but I'm afraid I think you drifted over the line in your reply. "It is deplorable" is at best editorial, at worst soapboxing. "Snake-oil peddler" is potentially libellous. It may be true, but how would you like to expend the time and money it would take to prove that in court? Let the facts speak for themselves; it's both safer and more effective. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it is editorial. It is obviously a given opinion. I think it is one well supported by the facts of the matter as well, but in any case I hardly see why its being an interpretive opinion is in any way a problem. People seem to care about "opinions" on the reference desk only in rare circumstances; they are everywhere, as is natural to such a forum. This section of the project, at least, puts up no pretenses to being an encyclopedia. I think elsewhere on the ref desk I've said that I thought the firebombing of civilians was immoral and that the Holocaust was ghastly and that Linux was free if you don't think your time is worth anything but I never saw anyone rush to tut-tut me about having opinions then.
- The fact that the man is making false claims has already been decided by the courts. That I use a colloquial term for the same thing is of little matter; around 10,000 others have done the same thing and seem to be getting by just fine. It's not exactly an original interpretation or a very contentious issue amongst aware, educated people.
- My larger point is that if one can suddenly not give an opinion as to the happenings of living people on the ref desk, that is quite a blow to our ability to answer questions. People seem to feel quite free to give their opinions about modern political figures, major writers, and so forth—should this be curtailed, despite having never gotten one complaint yet about it? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- If all caps is yelling, gratuitous italics must be whining. So your original question above was a trolling setup for a futher diatribe along the same lines? I disagree with you. Live with it. Other people's lack of decorum is no excuse for our own. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that both of you could probably do to dial the temperature down a notch—particularly you, Milkbreath.
- That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong from a BLP standpoint – at least as I see it – with much of what the anon IP editor said. (Disclaimer: I had never heard of Trudeau until this question was posted.) The anon IP started off with a link to our Kevin Trudeau article, which is very thoroughly referenced, and does indeed demonstrate that Trudeau is a felon with a long history of making misleading claims about products that (among other things) cure cancer. Trudeau does espouse grand conspiracy theories to sell his books: Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About, The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You To Know About, etc. While the phrase "snake-oil peddler" might be a bit...direct for some people's tastes, it's not unsupportable as a statement of opinion and is even arguably supported as a question of fact. To the anon IP's credit, we should all note that he's also the only responder so far to have linked to our article (or to any reference at all).
- Given that the original question sought information about Trudeau's credibility, it's not particularly surprising or inappropriate for some mention of his ongoing dishonesty to be brought forward. I've asked Corvus Cornix to share his reasoning here; I'm concerned that this particular application of WP:BLP – while well-intended – might have been a bit overzealous. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- If there were reliable sources added to the comment, I wouldn't have removed it, but do remember that all of these things wind up at Google and everywhere else eventually. BLP doesn't just apply to articles, it also applies to discussions. I was wrong not to include a better edit summary, but that's the only thing I feel I was wrong about. Corvus cornixtalk 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking at our article on Kevin Trudeau, which seems to be very thoroughly sourced. Which statements did the IP make that you don't feel are supported by the article, or a reasonable interpretation of the sources therein? (It would have been better had the IP emphasized that his comments were based on the article's information, of course.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sourcing isn't carried over. It needs to be wherever the claims are made. "First, do no harm" should be our mantra in these cases. Corvus cornixtalk 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sourcing isn't carried over? Says who? I think linking to a sourced article backing up your claims is more than enough to satisfy WP:BLP. I fail to see how harm is done in this case, but wouldn't be if he provided the source directly? He linked to a tertiary source (the Wikipedia article) from which it's trivially simple to reach the original sources that back up his statements. There is clearly no libel here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- This should probably be carried over to WP:BLPN, if anybody wants to prusue it. Corvus cornixtalk 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sourcing isn't carried over? Says who? I think linking to a sourced article backing up your claims is more than enough to satisfy WP:BLP. I fail to see how harm is done in this case, but wouldn't be if he provided the source directly? He linked to a tertiary source (the Wikipedia article) from which it's trivially simple to reach the original sources that back up his statements. There is clearly no libel here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sourcing isn't carried over. It needs to be wherever the claims are made. "First, do no harm" should be our mantra in these cases. Corvus cornixtalk 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking at our article on Kevin Trudeau, which seems to be very thoroughly sourced. Which statements did the IP make that you don't feel are supported by the article, or a reasonable interpretation of the sources therein? (It would have been better had the IP emphasized that his comments were based on the article's information, of course.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be a rather important question of policy—outside of article space, can we refer to footnoted facts in those articles without having to recopy all of the original citation? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
←undent I'm worried that we'll end up in a situation where we have
- Q: Who is Harold Shipman?
- A: Harold Shipman was a doctor gone bad; he is one of Britain's most prolific serial murderers.
The response links to our well-sourced article, but does not footnote its assertions. There's no arguing that this response makes a very serious claim about a living person. Should it be removed as a violation of WP:BLP, or does the wikilink to our thoroughly-sourced article satisfy BLP policy to a degree sufficient for the transient, short-answer format of the Ref Desks? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can I side-step that for the moment and say that I think most of your post was ok, Corvus. Where you went off track was not distinguishing between an opinion and a judgement. "I believe/think/feel that he is a snake-oil peddler ..." would be an opinion, being primarily a statement about you and what you believe, and only indirectly (or perhaps not at all) a statement about Trudeau; whereas "... he is a snake-oil peddler ..." is a direct statement about Trudeau, a judgement. "I deplore his activities" would be an opinion, a statement about your own reaction to Trudeau, whereas "It is deplorable" is a judgement of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Shipman isn't alive. BLP doesn't apply. Corvus cornixtalk 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's important to remember -- and staggeringly easy to forget -- that the Reference Desk guidelines are... guidelines. We don't have hard-and-fast rules or 100% objective litmus tests for what is and isn't appropriate to post. It has always been thus, and in fact it's not a bug that we don't have 100% objective litmus tests: it's a feature.
No one wayward post is going to destroy the Reference Desk. Most of the time, the thing to do when you see something posted which you find inappropriate is: politely comment on it. Don't delete it; don't call the poster an idiot or a vandal or a troll; just say: "I think that was inappropriate."
What happens next is just as important, or more significantly, what doesn't happen next. The poster of the arguably-inappropriate material can issue a polite apology, or not. But there's no need for the poster to get all defensive about it, and we certainly don't need to get into a heated argument or a remove-it/no,revert-it/no,remove-it-again edit war. Remember: no one wayward post is going to destroy the Reference Desk.
In particular, criticisms of the appropriateness of RD posts are not and should not be turned into polarized, dichotomized, slippery-slope, all-or-nothing hyperboles. If I suggest that something you said was inappropriate, it does not mean that no one can say anything remotely like that ever again. If you disagree that what you posted was inappropriate, that does not mean that the whole enterprise is going to devolve into a degenerate cesspool. But over time, the net result of a dozen or a hundred polite requests (some honored and some disagreed with) will be, on average, that we hover around, but stay mostly on the right side of, the impossible-to-define line of appropriateness. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what we want to do. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with much of what you say, Steve. I am concerned, however, that Corvus took action under the auspices of WP:BLP—which is a policy and not a guideline. Moreover, it's one of our policies that – for good reason – has very little flexibility. The Desks regularly discuss living people; WP:BLP obviously is relevant. If there is going to be a move to strictly enforce WP:BLP on the Desks, we probably ought to discuss what that means sooner rather than later.
- For what it's worth, I strongly agree that when we comment on living people (or on any people) we ought to take care to make sourced, accurate statements. I've always been a strong proponent of including good internal and external sources wherever possible in all Ref Desk responses. As I see it, the question we face is what type of citation is necessary to satisfy WP:BLP? Is it sufficient to incorporate an internal wikilink to a supporting article? Do we need to copy over references to the Desks? Is there some third (or fourth, or fifth) way? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Point. For what it's worth, BLP policy or otherwise, I thought that the castigation of Trudeau (that started this thread) was borderline at best. (Not enough for me personally to complain about, but definitely borderline.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at BLPN. Corvus cornixtalk 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Umm, 69.221.252.179, see Kevin Trudeau." would be a fine RD response and wouldn't have ignited this wall of prose but WTF, bits are cheap now (aren't they?). --hydnjo talk 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue seems to be rather complicated to me. Generally per WP:BLP we should not discuss our personal opinions of people on wikipedia at all, not even on talk pages where it's off topic anyway. It's true we do sometimes turn a blind eye, particularly with stuff like 'Bush is an idiot' but people are perfectly entilted to and do remove comments from talk pages (and definitely articles) about a living person all the time. In my opinion, the RD is not exempt even though it's perhaps not OT. In otherwords IMHO it's okay person X has been convinced of multiple crimes including making false claims if that's sourced e.g. from the article. However in as much as possible people should avoid giving personal opinions of someone. Let's assume our readers are not dumb and able to come to their own conclusions... If you do want to give opinions I would suggest you take NPA to heed which while not technically applicable gives some helpful hints. It's not so bad to say 'I believe most or all of the stuff person X sells is junk' since you are discuss stuff rather then a person directly. You aren't prescribing any motives to him (he might really believe in the stuff he says about the stuff he says or perhaps he has been conned by someone else into thinking the stuff he sells does what he says) Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
RD stress
As a former regular here, may I extend my condolences to you all that the RDs seem to be undergoing one of their periodic bouts of angst and anguish. For those of you who've not been here that long, you may be comforted by the knowledge that these things are cyclical and almost predictable. In fact, that prompts me to ask a question at the Science Ref Desk. Meanwhile, I refer you all to WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY, which, if I recall, was originally inspired by Ref Desk angst. With love to all who frequent these pages in the hopes of helping others, even if you don't always agree with each other, and especially if you remember lil ol me... --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- How very kind of you to post this, Dweller. Thank you. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although I have just recently discovered the RD, I've read the entire archive and I see that the light-hearted and sometimes comical responses of the past are few and far between these days. But I can see the cyclical nature of such things, and it truly is incredible how it is almost like clockwork. The reference desk is one of the few things that makes me feel better about mankind as a whole, so I hope it returns to its former glory 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (I am actually User:Chris16447)
Crisis, what crisis? No angst, no anguish, no stress, and no arguments for the sake of arguments! I am more than happy with things as they are and can well do without the 'former glory', thank you very much. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly was this 'former glory'? Was it similar to a circular rainbow? A time when the light played more tricks than it currently does? David D. (Talk) 03:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, the ever cool Ms Muse, <tips hat, respectfully> one of the things I most miss about the Desks is seeing your patient and generous erudition. Anyway, the promised (threatened?) thread can be found at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#RD_stress. I've dangled the prospect of a crummy reward if the Desk can come up with a pleasing response. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dweller. I'm glad to see that you are still around, to enjoy a little Sturm und Drang! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the rest of us, that's Sturm und Drang. ;-) --hydnjo talk 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
must discuss before deleting medical questions?
Hi Kainaw, when I deleted that question about exercise and illness, I was going by this guideline. But you responded, "If you want it deleted, you must discuss it on the talk page." Can you point me to the relevant guideline or policy that says we need to discuss on the talk page before deleting medical questions? It seems to me like we might need to revise the guideline I cited to reflect this. --Allen (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think the meaning was simply that, someone having strongly disagreed with you on whether the question crossed the guideline, you now must discuss before removing. I could be wrong, but I don't think it was intended as a challenge to the guidelines, simply the next stage. Deletion without discussion is only for clear cases, and if someone disagrees with you it probably isn't clear. Skittle (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is wrong to revert a removal like that. It is the first shot in an edit war. The guidelines say to remove. The consensus arrived at on this very page not too long ago was, I believe, that the next step is to challenge the removal on the talk page instead of re-posting the removed question. That said, I don't know what to think about the question. It seemed fairly harmless on its face, but it did garner replies that were clearly medical advice, and for that reason I was content to leave it removed. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it’s probably a good policy to discuss here before removing a question if the subject is borderline (and not immediately dangerous in nature). Usually a consensus is reached very fast here anyway. Alternatively maybe we could make it a procedure to replace questions at the bottom of the page if a reverted question is restored to the desk after discussion. That way the OP will have just as much chance of getting the question answered as he/she would have had the question not been removed for debate. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just saw this discussion. My point in the revert message was that you must discuss the deletion on this page immediately upon removing a question. The question was removed. I gave it plenty of time to come up on this page. It didn't. So, I reverted it. It had nothing to do with my opinion on the question itself. -- kainaw™ 13:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The guideline page is archaic. Perhaps you read it and that is where you got the comment "we cannot answer medical questions" from - which is entirely untrue. We can answer all kinds of medical questions:
- Does Lopressor list insomnia as a common side effect?
- What are statins used for?
- Does blood pressure go up or down after giving one pint of blood?
- Do AIDS patients have any white blood cells at all?
- Those are all medical questions that we can (and should) answer. I assume you meant "we cannot give medical advice or a medical diagnosis" instead. Exactly how to word this has been debated here for many months. The result of those debates is that any deletion of a question must be discussed here (after noting the question's removal on the main page) along with a link to the diff so users can easily see the question. Another result of this debate is that questions that do not ask for advice or diagnosis but cause people to give advice or diagnosis should not be deleted. Instead, the answer that gives advice or diagnosis should be deleted. Nobody seemed too concerned about discussing those kinds of deletions here - but you should make a note of it.
- All in all, you did fine. Most important, you found this page and you can read all the nasty fighting (er, I mean debating) above. You will see that there is no consensus on medical questions. The middle ground appears (to me) to be: replace the question with a note about medical advice/diagnosis and post a note here with a diff to the removal. -- kainaw™ 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. My comment "we cannot answer medical questions" was pure carelessness, which I hadn't noticed before you pointed it out. I strongly agree that we can, and I only removed that question because it seemed like a request for medical advice to me (though I do see the alternate interpretation). It does sound like we have work to do on the guideline page. --Allen (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The guideline page is archaic. Perhaps you read it and that is where you got the comment "we cannot answer medical questions" from - which is entirely untrue. We can answer all kinds of medical questions:
- It was not my understanding that the editor who removes a question has to open a discussion here on the talk page. It is my belief that anyone who takes exception to the removal may open a discussion if they choose, and the question will be restored if consensus is reached to do so. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The argument (somewhere in the mess above) was that it is difficult and time-consuming to find a removal diff. So, the person removing the question should provide a diff. Where? I assume here. I didn't bring up this argument, so I don't remember it well. I continually go down the road of "What if we all think it sounds like a request for advice but it literally does not ask for any form of advice or diagnosis?" -- kainaw™ 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it would be slicker for the remover to provide a diff at the time, and I wouldn't mind seeing that in the guidelines, but as it stands, the absence of a discussion here does not constitute fully sufficient reason to revert a removal, sez me. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The argument (somewhere in the mess above) was that it is difficult and time-consuming to find a removal diff. So, the person removing the question should provide a diff. Where? I assume here. I didn't bring up this argument, so I don't remember it well. I continually go down the road of "What if we all think it sounds like a request for advice but it literally does not ask for any form of advice or diagnosis?" -- kainaw™ 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it had been a question that wasn't so obviously not a question asking for advice or diagnosis, I would have got the diff and started the discussion myself. However, as Amcbride said, when he read the question again he noticed that it wasn't necessary to remove it. Strangely enough, someone did offer unsolicited medical advice - so I removed that answer from the question. -- kainaw™ 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, as long as nobody gets hurt and everybody has a good time, I'm OK. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Ok
- If it had been a question that wasn't so obviously not a question asking for advice or diagnosis, I would have got the diff and started the discussion myself. However, as Amcbride said, when he read the question again he noticed that it wasn't necessary to remove it. Strangely enough, someone did offer unsolicited medical advice - so I removed that answer from the question. -- kainaw™ 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Physics Magazine Guy
So... Physics Magazine Guy. We've pretty well established that he's really Homework Copy Guy, and in any event, it appears that he posts without ever returning anyway (and that's just this month's already-archived examples). Is it time to just start deleting these walls of text that we've basically resolved not to answer? — Lomn 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I usually enjoy answering them. Hopefully he'll copy my answers directly onto his homework and turn it in. Then he won't be coming here for answers much longer. -- kainaw™ 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's another approach, I suppose :) — Lomn 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with removing the questions, for anyone who wants to do so. It may be like other questions we'd rather people didn't answer- someone is likely to come along and answer it, as long as it's there. Friday (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- While I admit I got a bit of a giggle out of some of Kainaw's 'answers', I fear that that particular approach may not be a good long-term solution. To someone not familiar with HomeworkQuestionGuy (HQG), it looks like we're biting a newbie and being mean for no reason.
- Since HQG keeps asserting that his questions are drawn from algebra or physics magazines, perhaps it would be appropriate to bar him from posting further such questions unless those questions are accompanied by an appropriate citation: journal title, issue, volume, page, date, author. Questions not accompanied by that information get pulled. As I said in my most recent comment to HQG, it seems as terrible shame that the authors of these questions aren't getting proper credit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- He doesn't post all that often and hardly seems disruptive. Is there some reason why he can't just be ignored? -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at his history (Yeats30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) it looks like he's posted five times so far this month, for an average of about once every three days. If he's going to be doing this for the rest of the semester, I'd rather we nip it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If we're going to remove these questions (and I have no objection if we do), let's just remove them as being posted not in good faith, not on some trumped-up charge of a lack of citations. We don't expect or ask anyone else to cite their questions, so it seems disingenuous to level this charge against PMG/HQG. —Steve Summit (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would support removing them but would propose that people don't remove them if someone has already responded in length since it would be foolish to piss off a useful contributor over a troll (and people do sometimes get annoyed when a question + their response is removed as this talk page well shows). If the editor appears to be unaware of the history, I would suggest they be informed via their talk page; if the editor is aware, perhaps just politely suggest that they consider deleting or at least ignoring such questions? In any case directing said editor to this discussion may help Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Images Removed from Wikipedia articles.
Here is a copy of a final response I gave in a discussion on the Humanities Desk (Image Highly Disturbing, 13 February) concerning the removal of images from several Wikipedia articles. This, I consider, to be a new and disturbing departure in forms of censorship. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I refuse to enter into an edit war over this, but we now have carte-blance for anyone and everyone to remove illustrations they disapprove of. Are the photographs of dead Nazi leaders somehow more distasteful than those contained in the page on The Holocaust and Lynching in the United States, to take but two examples? I sincerely hope some administrator will take note of this discussion and restore the censored images. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think a hide box could be implemented for the squeamish. Sort of like this:
Which part do you find a new departure? This is by no means the first edit war we've seen over image inclusion. The only interesting feature I discern is that it was discussed for a few lines on an RD before someone got around a deletion which, like you, I deplore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is the first time that I have come across censorship of this kind. I should make it clear that I personally do not like the images in question, but they do serve an encyclopedic purpose, and individual likes and dislikes are quite irrelevant. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW & IIRC, this sort of thing has gone on on articles for sexual organs, pregnancy, &c &c. Google bears witness. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The dif [7] --S.dedalus (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Clio, I suggest you discuss this somewhere like the Village Pump. I'm not sure the ref desk talk would fit the discussion. bibliomaniac15 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored, but it does operate on a 'principle of least astonishment'. While many of our articles – from vagina to Muhammad – contain images or depictions that some readers might sometimes find offensive, we aim to place such images only where they serve a legitimate educational purpose, where they might reasonably be expected to be found, and where they are no more offensive than necessary to serve their purpose. As a courtesy, many editors will attempt to place images likely to be deemed not-work-appropriate 'below the fold' a few paragraphs into the article, but this is not required by policy.
- To Bibliomaniac15, a 'hidden box' approach has been suggested a number of times, and rejected on each occasion. Various schemes to place warning labels or content ratings on Wikipedia pages have also been nixed. In all cases, rejection has been based on some mix of the following factors.
- Wikipedia is not censored, nor are we particularly interested in facilitating censorship. Readers who wish to modify their reading experience are welcome to fork the project or add on their own client-side screening.
- Self-censorship of this sort tends to create a false sense of security. There's no one to go through the entire project and properly 'hide' all the bad stuff, so unsuspecting readers are still going to come across 'offensive' material. Worse, they'll be pissed off about it, because they though we were going to protect them. (These schemes also make vandalism more shocking—a boon for trolls.)
- There's no agreement on what constitutes 'obscene', 'inappropriate', or 'offensive' material. The edit wars would be epic (at least, among those who cared).
- For reference, I believe that the usual venue for discussion and rejection of these proposals is the Village Pump. If you're having trouble with an editor removing an image that is 'appropriate' but potentially 'offensive', try an article RfC to establish the value of the image. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion properly belongs on Talk:Wilhelm Frick, or (if a wider audience is really necessary) on WP:VPP. I've left my personal opinion on the article talk page. Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Warfarin question removed
I removed this question. It appears to me that this is clearly asking Warfarin will interfere with the OP's unnamed heart condition. We cannot and, in my opinion, should not answer this question. -- kainaw™ 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have answered it on that basis :). Actually, I get the impression the OP has been given warfarin for his heart condition. Whatever, we cannot advise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Troll question removed
Diff. See 71.175.125.54 contribs --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
War
The responses to this question have evolved along predictable lines to become a bunch of sniping crap. Should something be done before it turns into a full-blown flame war? --Milkbreath (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Leave messages on user talk pages and maybe say something in the thread.. what do you mean "should something be done"? AFAIK we don't just remove discussions just because they've strayed off topic or start to sound like a flame war. :D\=< (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think I mean? And who are we if it doesn't include me? I assumed that steps are sometimes taken when what is supposed to be a reference desk starts to look like a grade-school lavatory wall. Steps such as the ones you have just suggested, maybe. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not we have the same question on the science desk. We could nuke them? That would be in the spirit of the question. David D. (Talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We can and do remove discussions when they stray off topic or start to sound like a flame war. We discuss here first, then we remove if that's what people agree. We haven't done so recently because we haven't needed to. 130.88.140.115 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledgements
After five years, I've finished writing my first novel, a seventeenth century space opera. I could never have done it without Wikipedia, and especially the Reference Desks. I mainly haunt the Science, Humanities and Language desks, where I've been continually astonished by how far people are willing to go to help a stranger. If the book is published, it will include an acknowledgements page, where I'll express my gratitude, and also list a few of you by name - Sluzzelin, Clio the Muse, Lambiam, EricR, NunhUh, and Hydnjo spring to mind - but I'm worried that I might be missing someone - they're strange names that don't commend themselves to the memory - so this is your chance to remind me who you are ... And also, to those I've listed above, is it ok if I mention you, and have I got your names right?
Thanks yet again.
Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Adam. Good luck in your quest for publication and do let us know how it goes. Rockpocket 09:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, hi Rockpocket - yes, you're in there too - and Corvus Cornix... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambrowne666 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Time to resurrect Image:Adambrowne666 ACTION FIGURE.jpg! Congratulations on the completion and choice of topic, Adam! Thanks for the acknowledgement! No problems on being mentioned, on the contrary, what an honor. May I add that I hope you will be writing another book very soon; your questions are among my personal favorites. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow! Break a leg no wait, that's something else well anyway, congratulations! Yes, and what the others said and please do keep us informed. Either H or h - hydnjo talk 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What's going on here? Why is no one complaining? :) p.s. if you've been here five years there is no doubt StuRat helped you out. Speaking of which, welcome back StuRat, I saw he asked a question on the science desk. David D. (Talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, David - StuRat, of course. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adam, I am so delighted for you! I am also pleased that you would wish to associate Clio with the product of your labours, and also me, her earthly acolyte! However-and I really hate to introduce a sour note here-but I would far rather the Clio signature was not grouped in any way alongside user StuRat. I have no desire to go into my reasons for this, but there are some here who will understand why, even if they have no sympathy with my eccentricity. Anyway, no great problem; I'm sure you will do very well without me!
- I really and truly hope your book is a great success. Please let me know of the title and date of publication and I will be sure to add it to my library. In the meantime I would be delighted to take all necessary trouble to answer any future questions from you, as and when I am able. Very best wishes. Anastasia, aka Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also hate to introduce a sour note, but the time to ask this question is when you have a publication deal in the bag, not when the novel is still in manuscript form. I wish you luck; getting a novel published by a reputable publishing house is extremely difficult at the best of times, and publishers are taking fewer and fewer chances on first-time writers. --Richardrj talk email 11:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Richard - but then again I've long had a problem with going off prematurely - we'll wait and see. Not sure what to do about your request, Clio/Anastasia - can we retire to a quieter corner of the internet to talk about it further? Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who's noticed that his space opera is set in the 17th century? Galileo was being put on trial for heresy for defending the heliocentric theory.. not exactly a spaceflight level of technology :D\=< (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's why Adambrowne is a creative writer, not just a literal science geek. :-P ---Sluzzelin talk 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- As a yet-to-be-published writer myself (don't ask, it's a WIP and its subject matter must remain a closely guarded secret. Actually, the real reason is that it's just too damned hard to explain in a paragraph of less than 5,000 words; which is why you have to buy the book ... if I ever get around to finishing it. But I can say it's not a novel. Never, never will I write a novel), may I wish you all the best, Adam. PS. A chat with your doctor might help to sort out your ... problem. There are drugs for that sort of thing. :). PPS. If you find a good publisher who's willing to accept mansucripts of the slightly eccentric variety, drop me a line, would you. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Jack - you were one of the helpers too, weren't you? Yes, writing's a murderous art. I've sent mine to an agent who works for a friend of mine, and also an editor at Tor books who likes my stuff. You should check out the Donald Maas agency website - they put up a page listing 'What we're looking for this month' - in February, one of the things they wanted was a literary historical science fantasy, so I couldn't pass that up. -- Froth, you're right - but the thing with fantastic fiction is that it always has to be set somewhere Other. Used to be in flying castles across the sea, then it was among the steaming jungles of Venus and the canals of Mars, then it was among the stars. Each time, when we discovered that the lands across the sea are as mundane as our own, that Venus is a rock and so is Mars, we kept setting our tales further away, in places that were still mysterious - romance needs mystery. And now we're in the future, and it's as mundane as everywhere else - the solution is to go into the past, which will always be Other. That's how steampunk came about, I reckon. The conceit with mine is that it was written by someone extrapolating on the science of the time, just as a sf writer does in 2008... Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Err, the past definitely has zero "frontier" appeal, which is one of the most attractive aspects of science fiction. If you really go back far enough, like to prehistory, then you can regain a little of that mystery, but then it turns into "hm, that's nice" instead of "wow, could our society really evolve into this?" :D\=< (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's with the negativity Froth? Seems rather unpleasant. Lots of decent scifi/fantasy is set in the past, as well as some 'realistic' work. If the only thrill you get from scifi is "wow, could our society really evolve into this?" then that is unfortunate for you, but does not limit the rest of us. 79.74.0.57 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wm Gibson says those who think sf is about the future are fooling themselves. My style of sf, set in the past, is more about culture and literature and the history of science than science itself, and so there's no chance of fooling yourself as you read it that this is what the future holds. Still, you have a point, Froth - the genre can have a role in popularising and extrapolating the science that's happening right now, and even influence the direction science takes, and I'm not delivering on that part of the bargain, so some sf readers won't get into it at all, which is perfectly fair enough. Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Med question removed
This diff removed from RD/S. Claims of "I don't want a diagnosis" notwithstanding, the OP is asking for a medical second opinion. If somebody wants to run down the list of possible skin bumps, I've got no issue, but I think the question as stated is fundamentally flawed. — Lomn 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good call, I think. His funny bumps can be identified by his doctor, not by us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Medical and legal questions (for the nth time)
I'll refrain from offering an opinion on the motive for this. But after MrRedact did the inevitable [8], Nricardo decided to answer the question anyway (despite the fact it was no longer there) with a confident, but unsourced opinion on what is or is not legal. [9]
We all know the different arguments arguments about this, God knows we have heard them often enough and I have a nagging feeling we are going to be hearing them again in the near future, but simply ignoring the fact that a question has been removed and offering an answer for anyway results in a non sequitur (and not a funny one). I therefore removed the entire section, since a answer without a question is about as useful as a surfboard with handlebars. Please folks, if you have an issue with a removal such as this, politely question it in the correct forum (i.e here) just don't ignore it and offer your answer anyway.Rockpocket 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blah, blah, blah. Give me policy, not "guidelines" haphazardly cobbled together by people who don't even know what a disclaimer is. —Nricardo (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- We do know what a disclamer is. We have decided that in addition to the disclamer, we are not going to accept questions asking for legal or medical advice. And this has nothing to do with any legal risk the participants in such a discussion may face. (Your answer in fact demonstrated the hazard with legal advice, you provided a unqualified answer to a very general question, I'm doubtful you understand the laws of every single country out of the 200+ countries out there to be able to say for sure it would not be illegal) Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Now it's my turn for a rhetorical question: Did you read the article on deletionism? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The RD policy/guideline/rule/whatever you call it on medical and legal advice is well established. If you don't agree with it, you are welcome to try and have it changed. The are well established ways to do that, violating the existing consensus without changing that consensus is not one of them. And giving an inaccurate answer to a deleted pointy question hardly helps your cause Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines are two very different things. Let's not create "rules" out of thin air just for the heck of it. These guidelines are in conflict with the disclaimers. —Nricardo (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since you appear able to discern the difference between the two: FYI, there is no such thing as a be bold policy, but only a guideline. As to the edit itself, I don't think that summarily proceeding to change a guideline after having been chastised for violating it is what the slogan Be bold is intended to encourage one to do. --Lambiam 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines are two very different things. Let's not create "rules" out of thin air just for the heck of it. These guidelines are in conflict with the disclaimers. —Nricardo (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- In what way do you see the guideline and the disclaimers as being in conflict? The disclaimers say – paraphrased and condensed – "We don't give medical advice, and nothing you see on this site should be taken as such." The guideline for the Ref Desk says, "We really do mean it about not giving advice. If you ask for it, your question may be removed; if you offer it, your comment may be deleted." I'd be interested in a polite and civil discussion on the topic; if there is a genuine conflict between the guidelines and disclaimers I think we'd all really like to fix things up. Beyond my one bite below, however, I'm not going to respond to any comments that call me names. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, there's the rub. The disclaimers do not mean advice is not or cannot be given. The disclaimers mean the advice is not qualified medical advice. It's more of just friendly guidance. The guidelines misinterpret the disclaimer to mean that we cannot offer such guidance. We certainly can, and the user can see from the disclaimer that such guidance is not professional "advice". (Out of curiosity, Do you know whether the Wikimedia Foundation has in-house counsel that can consulted on this?) —Nricardo (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Found him (User talk:Mikegodwin), but looks like it's best not to disturb him. —Nricardo (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) The Wikimedia Foundation does have house counsel: User:Mikegodwin. Mike Godwin was asked for comments on the guideline back in August 2007; as far as I know he has offered no objection then or since. You're welcome to query him again if you so desire.
- You seem to be arguing from the assumption that the sole purpose or justification for the guideline is to enforce the (real or imagined) intent of the disclaimers. That is incorrect. The chief purpose of the guideline is to prevent harm—disclaimers or not. By not giving medical advice – or offering 'guidance' that could be construed as medical advice, whatever floats your semantic boat – we limit the potential for harm to our readers and damage to Wikipedia's reputation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't help but notice that pretty often a corollary of Godwin's Law kicks in in such discussions as this; somebody gets called a "deletionist". To label another editor in any way is uncivil. Furthermore, the "bounce off me and stick to you" principle comes into play. If someone sees fit to pronounce me, for instance, a "deletionist", they accomplish nothing more than identifying themselves as whatever "ist" they see as being in opposition to that, since I am no "ist" at all in reality. This renders any following argument on their part quite a lot less valid, because they have declared a biased position and can be assumed to be applying dogma and not debating the case. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's rather rude to point it out, though. And to be fair, even though they make one flawed generalization, it would be careless to dismiss their other arguments out of hand. Best not to let the same sort of sloppy thinking cloud your own judgement, Milkbreath.
- I've contributed many hundreds (if not thousands) of answers to the Ref Desks over the last couple of years, and I've often put in significant effort to do so. But since I hold the view that offering unqualified medical advice holds the potential to be seriously harmful to our readers and to the project, a few editors will feel that I should be dismissed out of hand as a damn dirty deletionist. So be it. I ought to know better than to rise to this particular bait by now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was rude? Dang. I don't seem to be able to get the hang of all this. I honestly tried to state an observation plainly, hoping to help with a different perspective and by pointing out what I saw as a flawed debating technique. I always appreciate it when I can learn from a fresh perspective plainly expressed. I guess I'm just going to be the slightly rude one around here. (To call it "bait" seems rude to me, while we're on the subject.) --Milkbreath (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- [FWIW, it didn't seem at all rude to me. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)]
- Ah, I see. I was mistaken in my assumption that when you said 'The deletionists always win' up above, you were actually referring somehow to the situation at hand. If you aren't calling anyone here a 'deletionist', and it wasn't your intention to imply that anyone here was a 'deletionist', then I apologize for any confusion on my part. It probably would be best to avoid referring to 'deletionists' in the future, though, when you don't believe any are present. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's face it s/he used the term as an insult, "Just know that I say "deletionist" with a sneer", intentionally trying to start an argument. A good reason to walk away from this user. Clearly they are not willing to listen to any debate and have already made up their minds. Given the majority do not agree I suggest we just get on with the ref desk business as usual. David D. (Talk) 17:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I was mistaken in my assumption that when you said 'The deletionists always win' up above, you were actually referring somehow to the situation at hand. If you aren't calling anyone here a 'deletionist', and it wasn't your intention to imply that anyone here was a 'deletionist', then I apologize for any confusion on my part. It probably would be best to avoid referring to 'deletionists' in the future, though, when you don't believe any are present. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Spamming of a link to a forum
An anon user, whose IPs start 85, has been answering questions on the misc. desk by putting a link to the forum anontalk and no other attempt at answering. This seems like quite obvious spam to me, but they have been putting them back when they have been removed, even calling it 'reverting vandalism' in the edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&diff=194172087&oldid=194171014. I'd post a message to their talk page asking them to stop, but it looks like a dynamic IP. So I shall put this here instead. Skittle (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's always the spam blacklist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Delighted to be back
Just a note to say how much I'm enjoying myself at the Desks again. Today, I was inspired by a thread at the Humanities Desk to write Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle. --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I must say, that is absolutely brilliant. --Chris16447 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.74.48 (talk)
- I'm not sure this assertion is entirely correct, but it certainly does hold true to a few articles I know. bibliomaniac15 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Starting debates
I responded to this question that "unless Gravel specifically announced his reasons for remaining in the race, it would be speculation for us to say why." I was not aware that the reference desk is exempted from WP:NOR. Is that indeed the case? In my understanding, the function of our reference desk is primarily to give reference to factual information, such as that contained in our articles. Or at least published speculation.
This seemed to me a textbook example of soliciting a debate. I was accused of "polluting the responses" for pointing this out. Dforest (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- You were reasonable in my opinion. Yes, by their nature, we have to sometimes be lenient on the ref desks compared to other places. But I think we can pretty much all agree that properly sourced info is best. Friday (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Funny how you pick and choose when it's ok to give a source or not.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&diff=194243687&oldid=194242752
- You didn't chastise Lomn in this scenario where I asked for a source, then Lomm accused me of being "inflammatory". Friday, if you really were impartial and didn't have a grudge against me, you would have said Lomn was in the wrong on that one. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, Dforest, it's very difficult to stop this kind of thing. It's best just to ignore 'invitations to debate' and speculations about speculation. I always do! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I asked many moons ago if we should make a template explaining that a "Reference Desk" exists to provide references, not opinions. I was told to ignore the questions that I didn't want to answer. Of course, if I do want to answer questions that others deem improper, then I'm told that I can't answer them just because I want to. Well - since I've spent a majority of my time working moving my office the last couple weeks, I haven't answered much of anything so I doubt I've caused much offense. -- kainaw™ 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Reference desk/guidelines say:
- The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources.
- For the specific question, it is at least conceivable that one or more notable pundits have published their analyses of and given a likely rationale for Gravel's persistence, in which case it would be appropriate to report on that in our article on the Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008, as well as in a response to the RD question. I have no problem with this question, for which the questioner may well have thought the explanation is a public secret to which they happened not to be privy. I do have a problem with responders who just opine or speculate, or, worse, respond with guesses as if they are established facts. --Lambiam 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- My rough standard on whether the soapbox clause applies is whether or not I see potential merit to the discussion. For example, I would read "Isn't it true that all real Christians think the Pope is going to hell?" as a thinly-veiled soapbox, even if published speculation exists (unfortunately, it probably does). The question in question, however ("Why would a candidate remain a candidate if he can't possibly win?", in case people don't want to follow the link), is one I see a great deal of potential in. There's a lot of good history that can be noted on past similar situations, plenty of reasonable (if unsourced) speculation on specifics, and a low drama potential. These threads, I think, can be the very best of the Ref Desk: educational, insightful, and thought-provoking in ways that "how far away is the sun?" can't hope to match. My two cents. — Lomn 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- What Lomn says is very true. Particulary the Humanities and Science desk often see questions which a scientist or scholar would probably phrase differently, if at all. But some of our learned volunteers give intriguing answers to these questions, and sometimes also include educated speculation or informed opinion, while declaring it as such, as speculation or opinion. To some readers, myself included, this is the spice of the desks (when the comments really are educated and informed, which is, of course, difficult to define here). I think allowing for this also attracts many of our more expert volunteers, to varying degrees, but I think it's there in all of them. See also purpose #3 in Steve Summit's take, which I believe to be quite accurate, from a descriptive viewpoint. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and opinions. While you all have some good ideas, I particularly identify with Lambiam's comments. When I posted my initial response to the question, I first thought about responding with the plausible reasons Gravel would still be running. But I realized that would amount to speculation. I considered there may be some published opinion on the issue, but it would be difficult to cite while maintaining a neutral point of view. So I thought it would be in our best interest to stick to factual information about the issue, and advise the asker why we generally avoid speculation on these issues. I think one of the best points about our reference desk is that we have these guidelines to avoid original research and starting debates. It is one of the things that sets us apart from other services like Yahoo Answers, where people routinely do, as Lambiam was lamenting, respond with opinions or guesses as if they were established facts. Dforest (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear, it's a fine line. The guidelines should be kept in mind when monitoring one's own posts, and I do try to adhere to almost all of the guidelines. Pointing out inappropriateness or violations of these guidelines at the desks themselves is a tricky thing though. Still, I don't think your comment was "polluting the responses", and to say so was unfriendly and unnecessary.
- There is consensus that some posts require immediate attention, but I think it's usually better not to comment on this in the threads themselves. When you see crass violations of some of the more sensitive guidelines (the famous "medical advice" comes to mind, but also crude personal attacks or inflammatory soapboxing per Lomn's comment above) it might be better to just silently remove them and notify the user.
- Otherwise, I do suggest either walking away, or taking it up either at another user's talk page or here (as you did). The desks' history shows that meta-discussions of this kind unnecessarily dramatize the desks, where a calm and focused atmosphere is more appropriate, in my opinion. You did nothing wrong, but the reaction was to be expected, unfortunately perhaps.
- Final note, I don't view this as a difference in philosophies as much as a difference on where to place the emphasis. I cannot speak for Lambiam, but this reply, summarized as "musings", falls into the exact category of educated and informed yet unreferenced responses I was talking about. A great answer, and I wouldn't want to miss it. We certainly don't wish to open all gates and become Yahoo answers, and perhaps we shouldn't emphasize that we allow for these opinions, which is why the guidelines pretend they don't exist. Once in a while we can acknowledge their value though. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The difference of x to the power of n upto nth position defined
More links are needed
And awaited for. So you guys can be a complete reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseVisitTheAppropriatePagesRegardingSaidTopic (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Red Letters
I tried to link a Wikipedia article on the 2007-2008 Kenyan crisis (it's there; believe me!) into an answer I gave on the Humanities Desk to a question about the contemporary effects of nineteenth century imperialism, but for some reason I cannot get it the blasted thing go blue! Am I doing something wrong? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've redirected it. The article name appears to have an emdash or something. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, kind sir! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, it should be moved then :D\=< (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's an en dash, which is right according to the MoS. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The MoS is the most fearsome grammar thing I have ever seen. I'm not against it, but to me, the rule of thumb is "To each his own." bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this is the wrong place for this comment, but surely an article's "real" title should be something that can be typed on an average computer keyboard? I don't seem the have an en dash key available. --LarryMac | Talk 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- An en-dash is the least of your worries. Try typing Hors d'œuvre, Mêlée weapon, Māori, Áed Róin.... -Gwinva (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this is the wrong place for this comment, but surely an article's "real" title should be something that can be typed on an average computer keyboard? I don't seem the have an en dash key available. --LarryMac | Talk 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem as long as Hors d'oeuvre, Melee weapon, Maori, and Aed Roin lead you there... There ought to be a bot going around to make sure each diacritical title can be reached from a diacritically challenged redirect. And if you can view an article, you can copy its title to the body of a link. --Lambiam 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- My own feeling is that the "real" article name shouldn't contain obscure Unicode punctuation characters—em or en dashes, “typographical” quotes, apostrophe’s, etc.—that are difficult and often impossible to distinguish. And I know the question has been debated at length. I'm not sure what the Manual of Style currently says, though.
- When Clio asked this, I very nearly moved 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis to 2007-2008 Kenyan crisis, but then I noticed Bibliomaniac15 had already created a redirect at 2007-2008 Kenyan crisis, and I wasn't sure what would happen if I moved an article on top of its own redirect, so I wimped out. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be superfluous now. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't, it's really dumb. And the request moves process is nontrivial :D\=< (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The day that's made simpler will no doubt be a red letter day. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Muse
There’s another Clio thread on the Humanities desk. (At least this one isn’t asking for her hand in marriage!) You know Clio, I believe your user page my soon be one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia. :) If only we could check. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess intelligent guys these days are so disgusted by stupid people that a brilliant woman practically turns them comatose. Don't know why an intelligent guy would be at all romantically interested though. ಠ_ಠ :D\=< (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And of course we can check by reading User talk:Henrik#Most visited User page ... sadly CtM isn't even in the top ten. And that reminds me of the new & fascinating Wikipedia article traffic statistics utility, long may it grow & thrive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No vandals, though; well, not too many. I must be doing something wrong! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Amending question titles to "Meaningful titles"
User:Noetica (contribs) has taken in recent times (or I have recently noticed) to changing question titles to what she/he considers to be more meaningful. I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, the changes do appear to be more meaningful. On the other hand, I pity the poor user searching for answers to his question, using the original title as they search key. any thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- She seems to be including the original title string in the new title, so I don't see a problem there. And creating meaningful titles makes it a lot easier for anyone who has reason to search the archives. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Per Someguy, I'd say that the practice probably isn't harmful as long as the original section title remains as the first string in the new title. (While making the archives easy to use is nice, we don't want to make it harder for the original poster to find his question.) Please don't 'correct' spelling, either—I pity the poor soul who can't find his question about the word 'definately'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Points in response:
- There is no prohibition anywhere that I know of against editing a section title in a project page. If you know of one, please provide a link to it. There are specific guidelines for naming sections in talk pages, but a project page is not a talk page.
- Yes, I have changed several headings, and I have usually preserved the original text and added to it.
- At the language desk, the heading "language" (for example) is singularly obtuse. We all want to help posters of those questions, but it is unreasonable to expect twenty of us to respond every time we see such a thing turning up on our watchlists. We have no idea whether we will be able to help or not!
- Not all newcomers can be expected to understand this; so I choose to help editors, and therefore help the newcomers who will, because of my actions, get editors with relevant expertise addressing their questions.
- Section headings need to be unique, if only so that they can be linked to reliably. Sometimes they have not been, and therefore need changing.
- These pages are archived, and much of the information remains valuable. I gave a long and closely researched reply to a question about use of a and an before words starting with h and u. The title of the section was "Basic grammar". How does anyone scanning the archives find that, without some pretty ingenious search strategy? I don't intend to see my efforts, or the efforts of my fellow editors, wasted again for no good reason.
- Also for the sake of linking, searching, and archiving, it is reasonable to correct spelling in crucial elements like headings.
- I call on others to do the same servile but useful housekeeping. Why should they not?
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Points in response:
- There is a actually a special provision for this in our guidelines:
- If there is no title to a question, add one. You may also add to a non-descriptive title (such as "question"), but it is best to keep the original title as a portion of the new one, as it may be used by the questioner to find the question.
- This is precisely what Noetica has been doing. --Lambiam 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no problem with what Noetica has been doing. For the record, just so that we can all dispense with the him/her stuff, Noetica has acknowledged his maleness. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Changing the title makes searching through the archives easier. Noetica has changed a few of mine and I don't mind. HYENASTE 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Curse your hawk-eyed meddling, JackMyLad. May I not revel in glorious cyberandrogyny till I grow bored with it, in my own good time? (Anyway I might have been dissimulating...)
-
- : )
- Thanks for those remarks, colleagues. I understand that refactoring can be controversial, but in this case there seems to be hardly any downside, provided that we do it with sophistication.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Changing the title makes searching through the archives easier. Noetica has changed a few of mine and I don't mind. HYENASTE 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t have a problem with this as long as it’s not messing up links to section headers. For instance if there is a header “Language” and it’s being discussed somewhere else on Wikipedia with a links (i. e. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Language), a user changing that header would obviously make everybody search for the new string title. As I understand it you are mostly just doing this to newly posted questions though, Noetica, correct? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's right, SD. I try to catch them when they're new, when the benefit is greatest. I am aware of the issue you raise for linking. Surely most sections would be linked once they have accumulated a few responses: but we need to be a little circumspect. If others would do this too we could catch and enhance these low-value headings more reliably.
- Early links will fail no matter what, once the regular archiving has cut in. In most cases links after archiving are the most stable, and the most useful anyway, because an answered question that's copiously dealt with and archived with a stable location and content is just the sort of resource you'd want to mine, yes?
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't like the idea, although at least I know now why it was done to a question I asked on RD/H. One person's "clarification" is another person's "obfuscation." It also smacks a bit much of "I know what you meant, so I'll just fix that for you." This may seem contradictory on my parts, as I have recently added parenthetical numbers to the heading of the five "Tim Cahill" questions on RD/Misc, but I wasn't adding my own interpretation to anything there. There's a huge chasm between changing a section header of "Question" to something meaningful and modifying something that was obvious. This is not article space. --LarryMac | Talk 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you at least agree that the title "question" may be made more specific? This is not a matter of clarification, as you call it, but of adding enough information to the original title to distinguish this question from all the other questions, so that it can be found. The instructions on how to ask a question state quite clearly: "Be specific. Make the title meaningful, so volunteers who can help with your question will find it." If a questioner ignores this instruction and does not provide a meaningful title, they should not be surprised or dismayed if we modify it so that we can find it again when we need to. --Lambiam 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- LarryMac, if it were a matter of imposing an interpretation, that might be a problem. But no one's doing that. Just replicating a part of the question in the title, or adding a couple of key words, is sufficient to reveal in the title what the question addresses. That's all.
- –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll specifically refer to the RD/H question for which I used a one-word header - "Navvies." This was changed to "Navvies: Were they Irish?". What subset of editors would have skipped over the question because of the original header, but suddenly said "oh, wait, were they Irish? Well now, that's something I can really sink my teeth into!" Yes, Lambiam, of course changing "Question" to "Question about <topic>" is acceptable (and probably expected), and I'm sure I've done that a few times in the past. Whatever, I'm not going to get all Steve Baker on your asses. Do as you wish, and I'll go back to the sponge cake and chocolate. --LarryMac | Talk 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The points have been made, so I'll just say I don't support changing titles. :D\=< (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Flying Disc
Moved from Misc Desk: --Milkbreath (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The humor is appreciated, but why is it when someone reports spotting a UFO, they're ridiculed ? I have read the Robertson Panel article, and it says that to "reduce" intrest in UFOs, a debunking program is to be initiated. Debunk does mean ridicule, and that is what has been going on here. I have also read some of the discussion pages on UFO and what not and they indicate that IF there is alien contact, all fucking hell will break loose as the people revolt against all authority. Some will do so for religious reasons, some, for vengeance.
When someone wishes to report a UFO, they should go to the UFO article, UFO related article, pick a website hosted by a organization that will investigate the incident, incl. the person making the claim, all without someone ridiculing them. (Alien contact can happen right now or 100,000 years from now.) This should cut down on the ridicule, if not eliminate it.
Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED.
By the way, Wikipedia is one hell of a site. Keep up the good work. 65.173.104.52 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- For my money, there was no ridiculing at all, probably because the questioner has retained an open mind about what they saw. There have been lots of constructive suggestions and a weak joke from me. If that constitutes ridiculing, most of us are subject to incessant, unceasing ridicule in our daily lives. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. I wondered about that, too. I didn't see any particular ridiculing, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sports in Entertainment desk
I've been BOLD and changed the Entertainment desk's blurb on WP:RD to include sports. Now this important topic doesn't have to be relegated to the misc. desk, and I can give the Tim Cahills of the world the same level of attention I have always given the Paris Hiltons. --Sean 14:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm OK with this change. But I have to say it's a pity that poor Tim Cahill has come in for undeserved contempt just because some loony keeps on asking questions about him. It's not Tim's fault. And it's reprehensible that he should be spoken of in the same breath as ... that woman whose name I refuse to utter. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's someone here who likes Tim Cahill as much as I like gulls? Wow. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I already tried to help you out in that department, but it wasn't so well received. :) --sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.115.242 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's someone here who likes Tim Cahill as much as I like gulls? Wow. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Man, I miss that place. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that sports should go in Miscellaneous. Entertainment to me implies music, movies, TV comedies and dramas, and the like. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Entertainment gets sports questions already. Sometimes they get answers, sometimes not. SaundersW (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are there signs on the walls outside the Ents desk saying "abandon all sports, ye who enter here"? If we encourage sports questions to be posted there, then those who feel that sports is their bailiwick will probably find the questions and answer them. As far as whether they are related, for the Americans amongst us, I present ESPN. --LarryMac | Talk 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make them related. It just means that the same network is targetting both groups because there is probably a high degree of overlap between them. There would be a similar overlap between the group of people who like chocolate and the group of people who like sex - but that doesn't make them related. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are there signs on the walls outside the Ents desk saying "abandon all sports, ye who enter here"? If we encourage sports questions to be posted there, then those who feel that sports is their bailiwick will probably find the questions and answer them. As far as whether they are related, for the Americans amongst us, I present ESPN. --LarryMac | Talk 13:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- you know when i think of tim, (notice the comma) hitler 'springs' to mind...Perry-mankster (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(<--- outdent) Ok, I normally don't do this, but as we are discussing semantics, definitions of entertainment include
- "Entertainment is an activity designed to give pleasure or relaxation to an audience (although in the case of a computer game the "audience" may be only one person). The audience may participate in the entertainment passively as in watching opera, or actively as in computer games.
- The playing of sports and reading of literature are usually included in entertainment, but these are often called recreation, because they involve some active participation beyond mere leisure." (from Wikipedia's article)
The first dictionary definition I found included:
- "an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention" (Princeton wordnet)
The word "sport" is derived from the French word for leisure, and dictionary definitions of sport also emphasize the aspect of diversion, for example:
- "an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition" (wordnet)
I have no strong feelings on whether to include sports as a sub-category of entertainment, but in the case of reference desks, I see the advantages per LarryMac, and I think both spectator sports and individual sport activities are closely connected to entertainment. I do, in fact, believe there is a healthy overlap of people who are interested in popular culture and people who are interested in sports. Should we rename the desk "diversion"? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you do, I swear I will ask for traffic information :P . I could accept Oracle des Divertissements though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I killed Tim Cahill
I just pulled the last two Tim Cahill threads, because it was obvious that it was (apparently two different people) just getting their jollies. Tim Cahill(7) was an anon asking "Has Tim Cahill ever been arrested for doing anything illegal in a mask? ;) ", while Tim Cahill(8) was a smartass asking "Who the f... is Tim Cahill?".
Enough already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
...And I've now blocked T Cahill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- and lo tim cahill came to an end RIP Perry-mankster (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the real Tim Cahill ever reads this stuff about him. He's probably too busy making mega-bucks to have time for Wikipedia. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Has Tim Cahill ever been blocked for posting something illegal in a mask? :D\=< (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the person asking the questions is Tim Cahill, using many different computers. I figure he might want to know himself better. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, self-knowledge is a very noble goal (and goals are things that soccer players know precious little about, sometimes seeing none for matches on end). But asking questions about oneself, of anonymous others, doesn't seem quite the way to go about it. I'm sure TC is more sensible than that - he is an Australian, after all. Need I say more? - so I respectfully discount this theory. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Our history of penal transportation ended in 1868. Is Tim Cahill really at least 140 years old? That would make him in the same generation, roughly, as Clio. Hmm, maybe they should get together: Clio Cahill has a certain ring to it. But she's probably not interested in soccer-players unless they happen to be historians. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not even then! Now, combine rugger and history; that's when my legs really go weak at the knees! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean rugger! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; I just wanted to make it clear that there is rugger and there is....well, whatever it is that those lovely guys are trying to illustrate; a contact 'sport', certainly! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Medical question deleted
Per guidelines, diff here. (How do I do a diff?) --Milkbreath (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
...and we're back
We've got Dodgson here! Anyone happen to notice that my awesome header inexplicably works again? No more need to use Lambiam's flat-ish hack. Not that anyone cares or that anyone would even notice (unless Lambiam made some little formatting tweaks that I didn't notice, in which case please do tell) (or unless you use the WP:RD/TOOLS script I wrote a while back to put a nav bar at the bottom of the desk pages-- the nice box hightlights work now) but I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that it was the server weirding out, not my code >:| :D\=< (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I might have noticed or cared, since in its previous life, that header had gotten so slow for the WM servers to render that it was breaking my archiving bot.
- I know that shortly after we went to the "flat" headers, the WM devels decided that rather than trying to convince people not to use quintuply-nested templates with gobs of overlapping parser functions (which had become quite the fashion right about then), they were going to have to throw in the towel and rewrite the parser and the function evaluator to be more efficient. That's probably why the "awesome header inexplicably works again". —Steve Summit (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might have noticed if it wasn't working fine, which it is. And we're running php here, don't talk to me about performance :) :D\=< (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Christ Froth, he probably sits in a rocking chair lecturing his grandchildren about performance (muttering "what's a matter with the damned kids these days")!—eric 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I read the article.. snoresville. Apparently the kids he's really anxious to hire are the ones who can code linked-list-transversing functions as fast as they can write on the whiteboard. I could build and transverse basic linked lists before I even came to college and (obviously) can think at least as fast as I write, so I'm fine? :D\=< (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Christ Froth, he probably sits in a rocking chair lecturing his grandchildren about performance (muttering "what's a matter with the damned kids these days")!—eric 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might have noticed if it wasn't working fine, which it is. And we're running php here, don't talk to me about performance :) :D\=< (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted medical question: Panic Attack while teaching my kid
Question removed [11] per Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. (EhJJ)TALK 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good removal. Note – just for your reference – that the removal is actually per the Ref Desk guidelines (shortcut WP:RD/G) and the medical advice guidelines: Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually the medical disclaimer, otherwise I doubt that we'd refuse to offer medical advice. I mean it sounds like a good idea to forbid it but everyone else on their internet loves spouting off about stuff they have no idea about and I doubt we'd even think of that rule without the medical disclaimer :D\=< (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we would, or I hope we would. After all, we're not like the rest of the internet :P 130.88.140.3 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, shit. You mean all this stuff I've been saying is going out over the internet? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we would, or I hope we would. After all, we're not like the rest of the internet :P 130.88.140.3 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually the medical disclaimer, otherwise I doubt that we'd refuse to offer medical advice. I mean it sounds like a good idea to forbid it but everyone else on their internet loves spouting off about stuff they have no idea about and I doubt we'd even think of that rule without the medical disclaimer :D\=< (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the Medical disclaimer is a legal document - it says that anything you read or write anywhere on Wikipedia is not medical advice by definition , even if it sounds like it might be. Its heading "Wikipedia does not give medical advice" means that Wikipedia does not give medical advice by definition - it is a statement of fact, not a prohibition. The RD guideline on medical advice, on the other hand, is an ethical document - it says that RD volunteers should not answer certain specific types of questions in case the answer might be mistakenly acted on as if it were medical advice, even though technically it is not. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think your understanding is absolutely correct. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the Medical disclaimer is a legal document - it says that anything you read or write anywhere on Wikipedia is not medical advice by definition , even if it sounds like it might be. Its heading "Wikipedia does not give medical advice" means that Wikipedia does not give medical advice by definition - it is a statement of fact, not a prohibition. The RD guideline on medical advice, on the other hand, is an ethical document - it says that RD volunteers should not answer certain specific types of questions in case the answer might be mistakenly acted on as if it were medical advice, even though technically it is not. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the RD guidelines are primarily to protect people while the medical disclaimer is primarily to protect the foundation. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
suggestions for the page
in section
- Before asking a question
- Search first
add search Wikipedia using Google
Alanthehat (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(also changed the color a bit on the left column) :D\=< (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- How about adding the Google link to the WP:RD index page as well. --hydnjo talk 15:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what happened here
What's the deal with this? Who had the authority to WP:CSD#G7 it? That subpage was a mile long and most of it was written by me-- I definitely didn't request deletion. :D\=< (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see only two edits, both by User:Vector Potential. Friday (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was on WT:RD and Vector archived it to that page. I have it linked at WP:RD/HEAD (it was the gigantic initial planning page for the style change that had the witty thumbnails on the sides) and noticed it was a redlink :D\=< (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it was moved to User:Vector Potential/Wikipedia:Reference desk/style change Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- How on earth did you find it o_o Thanks, I'll link to VP's subpage in WP:RD/HEAD/DOCS :D\=< (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was a "moved to ..." edit summary on one of the edits to the deleted page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed template {{subst:RD medremoval}}
I've made a template by copying and modifying {{subst:RD removal}}. That original template is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/guidelines/Medical_advice#Dealing_with_questions_asking_for_medical_advice as the one to put on the offended editor's talk page, but the text of it had nothing to do with medical advice, or any advice, for that matter:
"...Please remember that Wikipedia content must be written from a neutral point of view, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, original research should be avoided and that the Reference Desk is not a soapbox, a social networking site, or a discussion forum....".
The new text reads:
"...Please remember the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations...."
I would like to put the new template, {{subst:RD medremoval}}, in the guidelines section mentioned above in place of the RD removal template. What say ye? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. In any case an improvement. --Lambiam 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe such questions are actually real/serious, and have said so as politely (in my terms) as I could.
If true I think that the OP is asking for what amounts to legal advice - He's effectively asking us to act as a health and safety regulations advisor. And so I told him this.
Thought I should mention it here.87.102.83.204 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Shortcut for humanities desk
A while back, I made WP:HUM as a shortcut to the humanities desk. How to make it appear on top in the header? User:Krator (t c) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RD/H is the preferred shortcut. I'd even go so far as to say that WP:HUM is a bad idea. Also, there are tons of different redirects to the different desks; I'll add WP:HUM to the list I rooted out last year if you want. :D\=< (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who cares
You can hide the entire header by adding the following line to your monobook.css:
#rdheader { display:none; }
Personally I use bookmarks and my WP:RD/TOOLS to navigate the desks so it's a waste of space. Whatever, it's your option. :D\=< (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice, thanks! --Sean 12:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I found that another traced the IP of the question asker - and then commented upon it.
Personally I found this not bad but I can't condone it either.
Would anyone like to give some guidance on this matter, I don't expect that we should behave as if it is some sort of free for all with no boundarys regarding personal information.87.102.21.171 (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be objecting to something, but I can't tell exactly what. Please clarify. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The OP had their IP address investigated, and an answer was given in the context of that result. I find that a minor invasion of privacy. Further the fact that the loaction of the IP was used to analyse the context of the original question - ie it was speculated that the OP might be a white person living in a multicultural area. eg
I have just found that the IP address of the person who asked the original question is located in San Francisco, California. If this person, by chance, attends the San Francisco Public Schools, then he or she experiences life as a member of a minority group, since whites ...
- And what if their guesses are wrong, (why is the assumption that the OP is white made?) and why should the OP's IP be checked on at all, taking into account basics of politeness - the question wan't offensive or even particularily 'trolly'.
- It's also impolite to discuss a person within space set aside for an answer to their question. As I mentioned above I find this example to be very very borderline, and would be hard pushed to form a serious complaint of any kind about this IP checking. But it simlpy wasn't necessary. We are not here (as far as I know) to guess or speculate on the motivations of people who ask questions. Would it be polite to say "before I answer your question can I ask - what race are you?". Apologies for making a mountain out of a molehill.87.102.21.171 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The OP had their IP address investigated, and an answer was given in the context of that result. I find that a minor invasion of privacy. Further the fact that the loaction of the IP was used to analyse the context of the original question - ie it was speculated that the OP might be a white person living in a multicultural area. eg
- Thanks. I, too, was surprised to see one of the sharpest refdesk volunteers make that unwarranted assumption; a mere lapse in reasoning, and nothing more, I'm sure. As for the tracing, I can't even begin to see a problem with it. The ability to trace like that is part of the Internet. It's like asking people not to read the return address on an envelope. I myself recently did a similar thing, tracing a questioner to Germany, which allowed me to better understand his Language-Desk question. He seemed surprised, so I think I did him a tiny inadvertant favor by letting him know how exposed we are when we type things in here.
- I do see your point about dragging the poor OP wriggling into the spotlight. It's probably better not to do that without a good reason. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have nothing against checking this when it's relevent eg "what's the law on killing stray dogs" would benefit from knowing what country or state the OP is from.
- Interesting to note that if an admin used CheckUser for this purpose they would be in trouble for certain. I wouldn't like to see this done too often.87.102.21.171 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The privacy policy means that the IP address of logged in users should not be revealed, or even looked at except in a very restricted set of circumstances. Hence checkuser usage is heavily restricted. But as far as I'm aware, the privacy policy does not somehow prevent us from looking into the IPs of non logged in users. Indeed, I think it's clearly stated in various places that if you don't have an account, then the IP you used will be public. If you IP address is public, then people are fully entitled to look into it. Indeed this happens all the time with vandals and the like, there is no expectation of privacy here since this person has purposely or inadvertently choosen to reveal their IP and our disclaimers are quite clear, as well as it being very logical that if you reveal your IP, then people may look into it. Stalking, personal attacks etc are still forbidden, but I don't seen that this applies to the above case. If someone had said, 'I'm not going to answer your question because I don't like Californians' for example, then that would be a clear violation of NPA and would be wrong but not because the person looked into the IP. If anything, it's surely good that we are letting people be aware of the kind of information they are giving away by choosing not to log on. If they are not comfortable with that, then they need to create an account or stop editing wikipedia. It would be dumb for us to somehow try to suggest that people should never look into an IP, that is unenforcable and will provided a false sense of security. If you made your IP address public, then anyone may look into it (I regularly do out of personal interest). Of course this doesn't mean we should always comment on where someone appears to live or what ISP they appear to be using, but if you feel that the detail is helpful to your response or to understand the question, then why not? Indeed, this goes beyond IPs. Any detail you reveal on wikipedia about yourself, you've made public. People should not misuse this information in any way, but if you say you're 'William Henry Bush' from somesmall town then you've given away a lot of information about you. If you're slightly famous, people may easily be able to find more information about you on the web. For that matter, many people and this includes me choose to reuse a common nickname. People can and may look into these. If anyone isn't comfortable with this, then they really need to be more careful about what they reveal about themselves. These details shouldn't be brought into any on wiki discussion, unless really relevant but this doesn't mean people aren't entitled to look if their reasons are benign. What people do off wiki is up to them, and is none of our business Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes of course I understand human nature and curiosity etc. But in this case the info was used to give other readers some 'insight' into the social position of the OP. Info that was entirely speculative. In this case the IP does not tell us that the OP is a white kid in a mixed neighborhood or anything like that. So the statement I quoted above is possibly utterly false. My question would be - how did that information help to give a better answer.(intended to be rhetotical)87.102.2.103 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- eg How about "I happened to follow you home last night and if the house you went to is your usual domicile then I can tell x and y and z about you." ... Not the best of manners. Not something I hope will be repeated.87.102.2.103 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also note the info was not revealed on wikipedia - someone else looked for it - then misused that ability.87.102.2.103 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The privacy policy means that the IP address of logged in users should not be revealed, or even looked at except in a very restricted set of circumstances. Hence checkuser usage is heavily restricted. But as far as I'm aware, the privacy policy does not somehow prevent us from looking into the IPs of non logged in users. Indeed, I think it's clearly stated in various places that if you don't have an account, then the IP you used will be public. If you IP address is public, then people are fully entitled to look into it. Indeed this happens all the time with vandals and the like, there is no expectation of privacy here since this person has purposely or inadvertently choosen to reveal their IP and our disclaimers are quite clear, as well as it being very logical that if you reveal your IP, then people may look into it. Stalking, personal attacks etc are still forbidden, but I don't seen that this applies to the above case. If someone had said, 'I'm not going to answer your question because I don't like Californians' for example, then that would be a clear violation of NPA and would be wrong but not because the person looked into the IP. If anything, it's surely good that we are letting people be aware of the kind of information they are giving away by choosing not to log on. If they are not comfortable with that, then they need to create an account or stop editing wikipedia. It would be dumb for us to somehow try to suggest that people should never look into an IP, that is unenforcable and will provided a false sense of security. If you made your IP address public, then anyone may look into it (I regularly do out of personal interest). Of course this doesn't mean we should always comment on where someone appears to live or what ISP they appear to be using, but if you feel that the detail is helpful to your response or to understand the question, then why not? Indeed, this goes beyond IPs. Any detail you reveal on wikipedia about yourself, you've made public. People should not misuse this information in any way, but if you say you're 'William Henry Bush' from somesmall town then you've given away a lot of information about you. If you're slightly famous, people may easily be able to find more information about you on the web. For that matter, many people and this includes me choose to reuse a common nickname. People can and may look into these. If anyone isn't comfortable with this, then they really need to be more careful about what they reveal about themselves. These details shouldn't be brought into any on wiki discussion, unless really relevant but this doesn't mean people aren't entitled to look if their reasons are benign. What people do off wiki is up to them, and is none of our business Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's not true, Hyenaste. Registration is recommended, but obviously not mandatory because many people have good reasons for not registering, and making it mandatory would disenfranchise them and make WP the poorer. Those who choose not to register have rights and obligations, like the rest of us. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I simply don't know how to respond. If you are unable to understand the difference between looking up a publicly revealed IP which people do all the time (it's something I've been doing long before wikipedia existed) and following someone home and revealing where they live, then there is no point discussing this further. As others have put it succintly, if you don't register, you reveal your IP. (period) There is no policy as far as I'm aware on looking up IPs, and revealing that information on wikipedia other then those of civility, NPA, stalking and relevance which as I've already stated, clearly don't apply here. If you want to change media wiki policy, there is a place to do that, which isn't here. All I can say is good luck, you'll need it especially if you start to use your analogy again. P.S. As an example, yes I have looked up your IP. No I won't be discussing that here or anywhere else as it is not of any relevance currently. If you did not want me looking up your IP, you have a choice. You may register in which case the anonymity of your IP will be protected. Of course, if it is clear that you are 87... then people will effectively still know your old IP and the information they gather from your IP although again it would be inappropriate to bring it up unless relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please help me, I'm stuck
Hi folks. I need some opinions. I refer you to the thread "Goatse - how does he do that with his butt?" on the Science desk. (I can't link it, as it has a link in the header, sorry). I had no problem with the question, and I even contributed a comment:
- Men who engage long-term in normal (well, normal for some) receptive anal intercourse (let alone grotesque activities such as fisting) often end up with continence problems because of the weakening of the muscles. What this guy has done to himself ... I'm lost for words.
A bit of light-hearted banter followed, and then came this:
- Jack, would you be speaking from experience or is it just
fistwishful thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.144.62 (talk)
My first impulse was to ask the poster not to make assumptions, or ask questions, in open forum about the private sexual behaviour of other editors who are known to be gay - or straight for that matter – no matter whether the question was asked in all seriousness, or just as part of a joke.
My second impulse was just to remove the offending post. But then I had a re-think. Maybe I almost unintentionally invited the question when I referred to receptive anal intercourse as "normal for some". Coming from a gay man, I suppose this could easily have been interpreted as meaning "it’s normal for me". But it wasn't meant to refer to me personally at all; I would never talk about my sexual practices (whatever they are) in open forum, or almost anywhere else for that matter. I was merely making a distinction between penetrative anal intercourse - which I think of as involving a penis, and which for many people is considered "normal" - and fisting, which to many, including me, is "grotesque"; and saying that even with the "normal" activity, there's a risk of becoming incontinent with long-term practice, let alone the "grotesque" activity. I was trying to be as clear as possible, because it occurred to me that the term "penetrative anal intercourse" could possibly be taken to include fisting, so I made a ham-fisted (pun) attempt at disambiguation. But on reflection, I think the usual intepretation is the one involving a penis, so the distinction was implicit and didn't need any explanation.
If I had my life over again, I'd have written: "Men who engage long-term in receptive anal intercourse (let alone activities such as fisting) often end up with ..." - but we can't re-write history; and there's no point in striking out the words I would now rather not have written, as it would make a nonsense of the subsequent dialogue (? polylogue).
I’m still left with whether, and if so, how, to respond to the anon’s comment. I don’t want to just leave it hanging – or maybe I should. I don’t want to compound the problem by misinterpreting what was intended to be a humorous aside. Had I been straight, would this question have been asked? Maybe it would have anyway. Maybe he doesn't even know or care what my sexual preference is. Maybe I’m just being a little touchy (I’ve not been sleeping well lately). Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I really can't answer any of these questions without asking him, but I just don't want to get into such a discussion in open forum, and certainly not privately with an unregistered user. I feel quite, quite stuck. What to do?
And here I go assuming the user in question will never read this. Sorry about that, 79.76.144.62. You're more welcome than anybody to have your say. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/%20Year%202006/11-justice/0611-10TeacupTempest.jpg Give the anon a slap on the wrist for incivility. :D\=< (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are being touchy. If you engage in banter about anal insertion, you are going to get hit with a bit of shit. Please don't construe this response in any way that could be interpreted as anything at all. Me, I carefully avoid thinking about such things, but I'm biting the bullet for my buddy JackofOz. Bottom line: chill, dude, nothing happened. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This edit makes me think we were visited by an old acquaintance in a new IP range. Just compare it with this edit. --Lambiam 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
question removed
For all the obvious reasons - such as winding up people.87.102.124.155 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)