Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 45

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 43

→

Ref desk disappearing from my watchlist

At least once a day when I check my watchlist, one of the ref desk pages that I have on my list will simply not show up. A few minutes ago I wanted to check the language desk. So, I went to my watchlist and it was nowhere to be found. Not anywhere in the two days of edits that are listed. Just to be sure I wasn't just overlooking it, I searched using my browser's find function using the word "language" and still nothing. The desks that go missing are random, sometimes it's Science, sometimes it's Miscellaneous, and sometimes it's three or four of them all at the same time that will be absent. Does this happen to anyone else? Dismas|^(talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not here. But if you have your watchlist set to ignore minor or bot edits, such an edit will make the item disappear from your watchlist (funny, you'd think it would still show the last non-ignored edit, but no, or least not as far as I can tell). Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

slaps forehead* That must be it. I hide bot edits so that I don't have a huge list every so often of a bot adding a minor change to hundreds of articles. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow this section led me to discover this. Wow that looks bad. I know why it happens though; I can try to pretty that up but it'll take a couple days to work through google bot's slowness :D\=< (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the change.. we'll see how it turns out :D\=< (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

you'd think it would still show the last non-ignored edit. Yes, it should, in my view. It's captured as MediaWiki bug number 9790, the last comment on which was on 2007-12-18 by Brion Vibber; the listing has been open since 2007-05-04. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Girl push-ups

This question elicited this answer, which I think is dangerous. If it turns out that girls should not do full push-ups, then we've given bad medical advice. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't really conceive of a situation in which it would "turn out that girls should not do full-pushups" other than the explanation Haemo gave of anyone with insufficient upper body strength. If that constitutes medical advice, then I suppose the whole thing (question and replies) should be removed, regardless of the quality of the advice. Leebo ^T/C 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can conceive of it, but we're not here to debate the advisability of upper-body calisthenics in the immature human female, us not being anything at all like doctors. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of any medical problems with the women doing pushups when I was in the Marines. As with any exercise, if you put too much strain on your body, you will have pain and can cause harm. I remember reading an article a few years ago about Sylvester Stallone ripping out his pectoral muscle by trying to lift too much weight. Does that mean that nobody should ever bench press weights? Is discussion of bench presses now medical advice? -- kainaw ™ 22:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with kainaw. We need to use some common sense here. The respondent says “like any exercise, doing push-ups incorrectly (or doing the wrong kind of push-up for your ability-level) can be dangerous.” It seems ridiculous and a bit sexist to think girls can’t do pushups. I know girls that can do more pushups than any guy on the football team. Bottom line is, I don’t think the question is dangerous, and I don’t think it should be reverted. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Put the response back while the question is still active. :D\=< (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it seems Milkbreath never actually removed the question. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh cool. Thumbs up :D\=< (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the people above, that exercise advice is NOT medical advice. Many people give exercise advice who lack medical degrees, including people who work at gyms. The argument that "it could be dangerous, so we can't discuss it" is absurd. Many topics are potentially dangerous, like cooking, driving, chemistry, etc. We're not about to ban all discussions of those topics, I hope. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "advice" and "information"? I would have thought advice is like giving a course of action where information is the state of the game, keeping things pretty much open. Some questions get some how-to answers that are borderline (no refs to hand) that raised issues about a month ago. Was anything resolved? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Distinguishing between what is and what is not acceptable. --Lambiam 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The definition of medical advice in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice is "a diagnosis, a prognosis based on that diagnosis, or a suggested form of treatment or cure, in response to symptoms presented in a question". The push-ups for girls question is not a medical advice question because it is asking for general information. In the answer that Milkbreath refers, the final clause beginning "if your daughter ..." is possibly borderline medical advice because it personalises the information; apart from this final half-sentence, the answer is absolutely fine. Personally, I think this is so borderline that it is not worth worryng about. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. Nobody is willing to discuss the difference between information and advice. Without discussion, how can there be a consensus. Without a consensus, how can there be a guideline. The section Lambiam references is nothing more than one guy's opinion and, in my opinion, not a guideline. -- kainaw ™ 14:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have gone with <small> here, but why cause eyestrain? Just thought I'd run it up the flagpole. I happen to know that there are counterindications for exercise in various kinds of human, and their observation can forestall what will become medical problems, so advice to go ahead and exercise can be harmful. When I find myself thinking like a doctor in response to a question, it sets the "medical advice" flag in my head. I still say it's dangerous to advise about exercise programs. I have been in tip-top physical condition once or twice in my life, and it's a risky business training the body; you can get seriously hurt, especially if you're not full-grown. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the big difference between our opinions on this matter is that you (Milkbreath) state that you think "medical advice" when you begin thinking like a doctor. I think "medical advice" when I see the question asking for a personal diagnosis or treatment. Since I spend all day talking to doctors, I can't help but think like a doctor all the time. I think that puts us on opposite ends of the consensus which should lie somewhere in the middle. Actually, I know there are those who think NOTHING is medical advice. I consider them outliers and just ignore them. We're at opposite ends of the "sane" extremes. -- kainaw ™ 14:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, where you and I differ is that you think in terms of spectrum and factions as if this was a political matter. I reject that point of view, and I think it runs counter to the Wikipedia ideal. I am not applying any boilerplate philosophy here that can label me, no matter how badly some would like to do that. I am applying common sense to each case as it arises, and I can be found at any point at any time along whatever line you care to draw, like a quantum gnome. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this. I'm thinking some Wikilove is in order. I'm happy to be a part of this business, and I'm glad that y'all are here volunteering on the RefDesks. Though it might not seem like it sometimes, I value everyone's contributions, and it takes all of us of whatever ilk to make this thing great. I think we should give ourselves a round of applause. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appears that I'm claiming your opinion is wrong. What I believe is "wrong" is the inability to get those who appear to take this matter seriously to discuss it like adults and, hopefully, form a consensus. I have argued in both directions, for and against the removal of questions. However, I feel that you (Milkbreath) and I both have what I referred to as "sane" opinions. There are those with what I shall politely refer to as "less than sane" opinions. That is why I feel that others can use your statements and mine as a good basis for attempting to put an end to the bickering that occurs every time a questionable medical question is removed. -- kainaw ™ 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fwiw, if anyone can do these exercises, they're not the ones asking for medical advice. And for me, thinking like a doctor is not the same as a doctor thinking and many times, answerers make that clear. What's enriching about the question is the way it's been handled so I'm glad it stayed and glad you guys are working it through – all power to ya. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of removing questions such as "Gaybashing"?

[Moved from Misc desk and put diff in title] --Milkbreath (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the question before it was removed (on the stated basis that it was asking for legal advice, which is fair enough, given that we all know that Wiki is not a legal advice site), but, out of sheer curiosity, I had a look in the History section of the questions page (above), and saw the removed question there (which is how I managed to learn the reason for its removal). So, while I can see that by removing the question the opportunity for it to be answered is also removed, the question itself remains, which to my mind, fails to eradicate it completely from the attentions of nosey-parkers like me. So why remove it at all?81.145.240.156 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with nosey-parkers like yourself reading the question - the purpose of removing legal and medical questions is to stop people trying to answer them, and giving bad advice which could end up with someone getting in trouble (and/or wikipedia getting sued...). FiggyBee (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing a request for help because it happens to mention the possibility of a lawsuit is absurd and unhelpful. The solution is to offer assistance, and not offer legal advice, not to treat a request for help as though it were a steaming pile of monkey crap left in the middle of the ballroom floor. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: From his cold dead hands

Removed question. Diff here. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The question may be somewhat verbose, but it seems valid. It is, I think, a questionable precedent when a contributor who dares to express sceptical views on one aspect of the Bill of Rights is immediately silenced. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ewww. Do you actually think that the reason I removed it was that it expressed skeptical views on one aspect of the Bill of Rights? I should be blocked and spanked and then blocked again for that if that's what it was, but it was not. This is not a discussion forum. We aren't supposed to be discussing any aspect of any Bill of Anything. That post walked the troll line, if you ask me, with inflammatory soapboxing and patently contrary apologies. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

mmmrf-mmfrr-grrmfrr-arggrff </muzzle> Oh, hello! Geesh, isn't everything peachy now! Well, excuse me, I'm off to see the wizard! Buh-bye now! --hydnjo talk 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm baaack! CRD, how can you say with a somewhat straight face that you're not trying to spark a debate? Well, I'm off again! Buh bye again! --hydnjo talk 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to stay clear of these things, never removing questions, or invitations to debate, myself, simply ignoring those I find tiresome or disagreeable. I accept that you acted, Milkbreath, in good faith, but I completely disagree with your unilateral censorship. The preamble may have been lengthy, but there was, nevertheless, the germ of a very good question concerning the Second Amendment and the operation of the American Constitution. I do not edit war, and will not therefore restore the Captain's submission; but I do intend to post an answer in the vacant space, as a mark of my displeasure. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Methinks that the masses aren't ready nor are they capable of dealing with that kind of subtlety. I wish otherwise - the Math desk is an excellent example of how do do it right. There, (on the Math desk) most all of the questions are on point and those that aren't are dealt with a gentle hand. I commend the Math folks for that, they set an excellent example. --hydnjo talk 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, hydnjo, that Mathematics lends itself to that kind of treatment; Humanities rarely does. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if my opinion matters (but apparently it does not, since I already posted it on the question itself, and was not read in any true good faith), I was merely soliciting thoughtful input from others. I think I set it up well and that there wouldn't have been debate-y responses. You might as well remove the "what's wrong with prostitution?" question from the Humanities Ref Desk as well, the question about whether String theory is a legitimate theory or not from the Science desk, the "Is life an illusion?" question from the Misc desk, and the "why laptops wide only?" question from the Computing desk. To claim that we do not discuss is false (some questions do not have simple yes/no answers), and to claim that we keep our opinions to ourselves is naive.

And I do resent my post being described as "walking a troll line." It's completely honest, earnest, and open. It states nothing that is patently inflammatory, though perhaps some of it is counter-intuitive or against the standard line, but I walk pretty carefully through my reasoning (ergo the aforementioned lengthiness). It's an honest inquiry, I don't think it has a whiff of trolling to it. Trolling is a matter of form as much as substance. I would challenge you to find one aspect of it that is trolling. As for contrary apologies, well, I suppose they sound contrary if you assume it is trolling. If you assume good faith, they're honest, and an attempt to set the tone for an honest discussion. In fact, if you assume I am trolling, then even this will look like trolling. Personally I think I deserve a little more good faith.

What I find honestly most heartbreaking is that if I had simply asked, "What is the relevance of the right to bear arms in the 20th century?" or "Did the right to bear arms help or hurt Americans as a whole in the 20th century?" I'd probably have gotten back a lot of stock responses (and not been accused of soapboxing, if I wasn't accused of asking for help with homework), to which I could then laboriously put in place my own thoughts, and end up with the same result. But since I bothered to type out my reasoning first, I'm soapboxing and a borderline troll.

If we're going to start distrusting the ability of "the masses" to answer questions then we'd better just close up shop on the Ref Desk and the 'pedia in general. There isn't anyone but us masses in here. Dare I suggest that this whole thing runs smoother and is more fun when the urge to regulate is suppressed in all but the most offensive situations. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I do my best to ignore these "questions". This is not a "Reference Desk" question. It is asking for opinions, not references. The response to arguments against asking these questions is always: "He did it too!" I fully understand that most people are not mature enough to comprehend that "He did it too!" is not a valid argument. I ended my argument against these opinion questions a long time ago by simply stating that if I were made responsible for saving the life of the people who are attempting to destroy the Reference Desk by flooding with opinion-seeking questions, I would choose to let them die. Of course, I was flooded with threats of being banned for threatening to kill other users. My point was completely lost. It appears that, finally, others see the same problem. This is a Reference Desk, not an Opinion Desk. It is named "Reference Desk" because that is what this service is called in libraries around the world (though translated into the native tongue, of course). So, imagine that you walked up to your library's Reference Desk and gave a long diatribe about your opinion of how the government has functioned in the past and asked the librarian's opinion on the state of the government and Constitution at this point in time. Would you honestly expect an answer? Of course not. A reference desk has one and only one purpose: finding references. You can ask for references on a topic, such as the government, the second amendment, and even the NRA. But, asking for opinions should be banned. Every time it is allowed, this Reference Desk takes one more step closer to becoming a Facebook/Myspace clone. -- kainaw ™ 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't think for a second that I enjoy this part of the business. Clio is wise in every respect, it seems, but I tend to act instead.

You ask for a trolling aspect. There are several. "The death of Charleton Heston": To use the occasion of the death of an old man with Alzheimer's as a springboard for your glib chattiness is callous and so tends to elicit anger. "The US government seems to have felt quite free over the last 100 years to spy on its people, arrest its people at times without cause, to use deadly force against its people, to rig elections, and so forth": inflammatory US bashing, unsupported, presented as pravda that needs no evidence. "At one point (World War II) it even saw fit to round up a large group of its people and send them to concentration camps": Are you going to sit there and try to tell me that "concentration camps" is not inflammatory? It creates ineluctable connotations of Nazism. Called for or not, inflammatory. I grow weary of itemizing what is nothing but a flood of empty opinion designed to incite rebuttal by gun ownership supporters, what I call a "soapbox rant" (your words).

And to say "I solicit your thoughts and opinions" and follow that with "I am not trying to spark a 'debate'" is what I call trolling. This is not a discussion forum. I don't know how else to put that. This is not a discussion forum. Yours is an inflammatory topic, coyly and provocatively introduced with the express purpose of starting a heated discussion over the corpse of your enemy. I call that trolling. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Heston, the man was as well known for his anti-gun control advocacy as his film roles. I hardly think pointing out that his death had led me to contemplate his positions is really inappropriate, much less a troll. I hardly think that the fact that many people who die do so in unpleasant circumstances (as death is rather unpleasant in general) means we cannot be critical of them or their views.

Re: the actions of the US, Do you seriously dispute any of what I have said about it? I didn't think that required citation in this particular listing. It is not a general list for the sake of "US bashing", it is a quick jot of historical examples for the purpose of pointing out that the US government has many times abused its contract with its citizens. Even the most die-hard patriot knows that. As for concentration camps, it is true that I could have used another phrasing if I were trying to be extremely sensitive to such things, but anyone who made it out of high school US history knows that they were not death camps. They were camps where the "dangerous others" were taken, held under penalty of violence, and deprived of the rights of citizens. They were concentration camps. It's not as if I'm the first one to refer to them as such.

Re: thoughts and opinions—they are given constantly, and discussion takes place freely. I think trying to make clear my intentions was fine. You view them as trolling because you view the entire thing in bad faith. And you, of course, assume bad faith will be natural on the part of the responders as well.

I still resent your labeling it as trolling. I also resent and reject your interpretation that I am trying to do is "empty opinion".

I fail to see how your intervention has resulted in less debate, less antagonism, less animosity. Consider the thought that there has been more wikilove spilled over the haggling over whether a question should be on here than there would have been by the question alone. What's your goal? What's the best way to it? These are obviously hard questions for any administrator, much less self-appointed ones, but I think in this case you are in the wrong if your goal was to stem off debates and potential antipathy. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But it was your question that tipped he Wikilove bucket in the first place. Don't post trolling incitement to acrimonious debate and snide, heartless flippancy, and you won't hear from me in this way. I repeat, I don't enjoy this. My goal, which would be plain to anyone who approached the question with an open mind, is simply to keep the Reference Desks in line with the guidelines. If you want to color outside the lines, go right ahead, but do it in your own coloring book. The Reference Desks are not a discussion forum. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kettle, no one is saying you're enjoying this; we're questioning your judgment. For someone trying to remove debate from the ref desk, you seem to be doing a piss poor job when you insult two editors on the ref desk itself. If you lack the capacity to glean valid questions from verbose posts, see nothing but trolling where others here see a valid line of inquiry, and violate two Wikipedia policies in the process (WP:AGF and WP:CIV) then maybe you should cool it a bit. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath, I appreciate your efforts to keep the Reference Desks within policy. However it’s simply not necessary to remove every question that puts a toe over the line. Most questions can be dealt with adequately on the desks. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed simply on the basis of obvious trolling, as is often done here, and I've mainly tried to justify the removal on that basis. But that is not the reason that this "question" cannot remain up. It is the callousness of "cold dead hands". Would the poster have said any such thing to Mr. Heston's widow at the viewing? I can't believe that the Wikimedia people want to be on record here as being glad that Charleton Heston is dead. It's indecent. It's outrageous. It's trolling. And what if, on the day that James Brady finally dies, someone decides to post a similar diatribe against the government and wants to hear the viewpoints of the RefDesk volunteers on the relative efficacy of the different kinds of handguns for use on fascist tyrants, and calls it "One down, 1,000 to go"? I don't know how you were raised (plural you), but where I come from we don't say stuff like that unless we hate somebody and are ready for a fight. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh ??? Where has anyone in this discussion said or implied that they are glad that Charleton Heston is dead ? I don't see anything like that in the original question or any of the follow-up. The "cold dead hands" slogan is one that Heston himself promoted, so presumably he agreed with its sentiments. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Milkbreath, you really, really need to stand back from this; you are starting to sound hysterical. It gives me no pleasure at all to write this. The expression you have taken such offence to is that used, I believe, by the National Rifle Association, of which Heston was president. He himself used it in a fairly aggressive way on a public platform. I know the Captain, not just from his present incarnation, but from an IP address and from forms before that. We have disagreed on a number of occasions, but I have always found his contributions to be intelligent and insightful. You are doing yourself no favours by accusing him of trolling. Can I suggest, and with all due nods to respect, that you consider taking a break for a few days? Best wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said all I can about the business as clearly and honestly as I can. I've moved on, and I never was hysterical, just POed. POV POs me. I did not intend to characterize any editor, but to characterize a particular edit. No hard feelings, but feelings there are. Back in the slightly more real world of the Desks themselves, everything is sunshine and lollipops, as far as I can tell. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the question. This isn't soapboxing. I know it's difficult to see a legitimate question in the phrase "I have been trying to think about ways in which the right to bear arms has really been beneficial in modern times. I admit to not being able to come up with anything plausible" since it has no actual question mark, but it is a question. Also, the phrase "And this is not meant to be a soapbox rant, and I am not trying to spark a 'debate'" is not a "contrary apology," it's a request that other editors not see this as such. Remember AGF. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the restoration of this question. The original removal was not justified for many reasons. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, put it back. :D\=< (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with kainaw. --LarryMac | Talk 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We should always err on the side of not removing. Leaving borderline cases does the desk no harm, but unilateral edits of others' posts can (and does) cause permanent damage. --Sean 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That user's complaint was alteration of posts, not removal. Let's not cloud the issue. --LarryMac | Talk 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He did say edits, not removals :D\=< (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A minute earlier I had said removals, then corrected it, but I assume LarryMac saw the first version. --Sean 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

oh ¬_¬ :D\=< (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Message board notification bot

In this VPR thread I propose a bot that notifies message board posters of replies. Bovlb (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhappy answer

To note: I'm not happy about this response, which appears to me bitey. I've put my views to the poster, and he's responded.

My view: it doesn't make the page look good & inviting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but at the same time, I don't think it looks good either if all we did was answer the question and not point out the answers in already existant articles. The point on the reference desks, imo, is to ask questions that aren't mentioned in an article, and, to ask questions that not any 1 article can cover. Neal (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

While unrelated, this is what I'm talking about: [1], [2], and [3], where the 3 topics are about ejaculation, masturbation and shaving vaginas, respectively. All dony by IP addresses. Personally, I don't feel posting such questions are worthy of being answered, but that's just my view. And if someone *does* post a question that is so obvious, I obviously feel the logical thing to do is educate the user to the article itself regarding the subject. As per this discussion, Sean already pointed out and mentioned the biographical article which answered his question. I further commented by asking the anonymous IP why he didn't search the article himself. I also suspect trolling, but I don't define that as I only assumed that. I kind of wanted to start a conversation with random IPs, but that usually doesn't happen.. Neal (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

When I used to care, I'd answer with "This is Wikipedia. Just type "whatever the article is" into the Search box on the left and click Go. You'll find your answer very quickly." Then, I was told that I was being unreasonably rude to the new users. Now, if I do answer, I just post "See [[The Article Name]]" like the first responder did. It usually keeps someone else from coming behind me and being as rude as the second response was. -- kainaw ™ 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Good idea. Thanks. Neal (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

Alternatively, you can generally get away with "Is there anything that [[The Article Name]] doesn't answer?". Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bad tactic for me to ask someone a question that I know the answer to. Because I could easily research into answering that question myself. Clearly you guys want to change the wording of how I asked, even if they mean the same thing or similar. Quite simply, I have less default respect for IP addresses, with exceptions. Especially with cases of trolling. It doesn't matter if the IP wasn't trolling in this particular edit - he could have a history of trolling elsewhere. By the way, IP addresses are more likely to respond if you try to start an argument with them. I've followed this guy's contributions a bit... Weird.. In any event, in case none of you knew, respect is a positive number. Disrespect is a negative number. The absense of respect (and disrespect), is 0. Respect is something that has to be earned. Neal (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

The point is though that others (not necessarily me) don't agree with this sort of response. Personally, I feel it's best to save the drama and just respond with a less harsh tone while still conveying the same message (do your own work, you lazy...). Take a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#famous african americans which is a common example of how I respond to questions when it doesn't appear the contributor has made much of an effort but which from my experience doesn't tend to be regarded as bitey Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Language desk deletion

I can't see why this thread was removed. I know it's long and all, but was there any need to delete it? Maybe I should just ask the editor concerned, but I thought I'd ask here first if I'm missing something. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history. The previous edit shows an IP re-adding a previously archived thread under today's banner. That is what was undone. Skittle (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't start debates"

I was hoping we could revise the language found here--specifically the "Do not start debates or post diatribes" edict. While I'm all for the prohibition of diatribes, the "do not start debates" strikes me as draconian and unnecessary. It is possible--even desirable--to host civil, stimulating "debates" on the reference desk concerning any number of cultural or academic issues (e.g., "What is the origin of the term x?", "Who/what was the greatest x of all time?" and so forth). What we're looking to avoid are political and religious screeds, flaming and trolling. Does anyone agree we should refine this guideline?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, am against any question that cannot be answered with a reference. So, "What is the origin of term X?" can be answered with a reference. However, "Who/what was the greatest x of all time?" is simply a matter of opinion. If it was "Who was the richest x of all time?" or "What was the longest x of all time?", it becomes a question that may be answered with a reference. -- kainaw ™ 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Kainaw on this. The wording doesn't prohibit people from engaging in debates, just starting them. Questions that are meant to elicit debate, even academic ones, are frowned upon but if someone asks a question like the food question asked a few days ago on the science desk and it incidentally turns into a debate, well that's not so bad. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify something... I'm against "matter of opinion" debates because they are pointless. If you are maturing, you will eventually reach a level of maturity where you realize that at least half the world disagrees with your opinion (regardless of the subject). So, what is the point of a debate on opinion? Just a proof that half the world disagrees with you? You should already know that. So, wasting time on such a debate shouldn't become the purpose of the reference desk. Of course, I try to be polite and not bite the less-than-mature users who try to start such debates. I just tell them it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, so it doesn't belong on the reference desk. -- kainaw ™ 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Matters of opinion can be answered with a reference (e.g. "Influential critics x and y believe that it was the greatest Western of all time"). Supplement that with a little original research from some of our subject matter experts (one of the reasons I love the RD is that OR restrictions are a bit more lax), and we can provide a well-rounded array of responses to a subjective question. I don't think we should discourage this type of debate or discussion. I heartily disagree that "matter of opinion debates" are a waste of time; I daresay they are one of the primary benefits of the reference desk.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're good, Fat Man. I promised myself I would shut up for a while, but your topic is irresistible. I can't agree that it is "desirable...to host civil, stimulating 'debates'" on the RefDesks. There are plenty of newsgroups for that. This is the Reference Desk for the Encyclopedia, not "alt.letsallhaveagoodnatterandacupoftea". I understand the urge, though. I myself would love to hear what these stunningly intelligent folks have to say about a million things, and I would love to cross swords with them, as it were, over controversial topics, but this is not the place. Rats. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ed con) Is it okay to put this here, it meant to follow Milkbreath's theme?

Ah, the good ol' if a little is good, more must be terriffict! impulse. (oops, see what it did to terrific?) It's possible more can dilute annoyingly, or result in overkill. A quick skim of some opinion fests online comes up with POV pollution (but maybe because it's low grade) and they have webmasters to snip it. Personally, it invites people to play us and I think there's enough that's on the brink without it taking over. Even the thought of an ~~opinion~~ debate desk brings a vision of disproportionate blow-out with strained resources back in the virtual library. I could be wrong but at this point, fwiw, nah. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fat Man. Do you honestly think that most people bother to read these instructions before posting a question? In whatever form the guidance is worded I suspect people will continue to behave as the mood takes them. I do agree with you, though, there are areas were a measure of reasonable 'debate' is entirely appropriate in the good-old Socratic manner, and to suggest such exchanges are unwelcome, and that the Reference Desk is only about 'references' is complete and utter tosh. Ha-ha!

I must say that I generally tend to confine myself to dealing with empirical matters, but am quite willing to enter into an exchange of views on any given subject when this is called for, as I did not so long ago on a question about England's greatest king. I have a nose for the losers and time-wasters, and usually just ignore them. But where there is a serious purpose-and a potentially useful outcome-I will debate away, up to the point where I feel there is nothing further to be gained. I am a historian; I debate historical issues with students all the time; I encourage them to debate, to question assumptions, and challenge the sources; to take nothing for granted. This is how good history, good philosophy, good politics and almost every other area of humanities proceeds. If the Reference Desk was simply about giving 'references' I would have long since abandoned ship. After all, I am not a machine...or a mathematician! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what this means is that the Fat Man is having a draconian interpretation moment. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to enter an experiment: We go double-draconian and replace "Don't start debates" with "Don't give or request opinions" for three months. Then we switch to soft, and remove it altogether (only leaving the diatribes part). My prediction: nothing will change, per Clio: As their mood takes them, people don't search first, don't do their own homework, do request medical or legal advice, don't make the title meaningful, aren't specific, do provide contact information, and do cross-post, even though we ask the opposite of them. The real desk management happens implicitly by volunteers setting examples at the desks, not here, and not through the explicit guidelines. Discussions, even debates, happen time and again, and that is more than acceptable when they evolve discursively from the nature of the question. Wouldn't be as fantastic if 50% of the questions were "What is your opinion on ...", but that's hardly the case. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the logic here. There will always be people who don't pay attention to the guideline requests but there are also many people who do follow the rules. Throwing the rules out will increase (though by how much I'm not sure) the rate at which people do things we should be asking them not to do. It's like saying that because people still murder, having laws outlawing murder are ineffective and should therefore be thrown out. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems I also have a problem-with simple English comprehension. I looked up and down here for the suggestion that the 'rules should be thrown out' and, no, I simply can't see it. Is the Emperor, perhaps, wearing his new suit?! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing throwing them out. I just don't think it would change anything if we did, nor if we tightened the rules. I've been editing here for 20 months, and have looked at earlier archives as well. The desks change with the volunteers and their behavior. The questions and querents remain more or less the same. The murder analogy isn't very compelling, but Gandalf makes two very good points below, with which I agree. I'm not proposing the removal. I'd just be willing to make the experiment, and I'll bet you a bottle of Bourbon (or a magnum of Grand Siècle, if you prefer) that the questions won't change. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the "experiment" given above was an advocacy, but I was addressing the idea that if we "remove it altogether" that there would be no difference. I could rearticulate my bungled metaphor but I think I got my point across despite it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two excellent reasons for having consensus guidelines such as "Do not start debates" posted prominently at the top of the RDs:

It gives us a sanction to remove posts if absolutely necessary. No-one very much minds the "When Will Soap Operas Die"-type questions. But when we get the occassional offensively racist/homophobic/political diatribe question, then we can remove it without having to decide whether the questioner is a troll, or enter into an open-ended debate about free speech.
It adds credibility to our argument that the main purpose of the RDs is to improve Wikipedia, which will become an important point if anyone nominates the RDs on MfD on the grounds that they are unencyclopedic (yes, that has been suggested in the past - and I think I recall that they were once so nominated, but the nomination was withdrawn).

It doesn't really matter whether questioners read them or take any notice of them - the important thing is that they are there. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Like all rules given in the How-to-ask header, the rule in bold is justified by and should be interpreted as being a consequence of what follows it; in this case the single sentence: The reference desk is not a soapbox. This is a specialization to the RD of the general policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The rule will still be in effect if we do not formulate it in the header, but it is good to have it there for easy reference. Most cases of soapboxing attempts can be handled by simply referring to existing articles on Wikipedia that represent the significant viewpoints, and only the most egregious cases, those with an effusive troll smell, are better handled by removal. To keep the desk from devolving into a chat room is at least as much a matter of restraint on the side of the respondents; factual questions can, and often are, but must not, be responded to by a respondents' arbitrary, and as far as I'm concerned utterly uninteresting, personal unsubstantiated opinions on the matter. --Lambiam 10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Debate on the reference desks is bad, dialectic however is good! The policy doesn’t say we’re not allowed to engage in dialectics. :-) --S.dedalus (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You and I can share a dialectic any time you wish, S.dedalus! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be honored, Ms. Muse! --S.dedalus (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Gandalf's points. As any student of psychology knows, negative instructions tend to produce positive actions. If I make the classic command "Do NOT think of the colour blue", what's the first thing you think of? A bit facile, perhaps, but I'm sure you get my drift. Asking people NOT to do X implants the concept X into their minds when up till then it may have been the furthest thing from their minds and they were never otherwise going to do it. It actually increases the likelihood that X will happen. But in this environment I can't think of a better way of asking people to desist from supplying email addresses etc. That's for those who actually read the instructions. But a lot of querents obviously don't even read them to begin with, so they never even give themselves a chance to disobey them. They just do it despite themselves. However, we have them there and can use them to justify doing what Gandalf said, and that's an important weapon to have. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RDM vs WP:RD/M

Does anyone else feel it's a bit odd that RDM goes to Maths and RD/M goes to Misc? Would it be better for use to either choose one or make some sort of disambig? Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RD/M for the Miscellaneous desk predates the birth of the Mathematics desk, the first shortcut that I saw for Mathematics was RD/Math. I'm confidant that the sockpuppet that started RDM did so with good intentions but I see your concern. I'm of a mind to leave it as is, it's not a big learning curve after all. --hydnjo talk 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Testing us?

Hi, User:VIVID's latest posts and crossposts at the refdesks [Why? etc] seem to ask for food. Going to their user page I get this,

Greetings,

VIVID is a sockpuppet created for another, more established user, to post more controversial views. This use of sockpuppetry is clearly permeitted within WP:SOCK. Thank you, VIVID 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Vivid need a chat about this? Would someone with more experience/authoritah be willing to do it? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to be within WP:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." seems to legitimise OR and trolling? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll wave

Is the latest wave of redlink user accounts a troll wave? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of strange questions, but what’s a troll wave? A puppet master having some fun? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Some of them are good faith, but I was wondering if there's more to understand. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I need help

Concerning the question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Designing_weapons. User:Atlant posted an inflammatory, off-topic comment. I replied that his comment was that and that he shouldn't post such things. He replied "Gored your oxe [sic], huh?" and posted an extension of his inflammatory POV-laden trollery. To troll and then thumb your nose at someone who is trying to keep the desks clear is wrong. What am I supposed to do at this point as a good Wikipedian? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I advise an immediate dose of stay calm & AGF. I've read the exchange, and in fairness think in context that the Atlant comment which first set you off was on topic and responded nicely to your "not yet been tested" comment. We do, often, move from the immediate question to a wider mulling of issues. And people's opinions spill over into their answers: that's almost inevitable and generally quite entertaining. I'm assuming the red mist had descended by the time you tried to parse his Gored comment which though impenetrable to me does not appear to be trolling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"To gore (someone's) ox" is like stepping on their toes. He was snidely saying that the reason I reacted badly to his post was that it ran counter to my political agenda, that I am a supporter of the Bush administration's policies, at the very least. For him to say that is to further inflame the issues he himself raised, issues that, as I pointed out, have no place on the Desk. My reason for reacting badly I stated plainly, and assumption of good faith requires that he accept my stated reason, which, incidentally, is accurate. [I'll reveal myself one time here for instructive purposes: Bush and his pack of Vulcans are dangerous idiots. I'd be willing to bet he's started drinking again.] Atlant's is disruptive behavior in that it is designed to stir up partisan emotions on the Reference Desk and in that it is designed to anger me personally. I don't see how I'm being uncalm.

His remarks did not at all segue. The question had to do with a perceived equivalence of military technology between Russia, China, and the US despite the great difference in expenditure. How did we get from that to smiling about the murder of American sailors? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm being uncalm. That's an emergent feature of not being calm. Your point has been made, amply. I continue to counsel further & additional calmness. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also, were this user a troll, I would say that Milkbreath's response is akin to feeding. Sometimes we just have to wait until it escalates. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the user was a troll, I don't think that, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I mean is that he made a trollish post, one whose purpose is disruptive and inflammatory. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a subtle distinction ("I'm not calling you a murderer/thief/liar, I just think that you murdered/stole from/lied to someone.") Either way, "troll" implies deliberate disruption which is obviously not the case here. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so subtle a distinction in my mind. I can easily imagine myself, for instance, slipping into a provocative, offensive vein without fully realizing it, and I hope somebody calls me on it if it happens. But I would remain a non-troll. And his snide comeback to my fully justified remonstrance of him was deliberate, as was his further post on the topic, sarcastically overlinked. Quick question for anybody reading this: am I the only one who sees it or cares? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw it as opinionated and average off-topic soapboxing with the comfortable assumption that a majority of editors are not offended. Come on, let's face it, Bush bashing isn't very risky here. I didn't see it as trolling at all. Atlant's further comments confirm my view. I don't want to encourage this kind of soapboxing at all, but I can't wig out over this, sorry. Oh, and the snide comeback and sarcastic overlinking? That's not trolling, it's what you can expect when you reprimand a refdeskian mid-thread. We're a bunch of know-it-alls, and like being right, while still trying to demonstrate a sense of humor. You know that. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spiro was right. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You said above that you should be "blocked and spanked and then blocked again" were you to remove questions simply because they expressed opinions that you disagreed with; while I don't think that you mean to do this per se, you do seem very quick to assume that anyone expressing even somewhat controversial viewpoints are doing so to rile people up or incite debate (luckily this standard isn't applied to the science desk or all the posts mentioning "evolution" would be removed). The effect is the same, however, between this and someone removing posts with opinions they disagree with.

In other words, I can see how someone might (mis)interpret User:Atlant's comments as trolling, but it takes more suspension of AGF than it does to (mis)interpret your actions as opinion censorship. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only GF, but NPOV. If someone managed to segue into a question about Chinese calligraphy "The Chinese government handled Tiananmen Square expertly. Those Chinese reformers never learn from their mistakes." would that be considered outrageous enough in an absolute sense to merit attention? I don't care what POV is being clumsily inserted into the RefDesks, I want it gone, and politics don't interest me much. It is not censorship to take out the trash, so get me blocked if you think you can; I am insouciantly unrepentant. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Milkbreath, you asked for other opinions, so I'm chiming in: I think your original complaint against Atlant in that thread was a complete overreaction. There was no element of gloating in Atlant's post about the USS Cole, and s/he was making a very valid point about how little money determined people have to spend to successfully attack very expensive military hardware, which was certainly relevant to the thread. To call such a benign comment a troll is an insult to the editors who work so hard to come up with things like "I know White women who have provided compensation in the form of bearing Black children as Barack Obama's grandmother did"". :) --Sean 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. Difference of opinion. So be it. I'll try to be more ducklike with the water or whatever that fluid is that I feel trickling down my back from time to time. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly leaking brain fluid? Here, have a can of VB, that'll replenish your supply, and make you feel good to boot. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely the veeb, and in an open experience environment. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I couldn't stand that stuff, myself. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tastes do have a habit of varying. Maybe you need to be born down under to fully enjoy its rich yet subtle pleasures. (Yes, I know, we were all born down under ...) :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)