Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 46

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 44

→

Misc is not a dumping ground!

Is it just me or are there more and more questions that really should go elsewhere? I have been moving them to Science, Entertainment, etc. Once I was told off for doing so (by the OP); no one else has, but no one else has been helping me move Qs. I don't think Miscellaneous should be used as a dumping ground, not least because searching for answers in the archives is done by section, and future researchers will look in Science for science Qs. So: am I wrong? Should I just let them sit? Or will anyone else start to move inappropriately placed Qs too? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the section remains and it's clear to the original poster that and where their question has been moved, I don't see any problem with moving questions. The intelligent editors who provide good answers at, say, the computing desk may not bother to look at the misc desk for computing questions so you're also doing the questioner a favor.

Be sure not to chastise people who put their question in the wrong desk. Most likely they just weren't sure about where their question would go. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw you doing that like a busy beaver, and I thought it was good of you. I'm too busy tying my own shoelaces together and letting the water out of my rowboat by knocking holes in the bottom to help with that right now, though. I'm thinking the OP might feel better about it if there were a few ruffles and/or flourishes instead of a bare "Moved to X", maybe something like "Question moved to the X Desk, where it will receive attention from volunteers more knowledgeable in related fields than would be found here." -Milkbreath (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes my reasons aren't or they're minimal - it's weird when you have to supply reasons (eg: so your question gets noticed! to get the best answers!) but it's the "I-thou" element sometimes lost in terse refdeskerie, and though I love terse text, it's your pick. It was getting out of hand, so I thought it a good effort. Even the Help Desk gets orphans wandering in (though currently they're only recommending the poster moves it or answer anyway). Funny how the waves of whatever are thematic. Currently it's desk mixing, jeez : } Julia Rossi (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support (esp. Julia for the barnstar of tidiness!). I like being compared to a busy beaver, chewing her way through the forest, reshaping the waterways of information flow! My comments on the moves were of the briefest and I hope they did not come across as biting or chastising. I completely agree with Æµ§œš¹'s point, that better answers may thus be written, which is why I move them, equally with the wish to keep the Misc Deak clear. Julia, normally you are a model of friendly clarity, but here I am puzzled: what reasons, what thou, what was getting out of hand? And all of you, if you agree with me, please feel free to help out when you can. I've moved another just now. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just now realized that my comment could be construed as criticism. I was not trying to imply, and I don't think, that you (BB) were being rude, more like perhaps a tad too efficient for the especially sensitive types, which, as you probably know, I am not, so I didn't see the problem with my comment until now. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done this in the past and will support its continuance. Two questions:

Is there a template to use, or shall we improvise as is the current practice? Though on second thought, a template would be of more use when removing (not relocating) an inappropriate query e.g. medical/legal/dental/vet.
Ideally, the shift would provide an internal link to the new location (with pound-sign syntax directly to the topic), particularly as OPs are often unregistered editors and/or novices here.

-- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend moving my questions from Miscellaneous to another desk. I confess that I sometimes deliberately post Entertainment-related questions there, because I dislike the low-traffic the Entertainment desk generates; I have come to expect better, more and faster responses from Miscellaneous. Sad but true.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... by doing so, for the sake of eliciting "better/faster/more" responses, this would seem to contribute to further neglect of the WP:RD/E by editors and other posters alike. Is this not detrimental to the RefDesk as a collaborative project for both types of contributors? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at the end of the day the Fat Man just wants his questions answered. You may wish to read about the time I proposed the elimination of the Entertainment desk for this very reason. It didn't go over well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brainybabe, just wandered in and saw your questions. "Reasons", sometimes bother to add them, sometimes don't; "I-thou": referring to the personal touch; "getting out of hand": more misplaced questions than usual; I get clunky and obscure when tired. On the whole when moving a glaringly out of place question, I try to keep it short, a touch friendly and give directions. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Oh and re Fat Man's considerations, I usually leave familiar editors alone, though myself, I've landed on one desk thinking it was something else altogether. JR

Chhatrapati Sivaji Maharaj's letters to Mirza Rajah Jaisingh

I don't understand... three times (so far) with different (I guess) user names on hum desk. What's going on? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Now they've - B.Krishnakumar (Talk | contribs) - deleted the second one, which I tried to answer with links. Time out for me, then. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparent trolling removed

I removed this question [1] as it is the exact same question previously asked by a user who was banned for trolling User:Picture of a cloud [2]. Amongst the most suggestive piece of evidence that this user is trolling is the fact that 45 minutes after he asked it the first time, he had a sex change operation [3]. I guess she had another sex change operation and is back with the same problem but given his/her history Special:Contributions/Picture of a cloud & Special:Contributions/Image of water droplets I think we can conclude he/she's just a troll. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears User:Crazy joke was another one Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My Response

I haven’t been asking people to give their opinions or viewpoints, what they think. I mean, I haven’t been asking people to give their own personal private opinion, viewpoint, or beliefs about those things. I was just asking them to tell me about what a certain particular specific group, type, or form of people think about something. I was just asking about what a certain particular specific group, type, or form of people with a certain particular specific group, type, or form of opinion, viewpoint, or beliefs would think about a particular thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowei Huang (talk • contribs)

Bowei Huang, I'm at a bit of a loss to know what issue you want to discuss. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Bowei Huang is referring to the rather non-enthusiastic response to this question. [4] As I recall the “One True Religion” question was placed on the desks and replied to at least twice. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise BH's talk page. Or maybe that's what you mean, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that groups, types and forms of people don't have opinions. Only people have opinions, and while they can try to summarise what they believe other people to believe, in the end they can only answer for themselves. SaundersW (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Is Sinebot upside-down in a ditch again? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He (she? it?) seems to have gone out-of-commission on 18 April. I left a note on the owner's page. From a bit of other discussion there, it looks like maybe another bot was running amok and whatever was done to resolve that might have affected our li'l Siney. Or I could be all wet. --LarryMac | Talk 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's apparently fixed - here --LarryMac | Talk 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually notice it missing earlier, probably should have done something about it, not it matters :-P Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know, don't anthropomorphize the 'bots. They hate that. --LarryMac | Talk 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions lately

Is my calendar wrong for not pointing out that this must obviously be international existentialism and religion week? Dismas|^(talk) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your calendar should tell you that last week were the death-anniversaries of Sarte and de Beauvoir. There should now be a brief downturn followed by another spike for Kierkegaard's birthday. Algebraist 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Algebraist, you're forgetting Heidegger's demise! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not for ages yet, no? Algebraist 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, about five weeks hence, some three weeks after Kierkegaard's birthday! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Semen question

I don't think it was appropriate to remove that question. The questioner did not ask for medical advice (he didn't even say he had the issue he was talking about!) and none had been given (except the vague "consult a doctor," which can hardly be frowned upon). I think it is highly inappropriate, though sadly common lately, to simply remove such questions, which relate to medical issues, without even making an attempt to form consensus on whether they construe requests for medical advice. All it was was a request for information, which was provided. Please try to keep in mind the negative effect on reference desk users that these deletions have. For all we know, the guy was simply curious. Anyway, I am restoring it - please do not remove it again, or such questions in the future, until a clear consensus is reached on whether they are indeed requests for medical advice (questions in which medical advice is explicitly solicited, on the other hand, can probably be reasonably removed - but only when it is explicit!). -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are you getting this? The guidelines say to remove, not to ask first. It might be better to ask first, though I don't think so, but that is not the procedure prescribed. In fact, it seems to me that consensus was reached here not too long ago that to restore a question without discussion constituted something like edit warring. You see the problem, I'm sure: Editor A removes a question in a good-faith attempt to follow the guidelines. Editor B puts it right back up in defiance of the guidelines. Editor A feels shafted and has nowhere to turn except to remove again. And so on.

As for the question, to which it would have been nice if you had provided a diff, it was not a request for medical advice and should not have been removed. Neil gave a bad answer, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff of the question and responses that I removed ([5]) and have now re-removed. When someone writes "Is it normal for semen to be yellow, every time?" they're describing a symptom (discoloured semen; recurring problem) and asking for a prognosis ("is it normal..."). Yes, it's on the edge of what constitutes 'medical advice' around here, but my removal wasn't unreasonable—and shouldn't have been undone without prior discussion.

The question – which did receive some neutral, informational answers – was drawing a number of responses offering possible diagnoses and prognoses (ranging from 'maybe nothing, it's just too much coffee' to 'possible infection'); a problem that seemed unlikely resolve itself. The poster has been referred to medical professionals who will now be able to answer his question thoroughly and clearly. He's not going to get a better answer from us than he can get with Google or a reading of our article on semen; there's no point to leaving the question there for armchair doctors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Was obviously a medical information question, not an medical advice question. If question had said "my semen" that would have been a medical advice question - but it didn't say that, so removal was inappropriate. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be looking for technicalities that let us disregard the apparent intent of the question. Our goal here is to prevent people getting medical advice at the ref desk. Friday (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One also must apply a bit of common sense. The account that asked this question was created today ([6]) and managed to figure out how to create a new section on the Desk, type, and sign his question a scant single minute later: [7]; it's still his only edit to Wikipedia. It's not credible to attribute these actions to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Either the question is being asked by someone who is a regular editor embarrassed about his own symptoms, or the question was posted by someone who was trolling the Desk and wanted to ask a (*giggle giggle*) 'naughty' question. The 'simple request for information' explanation just doesn't seem plausible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a merry-go-round, isn't it? I've been here long enough now to have seen a full cycle, I think. The next thing someone will say is "Then the question was removed for suspected trolling and not for violating med advice. " Sure, the question doesn't pass the sniff test, but by strict construction of the medical advice guidelines and assuming good faith, it's OK. My last word is I don't care much whether this one stays or goes. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But one must also read the question as asked and one must not assume bad faith and cry "troll" just because one sees the word "semen". Gandalf61 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If a question doesn't (explicitly) ask for advice but gets it anyway then the person who provided the advice should be chastised, not the OP.

Btw, what happened to reporting all removals on this page? This borderline case in particular.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This question was very mistakenly removed. There is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia which justifies this. It should be replaced immediately. Please remember in the future that medical themed questions are allowed here. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible to refactor a question and its responses to move it away from being "medical advice" and towards being "about the science"? Plus adding a standard - please discuss the science and not the medical aspects template (if one exists)? Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was in error in removing it, although our current policy strikes me as rather bizarre. But I think at this point it's fair to say there's consensus to restore it, right? And seriously people, come on, doing all this ridiculous detective work to try and determine the guy's "true motivations" is absurd. That's not our job, and strikes me as a violation of WP:AGF. The guy asked for general information, we provided it. That's the function of a reference desk. If he chooses to treat this information as a medical diagnosis, in spite of our disclaimer, specific warnings not to by responders to the question, and what should be common sense, so be it. This "remove first" policy is ridiculous in cases like this, and results in the question getting no responses while it's on the bottom of the page, usually a question's most-viewed period. Ask yourselves - is this policy making the reference desk better or worse for its users? Anyway - can we restore it now? Ugh. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you restore it, do so to the bottom and redo the main timestamp with a note. Personally, I don't think it is worth restoring. Better for someone else to ask the same question in a non-medical way, and then point the original questioner to the new question, leaving the old question blanked with a link to the new question. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not worth restoring why? I am sure the questioner would disagree. And how would you propose asking it in a "non-medical way?" The majority here seem to feel that it was asked in a "non-medical way" already, seeing as he doesn't ask for treatment suggestions/specific diagnoses, or even say that the question is anything other than theoretical. -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve restored the question at the bottom of the page per consensus. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"technicalities"

Per "We shouldn't be looking for technicalities that let us disregard the apparent intent of the question. Our goal here is to prevent people getting medical advice at the ref desk." -- I must respectfully disagree. I think it's fine to look at the "apparent" intent, and to ignore the possibly-different "real intent". Three times now during these (yes, sadly cyclical) discussions I have posted this opinion:

If we suspect that the questioner might be seeking advice, but if the question has been carefully crafted as a request for information or as a hypothetical question, we can answer it on its face, and not get paranoid about possible ulterior motives.

[see here, here (now archived here), and here (now archived here)]

No one has ever disagreed, so I have assumed that this interpretation matches consensus. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found that a small but vocal group insists that we must follow the absolute letter of the question and avoid using any common sense, and that some of the battles aren't worth fighting. The interpretation that you've presented –

If we suspect that the questioner might be seeking advice, but if the question has been carefully crafted as a request for information or as a hypothetical question, we can answer it on its face, and not get paranoid about possible ulterior motives

– reads to me as

We can be as cavalier as we wish about giving out information likely to be faulty, risky, or harmful if taken at face value, as long as we can weasel out of any ethical responsibility by saying 'It wasn't explicitly stated that the OP was asking for advice....

I keep hoping that Wikipedia – and its Wikipedians – are a better lot than that, but there are times my faith is sorely tested. I note that since the question has been restored, the only new answer has been unsourced, wild-ass speculation that sperm colour relates to sperm count. Well done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to rephrase my interpretation, then, because that's certainly not the reading I have in mind. (In particular, as others have noted, we shouldn't be offering advice, period, regardless of how a question is worded.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'd originally written was a hypothetical objection (to a policy that permitted hypothetical and informational questions), and my response:

"If we accept abstract or hypothetical questions, all someone who wants improper advice has to do is couch their question as one, and they'll trick us into giving it."

Yeah, well, but: so what. That proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that they do thoroughly understand the risk of taking unsolicited advice from strangers, and that they have pretty unambiguously assumed all that risk for themselves. We don't have to (and, at least in my opinion, shouldn't have to) feel guilty or immoral or as if we've taken a risk by answering such a question; we ought to be able to Assume that the ostensibly-hypothetical question was asked in Good Faith. [8]

Here (i.e. in the thread above), someone had said, "Our goal here is to prevent people getting medical advice at the ref desk." I disagree: our goal should be to avoid giving medical advice at the ref desk. (And I hope this doesn't sound like a sophist distinction.) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's unfair, Ten. A request for information should be met with information subject to the normal RD scrutiny. Nearly every question may receive faulty, risky or harmful responses but nobody runs around removing them. Like I said above, it would be wrong to provide advice to a question that didn't ask for it.

Moreover, Steve said nothing about "cavalierly" providing risky information.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. If somebody asks for information, give 'em information. Don't try to second-guess why they're asking -- that's OR. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Zain and Steve. An assumption that the questioner has no hidden intentions and the question means just what it says is not "cavalier" or a lack of common sense - it is simply the application of WP:AGF. This is the stance we should always take by default, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. If anyone disagrees with WP:AGF they should take their opinions to the appropriate discussion page, rather than belittling other editors here. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the size and vocality (is this a word?) of the group insisting on avoiding common sense:

There were 9 participants to this thread before my previous post. 5 of them were in favour of keeping the question versus the 4 who weren't. The 5 made 7 posts (1.4 per person) and the 4 made 8 (2 per person).

I excluded SDedelus' restoration notice and Elmer's most recent post in which he merely defended a point he had previously made.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd put in my last word, but this is a new sub-topic. I don't want to be lumped in with the anti-common-sense crowd. The question read "Is it normal for semen to be yellow, every time?" I would not have answered at all, because it's obvious to me that somebody just wanted to use the word "semen" in public, for some reason not having to do with the quest for knowledge. But I've put up with a lot worse shit than that around here trying to remain Wikismurfy. Now, if we're going to remove questions like this one, great, I'm all for it, and I've got a few in my sights right now, but where does it say we can? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If I walk into my public library and say to the Real World Professional Reference Librarian (1)"I have been having severe headaches and blurred vision. Might I have a brain tumor?" She will not give me any medical advice, but will urge me to see a doctor. If I say(2) "I am looking for information about the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors" or (3)"I am looking for information on the diagnosis and treatment of headaches" she will give me the names and call numbers of medical books, after determining whether I want hardcore medical books or books written for the general reader. There should be no more absolute prohibition here against answering questions 2 and 3 than there is at a Real World library. It is not assuming good faith to delete a properly worded question. Edison (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question removal

twice now the same question has been removed. I have reverted that removal twice because amongst the "chat" or "diatribe" I believe there is a genuine question buried in there about the OP's difficulties with Microsoft's products (in particluar Word). Can another way be found to remove the undesirable parts of the question without removing the whole discussion? Astronaut (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The OP is not unfamiliar with the ref desks, and has gone on record as stating "I ask questions that interest me. Or make me think hmm. I really could care less if they are questions others don't find interesting." ([9]). IMO, the removal should stand and he can be directed to ask a question about Word on the Computing Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone gone to his talk page to explain to him how to ask a question? -- kainaw ™ 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, no I have not referred Cardinal Raven to pose his question over at WP:RD/C (pure laziness on my part). Regarding the question here, perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, so delete if you must. Astronaut (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

poor management

the way you run your section of wikipedia makes it hard to tell what is or isn't vandalism and detracts from vandalism patrol. twice tonight reasonable assumptions of vandalism have resulted in accidental reverts. if you're going to have anons and new users running around dumping large sections of text into the wikipedia name space then they should label their edits clearly with proper edit summaries. same thing goes for bots going around blanking large swaths of text--Heliac (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The bot you refer to, User:Scsbot, has been archiving the Reference Desks for quite some time now, is a registered bot, and does leave edit summaries. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did this question slip by?

See this diff. This question is about the human body (the eyes) and clearly is about the questioner's eyes - not the anonymous "some person's eye". Using the definition that others have repeatedly used to flag "medical advice" questions for deletion, this is clearly medical advice. The questioner is asking a question about the function of his eyes. However, it wasn't deleted. There were no warnings about asking for medical advice. I believe that this is an example of what I believe one of those borderline cases. If the test that I propose is used, this is clearly not a request for medical advice. How does the test work? It is very easy. Read the question. Think of a proper answer to the question. Does that answer include medical advice, a diagnosis, or a prescription for treatment? If not, the question is not a request for medical advice. You don't even have to know the correct answer, just the form of a proper answer. For this one, the proper answer is something like, "The thingamabob in a normal eye senses anything touching it. The other whatchamacallits are not very accurate at sensing things touching it." No advice, diagnosis, or prescriptions. This must not be advice. -- kainaw ™ 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up. First off, I hope we all can agree that we are unavoidably using our reading skills, common sense, and reason every time we interpret a question, whether we agree with the guidelines or not. I don't think it's borderline, but I do think it's interesting how it has slalomed cleanly past every pitfall, and not deliberately or T-wordily. "Object in eye" is, strictly speaking, a medical condition. If he had asked whether he should try to suck it out with a vacuum cleaner, the question would have had to be removed. If he had asked how to get it out at all, gone. If he had asked whether he could expect any long-term effects from it, gone. What he did ask was equivalent to "Whenever I touch a certain spot on the roof of my mouth with my tongue, it tickles like crazy. What is that?" Let's face it, eyelash in eye is a normal event in human life, and the querent only involved himself to make it clear what he was talking about—the anatomy of the superficial nerves of the eye. It wasn't about "object in eye" because he would have gotten to the same place by describing how it feels to touch the eyeball with a finger. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Archival problem?

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/January 2008 is missing links to January 23rd. Looking at the history, the bot just skipped that day. Any ideas why? --Masamage ♫ 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot properly created the archive and removed the content from the active page, and simply failed to add the links to the archive directory. Looking at the bot's contributions for January, it looks like the miscellaneous page is the last page in the RD portion of its archival run, and creation of the links is the last part of archiving each RD. So all it did was forget the very last RD edit. The archive certainly exists, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 January 23. Maybe ask Steve to do a special little run for that. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm working on it, but I was delayed by the shenanigans just above. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "special little run" done. (As it happens, the bot has flags to do just one selected step, and for a historical page, so other than discovering that it was oldid=187146994, the rest was easy.)

(For the curious: evidently there's some way for a submitted edit to fail that the bot doesn't notice. It knows about edit conflicts, and database lockage, and server errors, and several other problems, but every once in a while, WP just quietly ignores one of its edits. The bot has double-checks, based on article size, for the delete-text-from-the-RD-page step and the create-the-daily-archive step, but not for the augment-the-monthly-index step, which is harder. So it missed this problem. Thanks for pointing it out, Masamage.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate question

Here's the diff. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Trolls to be eliminated on sight. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 22:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding email addresses

According to the guidelines, you are not allowed to provide your email address. What about providing someone else's email address in response to a question? Has this been discussed? Here's the diff that got me thinking about this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not likely a person's email address. It is a PR email address. It is designed for the public to use to send various questions to the administrators of the website. So, in this case, it is a matter of providing an email address to a person to use the email address for the email addresses intended purpose. If the answer gave out a specific person's email address (ie: [email protected]), then I would have a completely different answer here. -- kainaw ™ 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding removals

Sorry to pester you guys but I have one more question. Has any consensus been reached regarding the removal of a question by the OP after a response has been given? See this. Seems kinda unfair to the person who provided a decent response. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we actually have a policy that covers that, far more often than not people simply ask questions and never make any sort of response or affirmation that they're even aware of the answer. At least when they take the time to come back and remove the question it provides confirmation that they've seen the answer. Doesn't really come up very often, but personally I'd like to see questions remain in place to maintain the integrity and completeness of the archives. --VectorPotential Talk 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia standpoint, no, they don't own their question and have no right to remove it and its responses. But realistically, it shows that they received an answer or answers that they were satisfied with so chose to remove the question. Removal of questions is a sensitive issue here, but as long as the person removing the question is the person who posted it, I have no objections. HYENASTE

That argument doesn't seem to cover the person who replied. If they remove before a reply, fair enough, but not when someone spends time replying, then they're affecting someone else's post. Then it's blanking. If people commonly wiped a question once they had an answer we wouldn't have much in the way of archives... would we? I for one wouldn't be thinking, that's good, they're happy because it's gone now, let's have another go – not. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is from WP:TALK, which I think applies here: "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing."

I'd say we are inclined to even undo such removals with a note on the OP's talk page but that might be too much. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though this question is wonderfully vague and possibly homework/soapbox-ing I'm not sure that it should have been removed, even by the original poster. It wasn't offensive, silly or a request for legal/medical advice. Itsmejudith's answer was helpful and I agree with VectorPotential - there's no point of archives if a question is deleted after it is answered (even if it isn't answred satisfactorily). Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another archival problem

Something funky going on here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/April 2008#April 24. --Masamage ♫ 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, but that doesn't explain why or what something funked up. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot goofs up and does that every once in a while (you'll see anther one on April 20), but, slacker that I am, I've never managed to investigate and fix it. :-( (Thanks for the edit, Julia.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Didn't mean to be hard on the bot, just meant that tech-wise didn't know the cause. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia! No probs. The bot did funk/goof up. (And I'm the techie who wrote it, and I still don't know the cause, either...) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read somewhere that "errare humanum est", can we now assume that "errare machinum..." or "...botum est" ? And, if so, would it not imply that the Technological Singularity is just a bunch of incompetent AI critters stuffing up the universe even faster than we humans have achieved this on a smallish planet ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "smallish"? It's the largest inhabited planet we know of! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

...and the smallest. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Touché! Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am just a humble visitor on this planet from outer space and do not wish to brag, but mine is muuch, muuuuch bigger than is yours. Mind you, due to the enormous gravity back home we can´t really get it up and are becoming extinct... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spamfilter

Hi, I tried to ask a question but a link further up on the page blocked me from posting. I therefore edited the entire page instead of just the section and garbled the link. Sorry, but I saw no other way. I hope an admin can restore the link (it was in the "quilling" section"). Naturally, I can't mention what it was here because it would have my post blocked but I suppose it's in the editing history -- the edit was just a minute or less ago. Jørgen (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

by the way, this was on wp:rd/m and not this page. Of course. Now noticing that the talk is common for all refdesks. Jørgen (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What an odd choice for a domain name to add to the spam blacklist. Kind of makes me wish the blacklist could give actual reasons why something is on the list.--VectorPotential Talk 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Doesn't appear to have been added to the local blacklist, must have been on meta.--VectorPotential Talk 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)~~ I take it back, it was added in this revision. Since there was no edit summary pertaining to this addition I'm going to investigate this a bit. I'm sure there was a good reason, but this has made me curious. --VectorPotential Talk 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (warning very large page). I think it was added because a user is spamming by creating user pages with links including that site but I'm not sure. BTW, you can use www.mypaperquilling. com or similar to get around the black list [10]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)